Skip to main content

Full text of "The seigniorial system in Canada; a study in French colonial policy"

See other formats 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 



at |http : //books . google . com/ 



HARVARD 
HISTORICAL STUDIES 



FUBUSHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT FROM THE INCOME OF 



Ci^e l^etitT? Wanm Correr (ffuno 




Volume XIII 



HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDUDS. 



L The SopuMaion of tli* 
8Uy»-TnUb to tho Unltod States of 
Amozica, z038-z97O. By W. E. B. Du 
Bois, Ph.D., Professor of History in 
Atlanta Univenily. 8vo. J(z.5onet. 

n. The Conteat orer tho Ratification 
of the Pedezal Conatitation In Haaaa- 
ehnaetta. Br S. B. Harding, A.M., 
Professor of History in Indiana Uni- 
▼ersity. 8vo. $ z.a5 net 

m. A Czitical Study of NnUiflcatlon in 
South Carolina, ay D. F. Houston, 
A.M.. President of the University of 
Texas. 8to. $ i^ net. 

IV. Nomlaationa for BloettTO Oflice in 
the United States. By Frederick 
W. Dallingbr, A.m., Member of the 
MassachusetU Senate. 8vo. |z.5onet 

y. A BihUogzaphy of Bzitiah Himici- 
pal Hiatory. Including Guilds and 
Fuliamentary Representation. By 
Charles Gross, Ph.D., ProfesMr of 
History hi Harvard University. 8vp. 
|a.5onet 

yi. Tho Liberty and Fzoe Soil Parties 
in the Northwest. By Theodore 
Clarke Smith, Ph.D., Professor of 
History in the University of Michigan. 
8vo. I z. 75 net. 



yn. The Provincial Ooremor in tho 
Bnriiah Colonies of North America. 

By EVARTS BOUTELL GREENE, Ph.D., 
of the University of Illinois. 8vo. 

J^z.sonet. 

ym. Tho County Palatine of Dwham. 
A Study in Constitutional History. By 
G. T. Lapsley, Ph.D., Fellow of 
Trinity College, Cambridge. 8vo. 

$ a.oo net. 

DC. The Anglican Bpiacopate and the 
Amezlcan Colonies. By Arthur 
Lyon Cross, Ph.D., Assistant Pro- 
fessor in the University of Michigan. 
8vo. $ a.50 net. 

2. The AdniaMistlon of the Ameri- 
•oan Revolationary Army. By Louis 
Clinton Hatch, Ph.D. 8vo. 

$ Z.50 net. 

XL The Civil Service and the Patron- 
age. By Carl Russell Fish, Ph.D., 
Assistant Professor in the University of 
Wisconsin. 8vo. $ a.oo net. 

Zn. The Derelopment of F r eed om of 
the Pzoaa in Maaaaehuaetta. By C. 
A. Duniway, Associate Professor of 
History in Leland Stanford Jr. Univer- 
sity. 8V0. $ z.50 net. 

Zm. The Seigniorial System in Can- 
ada. By W. 8. MUNRO. Ph.D., LL.D.. 
Assistant Professor of Government in 
Harvard University. 8vo. 

$ ojoo net. 



LOHGHANS, QBEXtf, ACO^ HXW YORK. 



THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM 
IN CANADA' 

A Study in French Colonial Policy 



BY 



A^ 



WILLIAM BENNETT MUNRO, Ph.D., LL.B. 

II 

ASSnTAMT FSOnSSOR OF GOVSUnONT IN HAX.VABD 
UldVKBSITT 



^ OF THE V 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 



NEW YORK 
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 

LONDON AND BOMBAY 
1907 



f 



vV 



Copyright, igor, 
By the President and Fellows of Haevard College. 



J. 8. Giuhlng A Oo. — Berwick h Smith Co. 
Norwood, Maaa., U^.A. 



PREFACE 

Not a few thoughtful readers have laid aside Park- 
man's interesting little sketch of Canadian feudalism 
with some desire to know more about an institution 
which played such a picturesque and conspicuous part 
in the stirring drama of the old regime in French 
Canada. It was this desire that prompted, some ten 
years ago, the beginnings of the present study, which 
in due time was elaborated into a dissertation and 
presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for 
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science 
at Harvard University, and which in 1900 was awarded 
the Toppan Prize in that institution. The whole study 
has since been revised, somewhat rearranged, and con- 
siderably enlarged. It is now given to the press 
with a feeling that, whatever its organic and incidental 
defects, no apology need be offered for the publication 
of a volume dealing with a topic so important in the 
institutional history of New France, and yet hitherto so 
slightly studied by writers on the policy and achieve- 
ments of France in the New World. 

It has been my aim to base the study of the structure 
and workings of the seigniorial system in Canada wholly 
upon primary materials, — to accept, so far as possible, 
no point of importance from other than authoritative 
sources. A general adherence to this policy has limited 
the scope of the monograph to an uneven range of origi- 
nal materials, and has of necessity seriously impaired 






vi PREFACE. 

the symmetry of the study. If the discussion of the 
various incidents of the system is not nicely adjusted to 
their relative importance, this fault is perhaps due, not * 
so much to a defective sense of proportion, as to the fact 
that an abundance of available data on some phases is 
offset by a meagreness 6n dthers". If more attention is 
given to the legal than to the economic aspects of the 
system; it iS because the Materials, from their vfery 
nature, deal more with* the legal relations of soveWigtt, 
seigniof, and censitaire, flian with the actual forking 
of Ih6se relatione. 

Most of th* ihaterial froih' which information haS 
Beftri gle^Md i^ hot at prfesent afccesSible to the gen- 
eral /eader; rhuch- 6f it h Sfill in mantistript, whild 
4uch 6f it as i^ irf print* is to be had, for th^* most paft, 
diily in gfovemment f)ublicatlons issued in Htnited riirni- 
hets more fhail a half-cehtttry ag6 and now not tesy to 
obtain. K is expecfftcf, hovirevet^, tliaf duritlg the coihing 
year the more important documents bearing ori the 
seignferfal- tenure will be ^t^Iisherf, uhdef the' edJforship 
of tike ^edetit writer, by the Chartiplairi Society of 
Gahslda. 

i should ifttfeed be untnihdful of the many obligations 
tiridei? vAmYi I have been placed in the prepatfatioft of 
this volume, were I not to record my very sincere appre- 
ciation of the kind assistance cheerfully tendered me from 
various quarters, More particulariy must I thank the 
Hon. R.. W. Scott, secretary of state, Di'. A. G. Doughty, 
Domihion archivist, and Mr. Benjathin Suite of Ottawa, 
for aid in the acquisition of material. To Professor 
Adam Shortt Of Queen's University, under whose guid- 
ance the study was begun, to Professors C. W. Colby 
and F. P. Walton of McGill University, to Professor 
G. M. Wrong of the University of Toronto, and to 



PREFACE. vii 

Professors Emerton, Gross, and Haskins of Harvard Uni- 
versity, I am indebted for various suggestions which have 
-proved helpful. Miss Magdalene Casey of the Dominion 
Archives has carefully verified the references to unpub- 
lished documents, and Miss A. F. Rowe of Cambridge 
has rendered faithful expert service in the preparation 
of the manuscript for the press. Most of all, however, 
must I acknowledge a heavy debt of gratitude to my 
kind friend and former master. Professor Edward Chan- 
ning, whose inspiration, guidance, criticism, and encour- 
agement have been of unfailing value to me at all stages 
of the study. 



WILLIAM BENNETT MUNRO. 



Cambridge, Massachusetts, 
April, 1906. 



CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER I. V 
THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. 

Land-tenure Systems and National Progress . . . • i 

The Origins of Feudalism 2 

Feudal and Seigniorial Tenures 4 

Seigniorial Obligations in France 5 

The Coutvmes 6 

Codification of the Coutvmes 7 

The Custom of Paris 8 

Promulgation of the Custom of Paris in Canada ... 9 

Unsuitabiuty of the Custom to the Needs of the Colony . 10 

The Decay of Seigniorialism in France 12 

CHAPTER II. f 
EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS, 1 598-1666. 

The Discovery of the St. Lawrence Valley . . .17 

Early Attempts at Colonization 18 

Seigniorial Grants at Quebec, 1608-1627 21 

The Company of One Hundred Associates 22 

Seigniorial Grants made by the Company, 1634-1663 . . 25 

Establishment of Royal Government in New France . . 27 

The Company of the West Indies 30 

Its Surrender of the Right to make Seigniorial Grants . 34 

CHAPTER III. . 

LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS, 1666-1760. 

Seigniorial Grants made by the Royal Officials • • • 35 

Revocation of Grants remaining Uncleared .... 36 

Growth of Seigniorial Abuses 39 



CONTENTS. 



The ARRltTS op Marly, 1711 

Refusal of the King to make further Grants 
Report op Catalogne on the State op the Seigniories 

Renewal op Seigniorial Grants 

Later Progress op the Seigniorial System 



PACK 

45 
46 

47 
50 



CHAPTER IV. 



THX. ^IGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

Forms and Conditions of^ Land Tenure in the Colomv 
Grants En Franc Albu and En Francbm AvatdNS 
Grants En Fibf or En Sbigneurim . 
Obligations of the Seignior to tbx Crown 

Fealty and Homage 

avbu bt dinombrembnt .... 
Obligation to Subgrant Lands (Jsu db Fibf) 
Royal Policy in Rboaao to Stmnsovat^tsomk 

Quint and RxliSf 

The Obugation of Military Sdtvictt . 

Settlement op the Carignan Regiment in the Colony , 

Royal Reservations imposed ufon tbs Seigniors 



5a 
53 
54 
55 

56 
57 

5S 
6x 
62 
64 
67 
73 



CHAPTER V. 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

Grants En Arr/Ars Fier 77 

Obligations op Sub-«eigniors to Seigniors 78 

Grants En Crnsivr or Ejt Roturb 79 

Nature of the En Cbnsivb Concessions 80 

Evils arising from the Subdivision of Small Holdings . • 82 

Obligations of the Habitant to his Seignior .... 85 

Cbns bt Rbntbs 86 

Nature and Amount op this Payment 87 

Seigniorial Exactions and the Arrets of Marly ... 89 

lods bt vbntbsy their nature and amount .... 96 

Droit db Rbtrait 97 



CHAPTER VI. 
THE BANALITIES. 

PAGB 

Origin and Nature op the BanalitAs in France • • . loi 

The Right of Mill Banality in Canada 102 

Official Regulations relating to the Mills . . • 103 

Progress of the Milling Industry 105 

The Royal Decree op 1686 106 

The Banal Obligation in France and in Canada . . .111 
Unsatisfactory Condition of the Colonial Mills . . .112 
Offioal Intervention in the Interest of Improvement . • "5 
Questions as to the Extent op the Seignior^s Banal Rights 117 

"The Obligation op Oven Banality 121 

Official Objections to its Enforcement in the Colony . . 122 
The Banal Obligations not Burdensome before 1760 . . 125 

CHAPTER VII. 

THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 

Nature and Extent of the Corvee Exactions . . . .127 
Official Regulation op the Seignior^s Rights . . . .128 

The "King's Corvee" 132 

Seigniorial Reservations 133 

Nature and Extent of these Reservations . . . .134 

Seigniorial Prohibitions 139 

Fishing and Hunting Rights 140 

Minor Seigniorial Privileges 141 

CHAPTER VIII. ' 

SEIGNIORIAL JUSTICE. 

Early Judicial Administration in New France . . . •145 

Gradations of Seigniorial Jurisdiction 147 

Haute Justice 148 

MoYENNE Justice 150 

Basse Justice 151 

liVREQUENT Use of Judicial Powers by Seigniors . . .152 



XU CONTENTS. 

PACK 

Relation op Seigniorial to Royal Courts . • • • • 153 
General Character op the Colonial Judicial System • • 156 

CHAPTER IX. 

THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 

Honorary Rights of Seigniors • • '59 

The Noblesse in France and in Canada 161 

Jean Talon, Comte d^Orsainville and Baron des Islets . . 162 
Francois Berthelot, Comte de St. Laurent . . . .165 
The Baronies of Cap Tourmente, Pobomcoup, and Portneuf . 166 

The Barony op Longueuil 167 

The ChAtellenie of Coulonge 169 

The Marquisates of Sabl£ and Miscou 170 

The Minor Nobility 171 

Character and Condition op the Noblesse . • . •173 
The Gentilshommes and the Frontier Wars .... 176 
Relation op the Noblesse to the Seigniorial System . . 177 

CHAPTER X. , 
THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH. 

Economic and Reugious Motives in French Colonization . 178 
Support given to the Seigniorial System by the Church . . 179 

Seigniories op the Jesuits 180 

Seigniories of other Orders and Institutions . . • .181 

Relation of the Seigniory to the Parish 182 

The Seigniorial Right of Advowson 185 

Superior Management of the Ecclesiastical Seigniories . 186 
Administration of Justice in the Church Fiefs . . .187 
The Church as a Bulwark of Seigniorialism . . . .188 



CHAPTER XL 



if 



THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM UNDER BRITISH 
ADMINISTRATION. 

Articles of Capitulation and Tenure op Lands ... 189 
The Guarantees op the Treaty op Paris 191 



CONTENTS. xiii 

PAGE 

Land-granting Policy op the New Administration ... 194 
Difficulties in the Application op Engush Law • • -195 

Views op Governor Carleton 199 

Views op Maseres 202 

The Seigniorial System administered in a Changed Spirit . 204 

Quebec Act op 1775 209 

The American Invasion and Military Service . • . .211 

The Loyalists and Extension op Socage Tenures . . • 214 

Beginnings op the Movement for Commutation • • • • 215 

Legislative Investigation op 1790 216 

Constitutional Act op i 791 221 

CHAPTER XII. 
ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

Canada Trade Act op 1822 224 

Canada Trade and Tenures Act op 1825 225 

Facilities for Voluntary Commutation of Tenures . . . 226 

Dissatisfaction op the People with this Poucy • . . . 227 

Relation op the Tenure System to Popular Discontent . 233 

Rebellion of i 837-1 838 236 

DuRHAM^s Report and its Description op the Seigniories . 237 

Furth^ Legislative Investigations, 1843 ^39 

Growth op the Movement for Abolition 242 

Seigniorial Tenures Abolition Act, 1854 245 

The End op Seigniorialism in Canada 251 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX 253 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF PRINTED MATERIALS . . 267 



.Tbe i»]iys]|Dg|ipmy of ft ^(wtrom^qt iq^ be bMt 
judged in its colonies, for there its features are magni- 
fied and rendered more conspicuous. When I wish to 
study the merits and fiiults of the administration of 
Louis XIV, I must go to Canada; its deformity is 
there seen as through a microscope. — Alexis de 
TOCQUBVILLB, The Old Regime and the Revolution. 



"^ Ol- TV-': 




UNIVERSITY 

OF . 



THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM IN 
CANADA. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. 

If the respective colonial policies of France and England in 
North America stand somewhat sharply in contrast with each 
other, this contrast is due, in no small measure, to the different 
circumstances in which the two parent states found themselves 
in regard to their own internal development at the beginning of 
the era of colonial expansion. The whole system of land tenure, 
including the system of public and private relations based upon 
the possession of land^is by no means the least reliable gauge 
of the general position which a state has reached in the scale of 
political, social, and economic evolution ; for, as every careful 
student of institutional history knows, the progress of nations 
has been reflected, step by step, in the development of customs 
and laws relating to the tenure of landed property. The system 
of landholding introduced by any state into its colonies, and its 
liberal or strict administration of such system, may very well 
serve, therefore, as an index to the general breadth or narrow- 
ness of its colonial policy. 

Into her North American territories France introduced, in 
the seventeenth century, that complex code of relations based 
upon the holding of land commonly known as the seigniorial, 
system. This system, the essential incidents of which had been ^ 
developed from the feudal organization oL ^ri earlier perio d, the J 
French authorities in Canada fostered and elaborated for more 
than a century, modifying it to suit the needs of pioneers 



f 



2 THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND, 

in a new land, and giving to Canadian feudalism a character 
different in several important respects from that which marked 
the system in the parent state from which it was derived. 
With the passing of Canada into English hands in 1760, the 
maintenance of the system and its future development were 
committed to the somewhat unsympathetic care of the new 
suzerains, who continued it in existence for almost a century- 
longer. The twilight of feudalism was thus more prolonged 
in French Canada than in any other territory controlled by a 
European state or peopled by men of European stock. 

As to the origin of the feudal relation, students of institutional 
history have never found themselves in complete agreement Its 
beginnings have been sought, without entire conclusiveness, both 
in the institutions of Rome and in the elementary relations upon 
which the rude organization of the Teutonic tribes was based. 
With this controverted question of origins, however, it is not nec- 
essary here to deal ;Ut is sufficient to note that by the middle- of 
the ninth century the feudal idea — that of service in return for 
protection — had become clearly prominent in determining social 
and political relations throughout the greater part of Western 
Europe. ) Owing to the economic and military conditions under 
which the peoples of this part of Europe found themselves dur- 
ing the next two or three centuries, the idea was naturally and 
steadily elaborated into an extensive system of personal rela- 
tions based upon the tenure of land. 

f At this stage, feudalism might have been defined in general 
as a system of social and political relations founded on the tenure 
of landed property and resulting from the abgence of a strong 
central power. Such absence of authority cast the whole burden 
of preserving order, and of forestalling a reign oifaustrechty upon 
certain powerful men in every community; and it was by the 
attempts of these men to provide protection for their dependents 
in the* most natural way that the various feudal relations were 
developed and strengthened. This most natural way seemed to 
be that, in return for grants of land, the magnates of each com- 
munity should be assured of what was at the time of the utmost 
value to them, — service and support in time of war. The man 
who took land from a lord put himself under obligation to appear 



THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. 3 

in arms with his followers at the summons of his chief. He, in 
turn, distributed lands to these followers subject to a similar 
obligation; and this process might be several times repeated. 
Thus the feudal system created a military hierarchy, in which 
each tenant of lands from humblest to highest was liegeman to 
his immediate feudal superior. Service and submission to juris- 
diction as the price of enfeofifment were the essential phe- 
nomena of feudalism in its early form. The lord gave and 
guarded; the vassal took and served. 

Although this primary feudal idea was essentially the same 
throughout Western Europe, the elaboration of relations 
founded upon it was guided by no uniform principles. In 
different parts of the country and among different classes of 
the population it developed as conditions and environment 
seemed to dictate. Consequently it never at any stage in its 
evolution presented exactly the same features throughout the 
whole feudal area. Among the military classes the obligation 
of military service was kept well in the foreground until the 
fourteenth century, but with the agricultural classes this obli- 
gation never had a like prominence. With them the bond 
of mutual service and protection, while always existent, was 
not the most essential relation, but certain obligations of a 
non-military nature characterized more prominently the rela- 

. tions between the landed lord and his dependents. These 
non-military obligations, which are sometimes emphasized as 
seigniorial or manorial rather than feudal, were of wide scope 
and variety, and in extent and importance varied greatly in dif- 
ferent parts of Western Europe, and even in the same part at 
different periods in the evolution of the system. Indeed, it is 
this kaleidoscopic shifting of incidents which has given feu- 
dalism a history so complex as to defy description in general 
terms. 

The feudalism of France had a more consistent development T 
than that of any other nation ; but even in France there was y^ 
at every stage a marke d abse nce of any u niformity or homo- 
geneity. In general, however, the steady growth of the 

"TBHTiai power from the twelfth century onward reflected itself 
in the declining importance of the feudal military obligation 



4 THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. 

and the growing prominence of the non-military duties. The 
altered conditions and methods of warfare, and the estab- 
lishment of standing armies under the control of the monarchy, 
gave to the feudal array a steadily decreasing importance in the 
general military organization ; until by the fifteenth century the 
system had almost completely lost its characteristic feudal 
features, and had throughout France become predominantly 
seigniorial in character. 

Of the various non-military obligations imposed upon all 
feudal dependents, one of the earliest and most general was 
, r that of paying certain annual dues, or redevances. The most 
^^^ common of these was the payment known as the cens et rentes^ 
which at an early period became more or less definitely fixed in 
amount either by contract between seignior and dependent or 
by the custom of the seigniorial jurisdiction. Other payments 
were required, not annually, but upon the occasion of transfers 
of dependent lands ; for, as the seigniorial relation was, in the 
earlier stages of the system at any rate, largely a personal one, 
the successor to lands within a fief, whether by purchase or by 
inheritance, was required to secure by the payment of a fine 
the permission of his superior to the establishment of this rela- 
tion. In the thirteenth century the exaction of a fine, known as 
the lods et ventes^ upon mutations of small holdings may be 
said to have become general throughout the greater part of 
France. 

Along with these dues developed the various seigniorial 
monopolies, or rights of the seignior exclusively to supply cer- 
tain services required by the landholders within his jurisdiction. 
These were the various banal rights {banalitis)^ examples of 
which are to be found from the tenth century onward. The 
seigniors provided grist-mills, wine-presses, ovens, and various 
other facilities of a similar nature, and assumed the right to 
compel their dependents to make use of these, and of these 
alone, upon payment of charges regulated by the customs of 
the various jurisdictions. From the tenth to the fifteenth cen- 
tury the number and the scope of these banal rights seem to 
have steadily expanded, but more widely, of course, in some 
parts of France than in others. 



I / 



,^. 



THE^ EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. J 

The corvee, or obligation of the dependent to give his seign- 
iorial lord a number of days of free labor in each year, is^ 
another incident which made its appearance at a very early 
stage in the development of the system. At first the amount 
of labor which might be exacted seems to have been indefinite, 
and to have depended largely upon the wish of the seignior or 
lord ; but, as time went on, both the number of days and the 
conditions under which the labor might be exacted were fixed 
by the custom of the neighborhood. 

By the close of the thirteenth century all of the foregoing 
rights bad become sources of emolument to the French seignior- 
ial magnate ; ^ but even at this period they did not exhaust his 
list of privileges, for he possessed in addition various rights of 
jurisdiction and a number of honorary privileges, which might, 
and usually did, prove of pecuniary advantage to him. Within ^ 
the confines of his fief the lord exercised the right of adminis- 
tering justice either in person or through appointed judicial 
officers, and of taking to himself whatever profits accrued from v 
fines, fees, and forfeitures. Different degrees of judicial power 
came to be distinguished ; but in France many of the seigniors 
assumed complete and unlimited rights of jurisdiction over their 
dependents, and retained these rights until, with the growth 
of the royal power and the consequent encroachments of the 
royal courts, feudal justice became subordinated to royal. It 
was not, however, till the fifteenth century that this subordination j 
had been completed in the greater part of the kingdom. 

The honorary privileges of the seigniors, at first few and 
unimportant, came in time to form a rather formidable category. 
In this matter there was perhaps a greater lack of uniformity 
than in regard to the pecuniary rights ; and custom did not, as in 
case of those rights, seem to crystallize into very definite princi- 
ples. Some of these privileges, such as the right of the lord 
to hunt over the lands of his dependents, came to be numbered 
among the most harsh and odious incidents of the system. 

^On the origin and development of these yarioas seigniorial incidents, see 
Renaaldon, TraUe Ilistoriqtu et Pratiqtu des Droits Seignturiaux (1765); Achille 
Luchaxre, Manuel des InsiUuHom Franfaises (1892); Adh6mar £^mein, Ceurs 
EHmeniaire d*Hisioire du Droit Fratifais (1905); and £. D. Glasson, Precis 
Elementaire de VHistoire du Droit Fran^ais (1904). 



6 THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. 

Throughout this development the feudal military obligation 
still maintained its existence ; but, since the disorganized condi- 
tions which had given prominence to that feature several cen- 
turies before no longer characterized France, its importance had 
^ become wholly secondary. By the fifteenth century the two 
\ most distinguishing characteristics of feudalism — military ser- 
I k vice and unsubordinated private justice — had been completely 
\ undermined by the waxing strength of the monarchical power ; 
^"and from this time onward the development of the other features 
makes up the history of the seigniorial system. 

It has been pointed out that the nature and extent of the 
various rentals (redevances) and other seigniorial obligations 
were fixed in different parts of France by local custom. To 
this rule, however, there was one important exception, — the 
considerable part of France, commonly known as the pays de 
droit ^critf in which the definite and well-known rules of Roman 
law were applied. The exact limits of French territory within 
which this written law continued in existence are difficult to de- 
fine precisely ; but in general ihcpays de droit fcrit comprised the 
southern provinces of France, where Roman influence had natu- 
rally been most strongly stamped. Within this area relations 
were usually determined by Roman law modified very consider- 
ably by local custom. In the remaining parts of France,^ known 
as ^Itatpays de coutume^ or pays coutuntiers^ they were regulated not 
by written law but by the long-standing customs of the various 
jurisdictions. The number of these jurisdictions was very large^ 
and in extent and importance they diffe]:ed greatly; hence 
one finds a bewildering number of local coutumes^ some apply- 
ing to extensive and populous districts, others restricted in their 
application to single small fiefs.^ 

These bodies of local customary law had the advantage of 
being indigenous, and of adjusting themselves to local environ- 
ment ; but they had the cardinal defects of not being precise, 
and of presenting the greatest variation from place to place 

^ See the map of the two regions in J. Brissaad, Manuel d^HisUnre du Droit 
Franfais (i904)> 152. 

* On this decentralization of the French legal system, see Viollet, Histoire du 
Droit Civil Franfais (1893), 149-150; and Glasson, Precis Elementaire de V His- 
toire du Droit FranfoiSf 169-186. 



THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. 7 

throughout the kingdom. It was to obviate the former of these 
defects that the movement for the redaction, or codification, of y 
the customs was begun. Unofficial codifications began to appear 
as early as the beginning of the thirteenth century, but these 
seem to have been neither exact nor complete ; it was not until 
the closing years of the century that the first compilations 
under official patronage were made.* During the first half of the 
fifteenth century a few of the customs, notably those of Anjou, 
Maine, and Poitou, were codified under the auspices of the 
authorities of these respective provinces without any instigation 
from the monarchy.^ The desirability of codifying the customs 
had, however, become apparent; and in 1453 a rpyal ordinance 
of Charles VII commanded that all the local customs should be 
) forthwith collected by a procedure which was definitely set fortli>^ 
lin the ordinance, and that the compilations should be transmitted 
|to the king for the approval of his partetnent? The response to 
Ithis ordinance was not general, however ; and Louis XI, who 
jcame to the French throne a few years later (1461), seems to 
have had in mind the desirability of a single coutume^ or systejn 
of common law for the whole kingdom, rather than a continuance 
of the poUcy of compiling and stereotyping the various local . 
bodies of customary law.^ At any rate, he did little or nothing 
to advance the work of local codification which his father had 
begun.* Under Charles VIII and Louis XII — during the 
closing years of the fifteenth and the early years of the sixteenth 
century — the work was, in obedience to royal decrees, pushed 
rapidly on ; and in a short time a large number of the customs 
had been officially put into written form and approved. 

It was during the reign of Louis XII that the first official 

1 Klimrath, Etudes sur Us Coutumes (1837), ch. L 

■ Viollet, Histoire du Droit Civil Franfais, 143. 

» Orebnnances des Roii de France de la Troisiime Race (Paris, 1 729-1849), xiv. 
312-313. Part of this ordinance is aa follows: " Nous voulans abrlger les procez 
et litiges d'entre not sabjectz, et les releyer de mises et d^pens, et mettre certainet6 
^jugemens tant que faire se pourra, . . . ordonnons et dicernons, declarons et 
statuons : que les coustumes, usages, et stiles de tous les pays de nostre royaume 
soyent redigez et mis en escrit." 

* Viollet, Histoire du Droit Civil Franfais, 145. 

* Isambert, Recueil General des Anciennes Lois Fran^aises, zi. 458. 



8 THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. 

codification of the custom of the viscounty and provostship of 
Paris was accomplished, in 1510, though before that date there 
had been unofficial and incomplete compilations of the custom- 
ary law of this jurisdiction.^ The work of official compilation 
was performed by commissioners designated by the king; 
and their work, when finished, received the approval of the 
Parliament of Paris.' This first official codification regulated 
seigniorial and other relations during a period of only seventy 
years ; for in 1579 a revision was ordered by Henry III, and in 
the following year was accomplished by a commission under the 
presidency of the celebrated jurisconsult, Christofle de Thou.* 
^ In this revision a number of important changes were made, 
and the general arrangement of the custom was much improved. 
As thus revised, the Custom of Paris consists of sixteen titles 
{titres) or divisions, each of which is divided into a number of 
chapters, and these again are subdivided into articles or sections. 
In all there are three hundred and sixty-two articles, numbered 
consecutively. The form is eminently satisfactory, and the 
various rules are set forth with marked clearness and brevity. 
On the whole, the Custom of Paris is distinguished chiefly by 
its thoroughly native spirit: there is in it little of Roman, 
and still less of canon, law. These various characteristics, as 
well as the fact that it formed the groundwork of the legal sys- 
tem in vogue at the national centre, served to give it from the 
outset a certain prestige over the other French coutumes^ and in 
the subsequent revisions of the customs of other jurisdictions 
caused it to exert a very perceptible influence.* Although it 
formed the general code of law regulating civil relations within 
the viscounty and provostship of Paris, it might be modified at 
any time by royal ordinance or decree. 

1 Buche, Essai sur PAncienne Couiumi de Paris aux xiii* ei xh^ SQcles, in 
Nowelle Revue Hisiorique, viiL 45-86. 

' Klimrath, Etudes sur Us Coutumes, ch. L ' Ibid, ch. ii. 

^ There are at least sixteen commentaries on the Coutume de Paris, — those 
of Dumoulin (1539), Charondas (1582), Chopin (1586), Fortin (1595), Pithon 
(1601), Troncon (1618), Tournet (1623;, Gu6rin (1634), Brodeau (1658), Ricard 
(1661), Ferriire (1679), Bobe (1683), Duplessis (1699), Lauriire (1699), L« 
Maftre (1700), Anzault (1708). Some of these have passed through several editions. 
The most serviceable of the various commentaries are mentioned below, p. 264. 



THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. 9 

This was the system of law which, in 1664, Louis XIV in- 
troduced by royal arrfit into his colony of New France,* ordain- 
ing that, except in so far as its provisions should be from time 
to time modified by royal edicts or by the decrees of the local 
authorities, it should form the rule of law regulating all colo- 
nial relations. The colony was therefore equipped, almost on 
the threshold of its history, with a complete and well-developed 
code of customary law. 

While the action of the French king and his advisers in pro- 
viding a uniform system of jurisprudence for Canada was 
perfectly natural, and quite in accordance with the policy which 
the French government was pursuing at the time, the choice of 
this custom from among the many then in operation was per- 
haps not altogether a fortunate one. In many ways the Cus- 
tom of Paris was, as a code of laws, superior to its contemporaries ; 
but it was adapted to the circumstances of a thickly populated 
and highly developed community, not to the needs of pioneer set- 
tlers in a new land. Furthermore, the population of the colony , 
upon which it was imposed was very largely of Norman 
origin;* for most of the earliest settlers in New France came 
from the rugged old Norman ports of Dieppe, Rouen, and 
Honfleur. Many came from Perche, and a few from other 
provinces of France ; but, while it is true that between 1627 and 
1664 the immigrants included many from Aunis, Poitou, Brit- 
tany, Saintonge, and even from Paris and its immediate vicinity, 
the Normans continued to form a substantial portion of the in- 
flux.* The colonial church registers, which have been kept with 
scrupulous care, show that of the considerable number of settlers 
who came to Canada during the decade after 1664 more than 
half were of Norman stock ; and the strength of the Norman 

^ See below, p. 31 ; also Lareaa, Histoire du Droit Canadien^ ch. v. 

' See Suite, Origin of the French, Canadians^ in Royal Society of Canada, 
Proceedings, 1905, Memoir es^ sec. it 99 if. 

*Ferland (^Cours d^ Histoire du Canada, L 511-516) has traced the origin of 
about four hundred immigrants to Canada during the period 161 5-1666. Of 
these 125 were from Normandy, 57 fix>m Perche, 37 from Aunis, 34 from Poitou* 14 
from Brittany, and 13 from Saintonge. Paris contributed only 20. On this point 
see also Rameau, La France aux Colonies (1859), ch. vi ; and Salone, La Colonic 
MoHon de ia NouvelU'France (1906), 1x2-113. 



lO THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND, 

element in the colony is further attested by the fact that in 1680 
an official estimate declared that at least four-fifths of the colonial 
population either were Normans by birth or by parentage, or had 
married Norman wives. The settlers who came from Paris and 
its environs were for the most part officials, priests, and mer- 
chants, who took up their abode in the towns ; the Normans, on 
the other hand, were mainly peasants, who went on the land. 
Thus it came about that, while the Norman element dominated 
the colonial population as a whole, it was overwhelmingly strong 
among the " habitants," as the people of the colonial seigniories 
were called. Since, then, the greater part of the colonists were 
most familiar with the Coutume de Normandie (codified in 
1583),^ the introduction of this custom, while it might have 
involved some difficulties, would undoubtedly have obviated 
many of the evils which attended the working of the seigniorial 
system in the colony. 

The establishment of the Custom of Paris in New France had 
some important and interesting consequences. In the first place, 
there was always considerable difficulty in bringing the peas- 
antry to a proper understanding of its provisions : again and 
again the colonial courts and the administrative officials found 
themselves called upon to settle disputes which, but for the 
almost entire ignorance of the custom on the part of the dis- 
putants, would not have arisen.^ Moreover, the circumstances 
of the colony were such that some of the provisions were phys- 
ically incapable of literal application and hence were allowed to 
lapse into desuetude ; while others, although capable of being 
applied, were abrogated because their enforcement would have 
been out of harmony with the general policy of the crown in 
the colony. As will be pointed out later, several important 
provisions of the Custom of Paris had to be either considewbly 
modified by the authorities or entirely set aside ; ^ while some 
others were tacitly disregarded by the Norman agricultural 
population.* 

The compilation of the customs under official auspices in the 

1 Klimrath, Etudes sur ies Couiumts, 22-23. 

* For example, see below, p. 129. 

• Below, pp. I lo-i 1 1. * Below, p. 139. 




OF 

^^^Fny^}Jp^ffJ^ EUROPEAN- BACKGROUND. n 

sixteenth century marks an important epoch in the history of 
French seigniorial relations; for, while it did not stereotype 
these relations in any strict sense, it gave them a degree of 
definiteness which they had not hitherto obtained.^ It did 
not in any way, however, produce uniformity in the relations of . 
landed classes throughout France, but, on the contrary, seems 
to have accentuated and perpetuated the heterogeneity. It is, 
therefore, as difficult to draw a true general picture of French 
seigniorialism in the seventeenth century as of French feudalism 
in the twelfth or the thirteenth. The widest variation in the 
nature and scope of seigniorial rights and duties prevailed in the 
various jurisdictions : in some the seignior's rights were numer- 
ous and extensive, in others few and of much less importance.^ 
Some seigniorial privileges were recognized in almost all the 
customs, as, for example, the right to the cens et rentes^ and to 
the/t?^ et ventes^ or relief ; others, like the right to demand cor- 
v^es, were recognized either with or without restrictions in the 
majority of the compilations ; while some rights, like the banali- 
ties, received recognition in but a small number of them. To 
add to this lack of uniformity, there were important changes and 
revisions of the customs at short intervals, a circumstance 
which Voltaire had in mind when he spoke of " things changing 
in France as often as coutumes or post-horses." In these 
revisions, seigniorial rights were added, extended, restricted, or 
abolished as local circumstances .seemed to dictate or permit, 
with no general principle to serve as a guide.* 

After the beginning of the sixteenth century, moreover, there 
was an increasingly large number of royal ordinances, decrees 
of the Council of State, judgments of provincial intendants, 
and various other manifestations of the rapidly growing royal 
authority, all of which served greatly to modify the incidents 
of the land-tenure system and the complex mass of relations 

^ Klimratb, Etudes sur Us Coutumes, ch. L 

* On the extent of this variation, see Pardessus, Memoires sur VOrigine du Droit 
Coutumier en France, in Memoires de VAcademie des Inscriptions, x. 666-765 ; 
Laferriire, Coutumes de France dans les Diverses Provinces, in bis Histoire du 
Droit Francois (1858), vol v; Glasson, Precis Elementaire de I* Histoire du Droit 
Fran^ais, 437-448. 

• See La Grande Encyclopedic, under "Coutume." 



12 THE EUROPEAN- BACKGROUND. 

built upon it.^ This development of the central power had 
fundamentally altered the spirit of the system, even though the 
outer shell had been for the most part preserved intact. The 
seigniors, for example, still preserved their rights of private 
judicial administration, but their powers in this domain were no 
longer final: the growth of the royal courts had thoroughly 
subordinated private to national jurisdiction. 

The personal relation between the seignior and his depend- 
ents also bore but little real resemblance to that which had, 
several centuries before, formed a bond between the feudal lord 
and his vassal.^ By the beginning of the seventeenth century 
many of the seigniors were beginning to leave their rural man- 
ors and take up their residence in the capital or in the other 
large towns, leaving their seigniories in charge of bailiffs, who 
collected the various dues and saw that the tenants or censitaires 
performed their required corv^es and other services. The move- 
ment of the seigniors away from their holdings seems to have 
gone on rapidly, until their absence became a prominent char- 
acteristic of the seigniorial system. It is said that, before the 
end of the seventeenth century, there were many seigniors in 
France who had never visited their estates in the lapse of a 
lifetime.^ The seignior came more and more to look upon his 
fief as a source of revenue ; his interest in his dependents became 
a wholly pecuniary one ; and hence the bailiffs who managed 
the affairs of the seigniories were impelled by the very nature 
of things to stretch the seigniorial rights and privileges to the 
utmost productive point.* The elasticity of some of the seign- 
iorial incidents, and the varying protection against seigniorial 
extortion afforded to the peasantry by the royal officers and 
courts in different parts of France, added new causes of varia- 
tion in the several jurisdictions. 

1 Sec the list of decrees in Viollet, Histoire du Droit Civil Franfais, 151-155. 

* Manesse, Les Paysans et leurs Seigneurs avani ijBg (1895), ^ ^^ 

* The extent and evils of this absenteeism are discussed in Taine, VAncien 
Regime^ ch. iii, and in Manesse, Les Paysans et leurs Seigneurs^ ch. viii. 

* Renauldon ( Traite Historique, 628) speaks in scathing terms of the seigniorial 
bailiff : " He is a ravenous wolf let loose on the estate, who drains it to the last sou, 
crushes the peasants, and renders odious the seignior, who finds it necessary to tol- 
erate his extortion for the sake of the profits which accrue.** 



THE EUROPEAN- BACKGROUND. 13 

Thus, when the seigniorial system was transplanted from 
France to the New Worid, its strength had already begun to 
show inherent sig^s of decline. Absenteeism, and the resultant 
severing of the personal nexus between the seigniors and their 
dependents, together with the increasing importance of the 
privileges which the seigniors as a class enjoyed, served to sap 
the system of much of its pristine vitality. This vitality, how- 
ever, through the close contact of the seigniors with their 
dependents and the entire absence of any code of privileges, 
it was destined to regain in New France to a very considerable ' 
degree. With the direct personal relation of seignior to depend- 
ent, with the prominence given to the military aspect, and 
with the comparative paucity and simplicity of the seigniorial 
rights and obligations, the land-tenure system of French Canada 
bore a much closer resemblance to French feudalism of an; 
earlier period than to French seigniorialism of the seventeenth/ 
and eighteenth centuries.^ To this circumstance must be 
largely attributed the new lease of life which the system enjoyed, 
in the colony, and by which it was enabled to outlive its parent 
stem in France, 

When France undertook the planting of the seigniorial tenure 
on the shores of the St Lawrence, she was in theory and in prac- 
tice a despotism. The two institutions, feudalism and absolutism, 
had long since passed their era of antagonism, and through the 
entire subordination of the former to the latter had become 
reconciled. With its fangs drawn, feudalism was no longer 
dangerous; on the contrary, it might be, and was, used by 
the crown in supporting the complete centralization of royal 
power. The age of Louis Quatorze, during which seigniorialism 
intrenched itself in Canada, may be said to have marked the 
zenith of political centralization in France : the epigram " U^tat 
4:' est mot " expressed no mere fiction of royal power. The politi- 
cal organization of France was, in fact, as simple as its social 
structure was complicated ; for all its lines converged upward, 
and its base was as broad as the extensive dominions of the 
Bourbons whether in Europe or elsewhere.^ 

1 Sec below, especially ch. iv. 

* Cheyney, European Background of American History ^ 1 1 5- 1 16. 



14 THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. 

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the chief councils 
of the king were the Royal Council {conseil du rot) — more often 
called the Council of State {conseil d' itat du rot) — and the Par- 
liament of Paris {parlement de Paris). The former was the 
chief executive council of the realm, the body in which the king^ 
issued his arrets and ordinances both for France and for the 
colonies. This council was further brought into relation with 
the afifairs of New France in that it heard and determined 
appeals from the intendant or from the Sovereign (Superior) 
Council in the colony whenever these were transmitted to it. 
The Parliament of Paris, on the other hand, was intrusted^ 
among other duties, with the registration of royal decrees and 
ordinances. It had no appellate jurisdiction in the colony, and 
hence its work is reflected there to little extent. 

Subject, of course, to the will of the monarch, the direct control 
and supervision of colonial affairs was, at the outset, in the 
' hands of the chief minister of state. (When the beginnings of 
/^ settlement in New France were made. Cardinal Richelieu pos- 
sessed among his various titles that of "grand master, chief, 
and superintendent-general of the navigation and commerce of 
France," and in virtue of this position exercised a general 
oversight of colonial affairs. Indeed, the introduction of seign- 
• iorialism in New France has been commonly regarded as his 
^ personal work.^ ) Mazarin took comparatively little interest in 
the affairs of the colony ; but his successor, Colbert, gave 
vigorous attention to the exploitation of French colonies in both 
the West and the East. During his first few years in office he 
made a careful study of Canadian affairs, conducting a large part 
of the correspondence with the colonial officials ; but in 1669 
the immediate administration of colonial affairs was turned over 
to the minister of marine,^ who from this time down to the 
period of the French Revolution was the medium of communi- 
cation between all colonial officials and the king, countersigning 
all the royal edicts and instructions which were sent out to New 
France. Although there were at intervals changes in the occu- 

1 " It was Richelieu who first planted feudalism in Canada " (Parkman, The Old 
Regime in Canada^ ii. 41). 

* Petit, Les Colonies Franfaises (1902), i 15. 



THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. 15 

pancy of this post, such changes brought about very little alter- 
ation in the trend of French colonial policy; for, during the 
reign of Louis XIV especially, the hand of the monarch was 
very influential in determining the course of affairs in the^ 
colony. 

A well-known writer on the institutions of the old regime 
has pointed out that the merits and the faults of the French po- 
litical, social, and economic system before the Revolution may 
be best seen and studied in the colonial possessions of the 
Bourbons, more particularly in Canada.^ This is because many 
traditional obstacles which hinder the logical working out of gov- 
ernmental policy in the mother land do not exist in a new 
country. \ The development of feudalism in its later stages was 
therefor^more imiform and consistent in New France than in 
Old, its workings were less obscured by the clouds of privilege, and 
as a system it had much more symmetry. On the whole, Cana- 
dian feudalism had all the merits of the system which formed its 
background at home, while it l^acked many of the odious inci- 
dents that had served to make the latter a heavy burden upon 
the agricultural classes of France. This fact is shown by the 
different attitudes displayed toward the existing land-tenure sys- 
tem by the peasantry in France and in Canada.) 

After 1760, when the colony passed permanently out of the 
hands of the French monarchy, the background was very deci- 
sively altered ; for England had, a full century before, swept 
from her dominions the last of the important relics of feudal 
tenure.* The administration of the Canadian tenure system 
now passed into strange and not altogether sympathetic hands, 
its retention and development being due, not so much to a belief 
in its utility and suitability as to a determination to carry 
out literally the pledges made to the conquered race in the \ 
articles of capitulation. Furthermore, the administration of 
colonial affairs by the new suzerains was far less centralized 
than it had been under the old ; for, despite the important 
recrudescence in royal power and influence under George III, 
the ultimate supremacy of Parliament in the direction of colonial 

1 Tocqueville, Thi Old Rigime and the Revolution^ 299. 
s By sUtute 12 Charles II. c. 24 (1660}. 



V 



l6 THE EUROPEAN- BACKGROUND. 

policy had become assured. Public opinion in the home country 
now became an important factor in the determination of colonial 
relations, a factor which under French rule had served in no 
degree to mould the policy of the home authorities. For these 
various reasons, the attitude of the English government toward 
the seigniorial system in Canada was less consistent and less 
decisive than had been the attitude of the French before 1760^ 
and was too often based upon a much less accurate knowledge 
of colonial conditions. To this indecision and lack of definite- 
ness in policy must be attributed in a considerable degree many 
of the abuses which characterized Canadian seigniorialism under 
British administration.^ 

1 See below, ch. xL 



CHAPTER II. 

EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 
1 598-1 666. 

During the first three decades of the sixteenth century, • 
Spanish, Portuguese, and English navigators coasted along 
the northeastern shores of North America without discovering 
the existence of the great river which drains the waters of the 
inland lakes to the eastern seas. It remained for the navigators 
of France, late though these were in entering the field of west- 
ward exploration, to penetrate the valley of the St. Lawrence 
and to discover its adaptability to colonization. 

The Cartier expeditions of 1 534-1 535 may be said to mark >^ 
the beginning of French interest in the New World.) While, 
however, the work of the sturdy seaman of St. Malo served to 
clear up the geography of the new region and to establish for 
the Bourbon king a claim to sovereignty over the vast North- 
land, the work of actual colonization was not yet to be begun ; 
for the experiences of Cartier and Roberval were not such 
as to encourage the hope that France would find in these regions 
* a second Mexico or a new Brazil The country appeared en- 
tirely devoid of mineral wealth ; the climate, as the two hiber- 
nations of the explorers attested, was disastrously rigorous; 
and the soil did not appear to possess any very attractive agri- 
cultural possibilities. All in all, the Cartier-Roberval expe- V 
ditions resulted in little but disappointment; and it is not to 
be wondered at that France, rent asunder as she was by the 
religious wars which marked the second half of the sixteenth 
century, should have cast aside for the time being whatever 
projects she may have been entertaining for the establishment 
of a colonial empire in the valley of the St. Lawrence. 

17 



1 8 EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

During this period, however, Norman and Breton fishermen 
continued to visit the fishing banks of Terreneuve, and year by 
year to garner the lucrative harvests of the sea ; and, while it 
may well be doubted whether, during a full half -century following 
the date of Roberval's voyage, even a single French vessel 
passed beyond the Saguenay, the annual visits of the fishermen 
sufficed, in the seaports of France at least, to keep alive the feel- 
ing that these northern regions were within the French sphere 
of influence. 

Toward the end of the century peace returned to the French 
people ; and the issue of the Edict of Nantes in 1 598 gave the 
kingdom for the first time in fifty years an appearance of in- 
ternal quiet. By a somewhat curious coincidence, it is in this 
same year that one finds offidal France once again turning- 
yf its eyes to the northwestward. ( The possibilities of the St. Law- 
rence region as a favorable field for the exploitation of the fur 
trade had attracted the attention of the Marquis de la Roche, a 
nobleman of Brittany, who possessed some influence at the royal 
court. Some years previously La Roche had received a com- 
mission empowering him to establish a colony in Newfoundland, 
but misfortune overtook his enterprise even before his vessels 
left the shores of France.^ He did not, however, abandon his 
design, and in 1598 was successful in obtaining appointment 
to the post of "lieutenant-general and governor of the countries 
of Canada, Hochelaga, Newfoimdland, Labrador, the River of 
the Great Bay, Norembega, and of the countries adjacent to the 
said territories and rivers." ^ 

Within this vaguely defined area La Roche was invested 
with almost sovereign powers : he might make war and peace, 
maintain an army, legislate, punish and pardon, found cities, 
and erect fortifications. .." We have given him power," runs his 
commission more specifically, "to grant lands ... to gentle- 
men and to those whom he shall consider persons of merit, in 
the form of fiefs, seigniories, ch4tellenies, countships, viscount- 

^ yi9L\i\\jLyX.y Diseofirse on Western Planting, in Maine Historical Society, Cc/Zfc/t^ffj, 
2d series, ii. 2^. 

^ For La Roche's commission, January 12, 159S, see Edits et Ordonnancesy 
iii. 7-10. 



EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 1 9 

ships, baronies, and other dignities, to be held in such manner 
as he shall deem in keeping with their services, and on such 
terms and conditions as shall conduce to the defence of the said 
countries ; and to other persons of inferior rank at such charges 
and annual rentals as he shall deem advisable, of which latter 
we agree that they shall be exempt and discharged during the 
first six years, or during such further period as our said lieuten- 
ant-general shall believe to be right and necessary, excepting 
always the duty of service in time of war/* Thus, says Parkman, 
was an effete and cumbrous feudalism to make its first lodge- 
ment in the New World.^ 

Armed with these extensive powers and privileges, the Breton 
nobleman made haste to assume the duties of his post. / By the 
terms of his commission he was, however, under obligation to 
transport settlers to the new territories at his own expense, a 
requirement in which he found the first obstacle to his enter- 
prise, for it proved very difficult to persuade respectable French- 
men to join his venture. He finally resorted to the jails of 
Rouen, from which he obtained a band of sixty convicts ; ) and in 
due time the expedition sailed for the St. Lawrence. On reach- 
ing Sable Island, off the Acadian coasts, La Roche landed 
his convicts, while he cast about for a suitable place of settle- 
ment on the mainland ; but by a sudden storm he was driven 
back to France, and his miserable followers were left to their 
fate on the almost barren island, where, five years later, a relief 
expedition found less than a dozen survivors.' 

The disastrous outcome of La Roche's attempt did not, 
however, entirely deaden French enterprise. /During the next 
quarter of a century many other men came to the front, all 
professing eagerness to try their hands at the establishment of 
settiements in Canada in return for a monopoly of the fur trade.) 
To one after another the desired opportunity was given ; but in 
each case it took but a few years to show that the real aim was 
to exploit the fur trade for personal enrichment, and that there 
was little or no sincere desire to undertake the much less lucra- 

* Farkman, Pioneers of France in the New World (Frontenac cd.), ii. 54. 
■ Biggar, Early Trailing Companies of New France, 41. 

* Marc Lescarbot, Histoire de la Nouvelle- France, ii. 396 ff. 



\- 



20 EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS, 

tive work of- serious colonization. In vain the king revoked one 
monopoly and gpranted another. Each new recipient promised 
much and performed little, individuals and companies proving^ 
very much alike in this respect ; for each took out just as few 
settlers as seemed absolutely necessary to lull the royal sus- 
picions for the time being.* 

The work of these exploiters was, however, not altogether 
barren of results ; for it was under the auspices of one of them 
; that Samuel Champlain was sent on his earlier voyages to 
America. He it was who first secured for France and for 
Frenchmen a permanent foothold in North America; he was 
the real founder alike of Acadia and of New France. Clear in 
his ideas and vigorous in their execution, this rugged seaman 
of Brouage was admirably fitted to become the pioneer of French 
colonization in the New World ; and, had he been favored with 
even a moderate support by those in authority at home, his work 
would have been far more valuable. Even as it was, his settle- 
ment at Quebec became the nucleus of a powerful military 
colony, which influenced the affairs of a whole continent for quite 
a century and a half after its foundation. 

From the time of its establishment in 1608 down to 1629, 
when the colony passed for the time being into English hands, 
Champlain's little settlement on the St. Lawrence had a tempestu- 
ous existence; The few settlers sent out from time to time by 
the various monopolists were a rough and unruly set of men 
whom Champlain found very hard to controLv Although his 
legal powers were ample enough, he received so little finan- 
\ cial aid from his superiors that it was only with the utmost 
difficulty that he kept the settlement in existence at all. By the 
terms of his various commissions he had a wide range of vice- 
regal powers* He was military head of the colony, as well as 
legislator, administrator, and supreme judge, with full authority 
to arrange for grants of lands to settlers on such terms as he 
might deem fit ; ^ and yet during the whole period intervening 

^ For a detailed account of the operations of these various monopolists and their 
relations to the new colony, see Biggar, Early Traditig Companies of New France^ 
chs. iii-iv. 

^ '* Commission de Commandant en la Nouvelle-France ... en faveur du Sienr 
de Champlain," Edits et Ordonnances, iii. ii. 



EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 21 

between 1608 and 1627 only three seigniorial grants appear to 
have been made. \Most of those who came out to the colony 
during this interval seem to have had little interest in agricul- 
tural pursuits; they sought to enrich themselves through the 
exploitation of the fur trade, but showed no desire to acquire^ 
lands. ' ^ 

The first of these three seigniorial grants was made in 1623 to 
one Louis Hubert, described as " head of the first family settled / 
in the country." ^ The grant comprised the seigniory of Sault 
au Matelot, near Quebec, to be held " on such charges and con- 
ditions as shall be hereafter imposed."^ Three years later 
Hubert received a confirmation of this grant, with an extension 
of the area comprised. 

The second grant was that of the seigniory and barony of 
Cap Tourmente to Guillaume de Caen in 1624. The grantee in 
this case seems to have made a small beginning toward clearing 
and cultivating his tract ; but, when the colony passed into the 
hands of the Company of One Hundred Associates, his grant 
was revoked, and he left the colony.* 

The third grant was that made on March 10, 1626, to the 
" Reverend Fathers of the Society and Company of Jesus," 
of the seigniory of Notre Dame des Anges, lying along the 
river St Charles, near Quebec* This grant, in which no con- 
ditions or charges whatever are specified, is significant as be- 
ing the first in a long series of grants made to the Jesuit order 
in New France, the extent and value of which enabled the order, 
before the British conquest, to become quite the largest indi- 
vidual landholder in the colony.* -J 

So far as can be ascertained, these three were the only grants 
made by the authorities in France down to 1627. Each of them 
appears to have been made on the advice of Champlain ; and the 
absence, in all three, of definite charges and conditions, would 

1 The grant was made on February 4, 1623, by the Due de Montmorenci, the 
confirmation on February 26, 1626, by the Duo de Ventadour. See TUres des Seign- 
eurUs, 373. 

* The words used were, " pour en jouir en fief noble aux charges et conditions 
que lui seront ci-apres imposees." For the nature and incidents of tenure en fief 
noble, see below, p. 52. \ See below, p. 166. 

* Titres des Seigneuries, 53. f See belowy ch, x. 



\ 



22 EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

seem to show that no general policy with regard to the land- 
tenure system had yet been formulated. In 1627, however, 
Louis XIII decided to make a radical change in the adminis- 
tration of the colony. Among his advisers Cardinal Richelieu 
was now supreme, and it was mainly through iiis influence that 
the change was decided upon. ( Flushed with his victories over 
the Huguenots, the cardinal conceived the plan of forming a 
y great company which, in return for the grant of a monopoly of 
the fur trade, should undertake the work of making a powerful 
colony out of the struggling settlements in Canada.* In accord- 
ance with this plan, the Company of New France, more com- 
monly called the Company of One Hundred Associates, was 
organized; and in the spring of 1627 Cardinal Richelieu, on 
behalf of the king, handed over to the new organization all, the 
territories claimed by France in North America "from the 
coasts of Florida to the Arctic circle and from Newfoundland 
west to the great lake commonly called the fresh sea," to be 
holden in perpetuity as one immense fief .^ 

The preamble of this charter states succinctly the royal 
motives in taking this step. "Having in view," it declares, 
"the establishment of a powerful colony in order that New 
France with all its dependencies may, once for all, become a 
dependency of the crown without any danger of its being 
seized by the king's enemies, — as might be the case if precau- 
tionary measures are not taken against such a contingency, — 
and wishing, likewise, to remedy the faults of the past, since 
under the management of individuals who possessed the whole 
of its trade the country has been left uncultivated and almost 
wholly void of population • . . , His Eminence the cardinal 
deems it incumbent upon him to apply a remedy and to 
correct such abuses, thereby following the wishes of His 
Majesty." 
By the terms of the charter the company received its grant 

1 Georges d'Avenel, Richelieu et la Monarchie Absolve (18S4-1890), Hi. 221-224. 

' " Acte pour V6tablissement de la Compagnie des Cent A8soci6s pour le com- 
merce du Canada, contenant les articles accordes H la dite Compagnie par M. le 
Cardinal de Richelieu," Edits et Ordonnances, i. 5-11. The charter is dated April 29, 
1627, but the letters patent confirming its terms were not signed by the king himself 
amtil May 6, 1628 {Ibid, 19). 



EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 23 

**m full property, jurisdiction, and seigniory," subject only to 
the condition of fealty, together with the payment, to each 
successive king of France, of a gold crown weighing eight 
xnarks.^ The company also received a complete monopoly of 
the trade of the granted territories during a period of fifteen 
years, such trade to be exempt from the French custom duties.* 
*' It will be lawful," the charter continues, " for the said asso- 
ciates to improve and to settle the said lands as they may deem 
it necessary, and to distribute the same to those who will inhabit 
the said country and to others in such quantities and in such 
manner as they may deem proper; to give and to gprant to 
these such titles and honors, rights and powers, as they may 
deem essential and suitable according to the qualities, merits 
and conditions of the original grantees, and generally upon 
such charges, reservations, and conditions as they may think 
proper." « ^ 

The company, on its part, undertook to transport to the \ 
colony, during the first year of its operations, between two and / 
three hundred men of all trades, and during the ensuing fifteen 
years to increase this number to four thousand of both sexes. 
It agreed to provide for these settlers shelter and subsistence 
for the first three years following their arrival in the colony, 
an obligation, however, from which it was to be released " on 
furnishing to each family of colonists a sufficient area of cleared 
land to enable it to support itself, together with the necessary 
corn for the first seeding, and subsistence until the first harvest." *_ j 
Upon the company was also imposed the responsibility, not 
only of sending to Canada a sufficient number of priests' and 
missionaries, "for the purpose of converting the savage tribes 
and of affording the consolations of religion to Frenchmen who 
settle in New France," but also of maintaining these clergymen 
unless the company should " prefer to give them cleared lands 
sufficient to ensure them a living." * 

A few days after the granting of this charter a supplementary 
decree was issued, two of the provisions in which ^ relate to the 
granting of lands.* By one of these clauses the directors of the 

* Article iv. * Arflfcle vil • Article v. * Article i. 

* Article iii. • Edits et Ordonnanceilx, 12-17. 



24 EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS, 

company were empowered to appoint, at various places, such 
agents as they might think fit, ''for the distribution of lands 
and the regulation of conditions concerning the same." ^ By 
the other provision it was ordered that a grant of land should 
not exceed two hundred arpents in any individual case ; but it 
was arranged that if, for any good reason, the directors should 
desire to make a grant of larger area, they should " call together 
as great a number of associates as possible,*' and that the. 
assent of these to the grant should be attested by the signatures 
of at least twenty of them.^ 

The organization of the Company of One Hundred Associates 
was in due time completed, its capital being fixed at three hun- 
dred thousand livres in one hundred shares of three thousand ^ 
livres each. Although each share might be again subdivided,' 
it was entitled to but one representative at the meetings of the ' 
company. The hundred associates or shareholders, more than i 
half of whom were Parisians, elected a board of twelve direc- 
tors and a president.^ . 

Little time was lost in assuming charge of the colony and in 
appointing Champlain its governor. In the spring of 1628 the 
first fleet of vessels laden with settlers, cattle, provisions, and 
munitions set sail from Dieppe for Quebec ; * but the occasion 
was extremely inopportune, for war had broken out between . 
France and England, and a fleet of English privateers under 
the command of David Kirke was already lying in wait for the 
company's vessels near the entrance of the St. Lawrence. 
Intercepting the French vessels, Kirke overpowered and took 
them to. England. 

In the following year (1629) the English commander once 
more entered the St Lawrence, and appearing before Quebec 

1 Article vU. 

3 Article xi. The arpent de Paris, which was the usual land unit of the colony, 
is used either as a unit of length or as a unit of area. A lineal arpent is 
the equivalent of 192 English feet. The superficial arpent comprises 0.32400 
French hectares, and may be reckoned as about five-sixths of an English acre. The 
term arpent is evidently from the Gallic aripennis, which has been identified with 
the Roman actus or h2Mjugerum, 

• Biggar, Early Trading Companies of New France, 137. 

^ Sagard, Histoire du Canada, iv. 858. 



EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 2$ 

demanded its surrender. Champlain was in no position to offer 
resistance, and the colony passed into English hands.^ By 
these -events the operations of the company were necessarily 
^suspended until 1632, when by the Treaty of St. Germain-en- 
V Layc the colony was handed back to France. Still another 
delay occurred, however ; for, as the warehouse of Caen, a 
former monopolist of the fur trade, had been looted by the 
English traders, the French king gpianted him a monopoly of 
the trade for a year in order to recoup himself. The operations 
of the Company of One Hundred Associates did not, therefore, 
begin until 1633.^ 

Once actually in possession, it was not long before the direc- x^ 
tors of the company made their first seigniorial grsmt of lands. 

• This was the grant of the seigniory of Beauport, near Quebec, 
to Robert Giffard, the deed bearing date of January 15, 

* 1634. The grant comprised a tract of land lying along the 
nprth shore of the St Lawrence River just below Quebec, one 
l^gue in length by one and one-half leagues in depth, in ^* full 
juri^iction, property, and seigniory."^ Just a month later 
(February 15) the directors made to the Reverend Fathers 
of the Society and Company of Jesus a gjrant in franche aumdne, 
or mortmain, of a tract of land comprising about six hundred . 

, arpents, situated at Three Rivers;* and, from this time on, 
grants were made with considerable frequency. — ^ 

All together the Company of One Hundred Associates made ^ 
about sixty seigniorial grants,* most of them, however, with 
little regard to the ability or the intention of the grantees to 
. clear and develop their gjrants. Many were made to associates 
and their friends in France, who never came out to the colony 
at all ; )in fact, it is doubtful if more than a score of them wefe 
ever <aken possession of by those to whom they were made. 

1 Hemy Kirke, The First Engliih Conq^esi of Canada (1871}. 

* Charlevoix, Histoire de la Noteuelle-Francey L 168-178. 

* Tiires des Seigneurus, 386. The depth of the Beauport seigniory was in 1653 
increased to four leagues (IHd. 388}. 

* IHd. 7a 

*The complete list may be found in the appendix to Christopher Dunkin's 
Address at the Bar of the Legislative Assembly of Canada on behalf of certain Seign* 
tors in Lcwer Canada (1853}. 



26 EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

The conditions imposed in the different title-deeds varied 
greatly; but in many cases the company provided that the 
settlers whom the seignior should send to the colony should 
" serve to the discharge of the company, in diminution of the 
number of settlers which it was under obligation to send ; and 
that to this end the seignior should deliver each year a list of 
such to the officers of the company, that it might be certi- 
fied." ^ It would thus seem as if the company made a number 
of grants in the hope that the recipients would assist the 
directors in procuring settlers for New France. 

During the first fifteen years of the company's operations in 
Canada comparative peace prevailed, and the profits from 
the fur trade were large ; but after 1647 the Iroquois became 
more and more aggressive, and by their repeated incursions 
into the company's sphere of influence proved a source both of 
danger and of loss. Finally, in the course of 1648, they made 
their way into the Huron country, and all but extirpated that 
tribe, hitherto one of the stanchest allies of the French. One 
of the best sources of the peltry supply was thus cut off,^ a fact 
which, together with the possession by hostile Indians of the 
chief fur-trade routes, served greatly to diminish the company's 
trade and to reduce its profits. As little or nothing had been 
accomplished in developing the agricultural resources of the 
colony, with the decline of the fur trade most of the settlers 
suffered severely, and sent vigorous complaints to the home 
authorities that the company was not fulfilling the conditions 
imposed by the terms of its charter.* Furthermore, the Jesuits, 
who had come out to the colony in considerable numbers, had 
become involved in a bitter controversy with the company's 
officials over the question of the liquor trade with the Indians, 
and both parties had hastened to lay their respective sides of 
the case before the king. In this way the attention of the 
young sovereign and his minister Colbert was drawn to the 

1 For examples, see Tiires des Seigmurtes, 32, 58, 375. 

* Benjamin Suite, La Guerre des Iroquois, in Royal Society of Canada, Proceed- 
ings, 1897, Memoir es, sec. i. 65-92. 

* The situation had become so acute that in 1661 the colonists sent one of their 
number, Pierre Boucher, to request royal intervention in person. See Kingsford, 
History of Canada, i 284. 



EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 2/ 

State of affairs in the colony, with the result that a little investi- 
gation convinced them that a radical change was urgently 
needed; and they determined to revoke the charter of the 
associates. v 

^'Before the royal decision could be announced, however, the 
directors of the company had resolved to make a voluntary sur- 
render of their privileges, a step which they were the more ready 
to take, as profits had fallen off almost entirely and it was felt 
that, if the liquor trade should be prohibited, the colony would 
have to be maintained at a loss. Accordingly, by a deed of sur- 
render they formally gave up the colony " to be disposed of by 
His Majesty according to his pleasure." ^ This deed of surren- 
der, dated February 24, 1663, was duly accepted by the king in 
a royal edict issued the following month. " Instead of finding," 
says the king in this edict, ** that this country is settled as it 
ought to be after so long an occupation thereof by our subjects, 
we have learned with regret not only that the number of its 
inhabitants is very limited, but that even these are every day in 
danger of annihilation by the Iroquois. It being necessary to 
provide against this contingency, and considering that the com- 
pany is nearly extinct by the voluntary retirement of most of its 
old associates, and that the few remaining have not the means 
of maintaining the country and of sending thereto troops and 
settlers both to defend and to inhabit the same, we have resolved 
to withdraw it from the hands of the said company . . . and 
have declared and ordered, that all rights of justice, property, 
and seigniory, rights to appoint to offices of governor and lieu- 
tenant-general in the said country, to name officers to administer 
sovereign justice, and all and every other rights granted by our 
most honored predecessor and father by the edict of April 29, 
1627, be and the same are hereby reunited to our crown, to be 
hereafter exercised in our name by officers whom we shall 
appoint in this behalf."^ 

By the terms of this edict the administration of the affairs of 
the colony was once more vested in the crown. A few days 
later the king showed his lack of sympathy with the policy pur- 

^ " Deliberation de la Compagnie de la Nouvelle-FraDce," EdUs et Ordonnances, 
1 30. « IHd, 31-32. 



28 EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

sued by the directors of the company in making grants of 
seigniories to parties who had no intention of developing thern^ 
by the issue of a decree revoking all concessions made by the 
company and still remaining uncleared. " One of the principal 
reasons/* runs this decree, " as a result of which the said country 
is not peopled as it should be and that so many dwellings have 
been destroyed by the Iroquois, is that large tracts of land have 
been granted to all the private individuals of the colony who 
have lacked the means of clearing them and who have placed 
their homes in the middle of their grants. The result has been 
that they are scattered about at considerable distances from one 
another, and are neither able to render assistance to one another 
nor to be conveniently succored by the garrisons at Quebec and 
other places in the event of an attack. Furthermore it appears 
that in a large part of the country only small patches of land 
lying near the dwellings of the grantees have been cleared ; the 
rest is far beyond their power 'to handle." It is therefore 
ordered that, during the space of six months from the date of 
the promulgation of this decree, ''all the individual inhabitants 
of New France shall cause the lands contained in their grants 
to be cleared ; otherwise and in default thereof, on the expira- 
tion of that period, all such imcleared lands shall be distributed 
anew in the name of His Majesty either to inhabitants of the 
colony or to newcomers." Finally, the decree empowered M. de 
M^zy, governor, the Bishop of Petraea,^ and M. Robert, inten- 
dant,' to see to the execution of the royal directions, to redis- 
tribute the escheated grants, and to sign the title-deeds of the 
new concessions.^ For the time being, it seemed as if the king 
intended to supervise the administration of colonial affairs with 
the same interest in details which was beginning to characterize 
his administration at home. 

* Frangois-Xavier de Laval had been appointed to the post of vicar-apostolic in 
New France in 1659 ; and, as the colony had not yet been constituted a diocese, he 
was for the time being made titular bishop of Petrsca in Arabia. In 1674 he became 
bishop of Quebec. See Gosselin, Vie de Laval (Quebec, 1890). 

' Louis Robert was appointed intendant of New France, probably in the spring of 
1663 ; but, so far as can be ascertained, he never assumed the duties of his post. 
See W. B. Munro, The Office of Intendant in New France^ in American Historical 
Review, October, 1906. ' Edits et Ordonnances, L 53. 



^ EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 29 

The reestablishment of direct royal control over New France 
made necessary the provision of a new political administration 
for the colony. This was arranged for by the issue of an edict 
which, after reciting the fact that the great distance separating 
the colony from France interfered with the prompt and diligent 
administration of affairs by the home authorities, provided for 
the creation of a Sovereign Council {conseil souverain\ to be 
composed of the governor, the bishop, and five inhabitants of 
the colony to be chosen jointly by these two officials.^ The new 
council was empowered " to take cognizance of all causes, crimi- 
nal and civil, and to judge supremely {souverainement) and as a 
court of last resort." It was intrusted with the registration and 
promulgation of royal edicts, — its procedure in this regard to 
follow that observed by the Parliament of Paris, — and was 
authorized, in general, to carry out and specifically apply the royal 
instructions in regard to the administration of colonial affairs.' 

In order the better to inform himself concerning the situation 
of affairs in New France, the king appointed the Sieur Louis 
Gaudais as special commissioner, and sent him out to Quebec in 
the summer of 1663. The instructions given to Gaudais were 
very comprehensive. He was told to make a particular investi- 
gation of the land-g^ranting system, of the progress which the set- 
tlers had made in clearing their holdings, and of the general 
agricultural prospects of the colony. He was further instructed 
that, "if those to whom grants had been made should begin 
operations toward clearing them entirely, and should at the ex- 
piration of the six months mentioned in the edict of March 21 
have cleared a considerable part of them. His Majesty would be 
willing, on their petition, to instruct the Sovereign Council to 
allow them a further six months, at the end of which, however, 
no further extension would be made for any reason whatever." ' 

Notwithstanding this offer, many of the grants remained un- 
improved ; and on August 16 the governor and bishop presented 
to the council an ordinance providing for the revocation of a 
number of grants. Before decreeing the promulgation of this 

^ This edict, rather curiously, contains no mention of an intendant. 

* Edits et Ordonnances, i. 37. 

* For Gaadats's instructions, May 7, 1663, see Ibid. iii. 23. 



30 EAJ^LV SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

ordinance, the council directed it to be " communicated to the 
syndic of the inhabitants/'^ in order that, od receipt of .his 
answer, directions might be given as should " seem advisable." * 
The syndic's reply being duly had, the council ordered that the 
royal edict of March 21 should be "executed according to its 
form and tenor until revoked by the further orders of the king." 
All uncleared lands therefore reverted to the crown ; and in 
keeping with this provision the council undertook to require 
that any dues or payments which might formerly have been 
payable to the seigniors should now be collected by the royal 
officials. Thus, on November 8, it ordained that certain inhabit- 
ants of the seigniory of C6te de Lauzon should pay sums due 
from them for fishing rights, not to the seignior, but to the royal 
greffier at Quebec* The action of the council left no room for 
doubt that it was the intention of the king to compel all those 
who obtained seigniorial grants in the colony to justify their 
titles by active work in improving their holdings. 
"^The new royal government had been little more than a year 
in operation when the colony was once more handed over to the 
care of a commercial company. This new organization, known 
as the Company of the West Indies, was formed under the 
auspices of Colbert, just as the Company of One Hundred 
Associates had been organized under the distinguished patron- 
age of Cardinal- Richelieu. The Company of the West Indies 
was modelled in general upon the lines of the flourishing Dutch 
commercial companies of the time, and was designed by Colbert 
to assist materially in the work of gaining for France a share in 
the growing commerce which Europe was developing in both 
the East and the West.* 

^ The syndic was a local official whose duty it was to note infractions of the laws- 
and to report such to the higher authorities. The office of syndic, although com- 
monly regarded as having been established by the edict of April, 1663, was in exist- 
ence at Quebec (see Journal des JhuiUs^ 185), Montreal (see Faillon, Histoirede 
la Colonie Franfaise, ii. 547) , and Three Rivers (see Suite, Chronique Trifluviennty 
216) several years before that date. The post soon passed out of existence in the 
colony. See Garneau, /^tf/^tr^ du Canada^ i. 179. 

* Edits et Ordonnanees^ ii. 18-19. • Ibid, 21. 

* Cf. Sargent, The Economic Policy of Colbert (London School of Economics, 
Studies in Economics and Political Science^ No. 5), 80-81 ; also Pigeonneau, La 
Politique ColoniaUde Colbert^ in Annales dePEcoU Libre des Sciences Politiques^ 1886. 



EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 3 1 

By an edict dated May, 1664,^ the new company was placed 
in possession of '' Canada, Acadia, Newfoundland, and the other 
islands and continents from the north of Canada to Virginia and 
Florida," together with such other portions of the New World 
as might be secured by conquest or otherwise.'/ It was also 
^ invested with very wide powers and very extensive privileges, 
including a monopoly of trade, the entire profits of mines, forests, "^^ 
and fisheries, the power to appoint " such governors as may be 
deemed requisite," to whom His Majesty would grant commis- 
• sions,' and the right " to appoint judges and officers of justice 
wherever need be and to displace and dismiss them whenever 
found necessary,"* together with many other equally important 
rights. The edict also provided : " The said company, as seign- 
iors of the said lands and islands, shall enjoy the seigniorial rights 
which are at present established therein upon the inhabitants 
of the same, as such rights are now levied by the seigniors in 
' possession, unless the said company shall deem it praper to 
commute such rights for the relief of the said inhabitants;"* 
and it granted authority ** to sell or dispose of the said lands by 
way of enfeoffment . . . upon payment of such cens et rentes^ 
and other seigniorial rights as may be deemed proper, and to 
such persons as the company may see fit."* It provided, 
however, that the Coutume de Paris should be the law of the 
colony, "without its being lawful to introduce any other cou- 
• turner'^ The king reserved to himself in the grant "neither 
rights nor duties except those of fealty and homage, which the 
con^pany shall be bound to render at each mutation of the 
crown," together with the customary nominal tribute of thirty 
marks.® 

Although by the terms of its grant the company had power 
to name governors and other administrative officers, it does not ^ 

1 The exact date of the edict is not given in the document, which is printed in 
Edits et OrdcnnanceSy i. 40-^48. 
'. * ^ To the Company of the West Indies were also granted Louisiana, the French 
West Indies, the J>'rench territories in South America, and the whole of the African 
coast frop Cape Verde to the Cape of Good Hope. 

■ Article xxvi. * Article xxxi. 

* Article xxii. • Article xxiiL 

' Article xxxiii. ® Article xx. 



•vERSITY 




32 EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

appear to have exercised this right ;^ at any rate, none of the 
commissions of colonial officials mention any nomination as 
having been made to the king by the company. In truth, as a 
recent writer has remarked, the political situation in Canada at 
this moment was singular enough. " As a matter of law, the 
Company of the West Indies possessed the property, the seign- 
iory, and the government of the country; but as a matter of 
fact the king exercised all administrative rights, recovering with 
one hand what he granted with the other. At law, moreover, 
the company possessed the power to establish tribunals and to 
make them effective; but in fact the king invested the gov- 
ernor, intendant, and the members of the Sovereign Council with 
supreme powers. At law, furthermore, the power of granting 
lands pertained to the company ; in reality it was the governor 
or the intendant, officers of the king, who made the grants. 
This strange dualism, which lasted from 1664 to 1674, is vex- 
ingly disconcerting to any one who, without sufficient initiation, 
undertakes the study of this epoch." * 

It is true that the company proceeded promptly to send out an 
agent to the colony in the person of M. le Barroys, enjoining him, 
among other duties, to concede " to private individuals the lands 
of the colony at such rents as may be deemed proper," and to 
see that " the company is paid the seigniorial dues which are 
now or may hereafter be payable by the inhabitants";* but 
neither the company nor its agent-general seems to have made 
any energetic movement in the direction of developing the agri- 
cultural resources of the colony. Both entered heartily into the 

1 Charlevoix (^Histoire de la Nouvelle France, i. 379-380) says that, **as the new 
company had not yet sufficient knowledge of the persons best fitted to fill the posi- 
tions, the directors prayed the king to make the appointments until such time as 
they were in a position to make use of the privilege," and that, in consequence, 
" His Majesty was pleased to appoint M. de Mesy governor and M. Robert intendant 
of New France " ; but this explanation seems scarcely probable in view of th^ fact 
that M^s/s commission bears date May I, 1663 {Edits et Ordonnauces, iii. 21), and 
that Robert is mentioned as holding the post of intendant in March, 1663 (Jbid, i. 
33) » whereas the charter of the company was not granted till May, 1664. 

' Chapais, Jean Talon, 49. 

* Edits et Ordonnancesy iii. 36-37. The commission of M. le Barroys js dated 
April 8, 1665, and was enregistered at Quebec on September 23 following i/ugt- 
ptents et Deliberations du Conseil Souverain de la Nouvelle- France, i. 364-366). 



EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 33 

work of exploiting the fur trade, but neither seemed to think 
that either advantage or profit was to be had from encouraging 
settlers to take up lands and devote their energies to the 
cultivation of them. The apathy of the company in this direc- 
tion was so marked that it speedily arrested the attention of 
Jean Talon when he was appointed intendant of New France in 
March, 1665. Before this vigorous official had been more than 
a few months in the country, he penned to the minister a 
plain-spoken warning that the company would never do much 
toward the permanent upbuilding of the colony. " If His Maj- 
esty wishes to make anything of Canada," wrote Talon, "he 
will never succeed unless he withdraws it from the hands of the 
company and grants a liberty of commerce to the inhabitants to 
the exclusion of strangers. If, on the contrary. His Majesty 
looks on the colony only as a seat of commerce suitable for the 
fur trade . . . the profit which will result therefrom is not worth 
his attention and deserves very little of yours ... for the com- 
pany alone will profit much to the impoverishment of the 
country."^ As subsequent developments amply proved, the 
warning was a timely one ; but it went for the moment un- 
heeded. 

For some years previous to 1665 the incursions of the Iro- 
quois had been scourging the population of the colony to such 
desperation that, in response to repeated requests, the king, in 
the spring of that year, sent out to Quebec a detachment of 
regular troops, comprising several companies of the Carignan- 
Salifcres regiment.^ With these troops came M. Prouville de 
Tracy, who, under the title of lieutenant-general of New France, 
was to have charge of the military operations, and who was 
also to note carefully the condition of civil affairs in the colony 
and to report to the king his opinions on the subject.^ 

On Tracy's arrival in the colony, his attention was called to 
the apathy of the company's agent in fostering settlement ; and 
it was probably in anticipation of his unfavorable report to the 

1 Talon to Colbert, October 4, 1665, Correspondance GeneraU, ii. 248. 
^ For the previous history of this regiment, see Susane, Histoire de VAncienne 
Infanierie Fran^aise (8 vols., Paris, 1849-1853), v. 236 ff. Cf. also below, pp. 36, 70. 
' See Tracy's commission, November 19, 1663, Edits et Ordonnancesy lit 27-31. 



34 EARLY SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

king on the subject that M. le Barroys hastened to lay before 
him ,a proposal that " for the future all grants of land be made 
by the intendant at such rates as may be deemed proper, such 
grants to be made in the presence of the agent-general of the 
company, and all titles to be granted in the name of the com- 
pany."^ The proposal was readily accepted by Tracy, Cour- 
celle, and Talon. " Nothing," they wrote on the margin of the 
document, " appears more in conformity with the wishes of His 
Majesty ; hence it seems very proper to grant the request con- 
tained in this article." From this time on, therefore, seign- 
iorial grants were made directly by the officers of the crown in 
the colony,^ 

1 ** RequSte de M. le Barroys \ Monseigneur de Tracy concernant les Droits de U 
Compagnie/' Edits et OrdonnanceSt i. 51-60, § xxvi. 

' In some few cases during the years 1 673-1 674, however, seigniorial title-deeds 
were i»aed by officers of the company. See Titres dts SeigmuruSf 39, 40^ 1 12, 



CHAPTER III.. 

LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 
1666-1760. 

It was in the autumn of 1666 that the Company of the West 
Indies relinquished its right of making land grants in the col- 
ony, and cast the responsibility of attending to this incident of 
colonization upon the royal representatives. Upon the inten- 
dant particularly now fell the task of seeing that seigniorial 
holdings were prQ|vided for those settlers who seemed to be 
entitled to them. yTalon appears to have had liberal views on 
this point ; for, in a statement of the projects which he had in 
mind for the development of the colony, he declares in favor of 
the granting of seigniories ** to all private individuals who may 
choose to incur the expense of and give attention to their de- 
velopment" ^ In spite of this declaration, however, it appears 
that up to the late autumn of 1668, when the intendant returned 
to France for a two years' stay, he had made only two further 
seigniorial grants, — that of the seigniory of St. Maurice to one 
Maurice Poulin, Sieur de la Fontaine, on January 10, 1668, and 
that of the seigniory of St Michel to the Sieur de Tilly on 
June 20 of the same year.* 

Shortly after the departure of Talon for France, Governor 
Courcelle made an informal grant of a seigniory near Three 
Rivers to the Sieur Jean Le Moyne, in order that he might 
"work thereon immediately," promising that a formal title 
should be conveyed to him later.* This title was duly forth- 

^ " Projets de Riglemens qui semblent ^re utfles en Canada, proposes k Mes- 
sieurs de Tracy et de Courcelle par M. Talon, January 24, 1667," En&ls et OrdoH" 
nances, iL 29-34. 

^ The titles of these two grants are not printed in Tiires des Seigneuries, but 
mention is made of them in the title-deeds of subsequent grants. Cf. Ibid. 154. 

' Tiires des Seigneuries, 300 (January 3, 1669). This was the seigniory, of Ste. 
Marie pr^ Batiscan. The grantee, an ancestor of Sir James Macpherson Le 
Moine, should not be confused with the Lemoynes of Longueuil. 

35 



36 LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

coming in 1672, after Talon had returned from France. 
During the next few years many seigniorial grants were made, 
for the most part to officers of the Carignan-Salieres regiment, 
who had decided to become permanent settlers in the colony.^ 
At the urgent request of Talon, the king had agreed that this 
regiment, which had finished its work of crushing the power of 
the Mohawks, should be disbanded in New France, and that 
lands should be given to the officers and men, many of whom 
availed themselves of the very liberal inducements held out by 
the authorities.* 

In 1672 the king again turned his attention to those seigniors 
who had been slothful in the work of clearing and settling their 
seigniories, and by a royal edict commanded the intendant to 
prepare " a precise and accurate declaration as to the nature of 
the lands granted to the leading inhabitants of the country, the 
number of arpents contained in them, and the number of persons 
and horses employed in the cultivation and clearing of the 
grants." He further instructed the intendant that, on the basis 
of this statement, one-half of all the lands granted prior to the 
last ten years were to be reunited to the royal domain and re- 
granted to persons who would undertake to clear and cultivate 
them; for it was his opinion, as stated in the preamble of the 
edict, that the development of the colony was being seriously 
retarded by the possession, in the hands of private individuals, 
of vast tracts of land which they were not able to utilize profit- 
ably, and the undeveloped condition of which was a source of 
inconvenience to the other inhabitants of the colony.* Accom- 
panying this edict was a royal order instructing the intendant 
that, in reg^nting the escheated lands, he insert in the title- 
deeds a provision requiring the grantees to have the grants 
entirely cleared and under cultivation within the space of four 
years, on pain of having their titles revoked.* 

While the statement asked for by the king was being prepared, 
and pending further royal action upon it, the execution of that 

1 TUres des Seigneuries, 301 (November 3, 1672). * Sec below, pp. 67-70. 
' " Arr^t du Conseil d'Etat da Roi pour retrancher la moitie des Concessions," 
June 14, 1672, Edits et Ordonnances, i, 70-71. 

* " Mandement et Ordre du Roi sur I'arr^t ci-dessus," June 14, 1672, Ibid, 71-72. 



LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 37 

part of the edict which provided for the forfeiture of one-half 
the earlier grants was postponed. The issue of the edict had, 
however, one important result ; for most of the seigniors, from 
this time forward, provided in the title-deeds of all subgrants 
made by them within their seigniories that, unless the recipients 
of such grants should clear their allotments, the land should re- 
vert to the seignior. 

It was at this stage in the development of affairs that the 
king, in December, 1674, summarily revoked the charter of the 
Company of the West Indies and extended freedom of trade to 
all his subjects in New France, expressly stipulating, however, 
in the decree of revocation, that all land grants made in the 
colony by the company or its agents should be deemed valid 
and confirmed.^ Like its predecessor the Company of One 
Hundred Associates, the Company of the West Indies had 
proved a failure both as a colonizer and as a mere exploiter of 
colonial trade. In the ten years during which it had controlled 
the French trade of the western hemisphere it had proved a 
hindrance rather than a help to colonial progress; and, as it 
had itself lost a large sum of money, estimated at over three 
and a half millions of livres,^ its demission was now regarded 
as a boon to all concerned. 

\Since 1666 grants of seigniories had been made by the inten- 
dant, except on a few occasions when they were made by the 
governor ; and even in these cases they were later ratified by 
the intendant In 1676, however, a royal order directed that 
for the future all land grants in the colony should be made by 
the governor and intendant jointly {conjointefnent\ provided 
always that such action should invariably be submitted to the 
king for his approval, and that, if this approval were not forth- 
coming within the space of a year, the grant should be declared 
null and void. The officials were inst^cted to take .care that 
all seigniorial grants were contiguous.^ 

Meanwhile His Majesty had examined the statement drawn 
up at his request by Talon in 1672, and had found, from an 

^ "Edit da Roi portant Revocation de la Compagnie des Indes-Occidentales," etc^ 
Edits et Ordonnances, i. 74 ff . 

* R. S. Weir, Administraiion of (he Old Regime in Canada (1897), 41* 

* EeHis et Ordonnanees, L 89. 



38 LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRAATS. 

examination of it, that the progress made by the seigniors in 
getting their seigniories cleared and settled was very far from 
satisfactory. At the same time he probably felt that to declare 
the forfeiture of all, or of any very considerable part, of the un- 
cleared and unsettled lands would be a hardship to many seign- 
iors who had received grants of too great extent, but who had 
nevertheless accomplished a g^eat deal in the face of difficulties. 
After some delay he decided, therefore, that a gradual retrench- 
ment of uncleared grants should be made year by year, — a 
system by which those seigpMors who were the least active would 
be the chief sufferers, — and accordingly issued the following 
order: "Beginning with the year 1680, there shall be taken 
away from the holder every year a twentieth part of every land 
grant which shall be found to be uncleared, to be distributed 
among His Majesty's subjects inhabiting the country or to those 
who will go thither to reside." ^ 

This royal order was duly received at Quebec, and enregis- 
tered on the last day of October, 1679, but apparently no steps 
were taken to carry it into effect; certainly no systematic 
retrenchment of one-twentieth of the uncleared lands of seign- 
iories was made. Shortly after the receipt of the order the 
intendant, Duchesneau, despatched a lengthy communication to 
the minister, in the course of which he discussed the existing 
system of granting lands and made a number of proposals for 
the future,* — a device, it may be, for deferring the enforcement 
of the royal order. As the members of the council were them- 
selves seigniors, and as some of them had not been any too 
energetic in developing their grants, it is very probable that 
there was some understanding between them and the intendant 
to delay the execution of the unwelcome order as long as pos- 
sible. At any rate, it is true that on more than one occasion 
the explicit orders of the king were left unenforced in the colony 
when their execution would have been beneficial to all but the 
seigniors.* 

1 '* Retranchement des Concessions de trop grande Etendue, et Ordre d'en dis- 
poser," May 9, 1679, Edits et Ordonnances, L 233. 

^ Duchesneau to Minister, October i, 1679, Correspondance Generale^ ▼. 30-36. 
* See below, p. 106. 



LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS, 39 

In spite of the royal opinion, as expressed in the order, n^. - 
'that too many seigniorial grants had been made and that the 
grants were too generous in extent, there seems to have been 
no marked decrease in the number of seigniories granted year 
by year from this time on, aiid no diminution in the area of the 
grants made to individuals.^ The title-deeds were drawn up and 
signed by the governor and intendant jointly, and were then 
sent to the king for his ratification, which was extended freely, 
a number of titles usually being ratified in a single royal 
decree.^ Occasionally the king, in making the ratification, took 
occasion to insert some new condition, particularly a clause 
providing that the grants should be cleared within a certain 
time; but for the most part he ratified the title-deeds just as 
they were. 

It was understood that the seigniors, in making subgrants,!^ 
should give the habitants written titles,^ stating clearly the 
boundaries of the grants and the conditions incumbent upon the 
grantees ; but this practice was apparently very often omitted, lot 
the habitants frequently took lands in seigniories without first 
receiving formal written deeds. ^ In 1707 the intendant, Raudot, 
called the attention of the minister to abuses which had arisen 
in this connection. "Many habitants," he asserts, "have 
worked to a considerable extent on their lands merely on the ( 
word of the seigniors ; others on simple tickets which do not 
yexpress precisely the terms upon which the grants are made. 
Hence a great abuse has arisen, which is that the habitants who v 
have worked without safe titles have been subjected to very I 
heavy rents and dues, the seigniors refusing to grant them deeds 
except on these conditions, which they are obliged to accept 
because otherwise they would lose their labor. As a conse- 
quence of this, the dues are differen t in almost every seignioryi-.^ 
some pay in one way and some in another, according to the dif- 
ferent characters of the seigniors by whom the grants are made." 

1 See Edits et Ordonnances, i. 262. 

* The dependents of the leigniors in New France were not, as at home, known 
as ** censitaires " ; they were in their own language « habitants," a term which 
they seem to have preferred because it did not necessarily involve the idea of 
dependence. 



Q 



40 LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

He proposes that, in order to remedy this condition of affairs, 
the king shall " give a declaration reforming, and even regulat- 
ing for the future, all the rights and dues which the seigniors 
have given and shall in futiu'e g^ve to themselves," and, further, 
that he shall validate all titles of lands which have been in the 
possession of holders for five years and over. " It is only thus," 
he declares, " that you can establish peace and quietness in this 
country which, without this precaution, will always be unhappy 
and unable to increase its inhabitants ; for men cannot attend 
to the cultivation of their lands when they are daily compelled 
to leave them in order to defend themselves against unjust law- 
suits." R audot poJHts-Qut that thej iabitantsj^re. entirely ignorant 
of their rights, and that " they are afraid of the mildest threats 
on this subject from others as ignorant as themselves." The 
worthy intendant deplores the spirit of " cunning and chicane '* 
which had begun to show itself in the colony,^ and which 
was moving t^<=" <^fi£[pi^rs_tM?^ke advant^^ge f?f leg?\l techpicali- 
ties in their relations with the_ habitants. " The notaries, bailiffs, 
and even judges having been all of them ignorant persons . . .," 
he continues, "there is no property the possessor of which 
might not be troubled, no partition that might not be unsettled, 
no widow who might not be attacked as having possessed in 
common with her husband, and no guardians against whom a 
suit might not be brought for the accounts which they have 
rendered of their guardianship. It is not that all may not have 
often acted in good faith, but ignorance and the want of rules 
have produced these disorders. If those who might avail them- 
selves of this spirit were allowed to bring lawsuits, there would 
soon be more suits in this country than there are persons." * 

The minister gave due consideration to the representations of 
the intendant, and on June 13, 1708, replied that he had ''been 
very much pained to hear of the irregularity " with which every- 

^ '' L'esprit d'affaires qui a toujours, comme vous layez, beaucoup plus de subtilit^ 
et de chicane, qu'il n*a de v6rit6 et de droiture, a commence \ s'introduire id depuis 
quelque temps et augmente tous les jours par ses deux mauvais endroits. Si Ton 
pouvait les retrancher, cet« esprit pourrait 8tre bon pour ravenir ; quoique la sim- 
plicity dans laquelle on 7 vivait autrefois flit encore meilleure." 

^ Raudot to Pontchartrain, November 10, 1707, Correspondanct GkntraU^ xxvi 
9-ia 



LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 41 

thing had been done hitherto, but expressed the opinion that a 
royal declaration covering the matter and providing the remedies 
suggested by Raudot could not be made ready till the following 
year.^ In the meantime he desired the intendant to make a 
more thorough investigation of the whole matter, and to send 
a memorandum of the exact provisions which he might think it 
well to have incorporated in the decree. About a month later, 
Pontchartrain communicated with Messrs. Deshaguais and 
Daguesseau, two eminent lawyers of Paris, enclosing to them 
Raudot's despatch and requesting them to draft for the royal 
signature a decree such as the intendant desired.^ 

The intendant, meanwhile, did as he was bidden. He made 
further inquiries ; and in the following October, when the ships 
sailed for France, he sent the minister another lengthy despatch, 
in which the condition of affairs was explained minutely. " Some 
of the habitants," he writes, "never had any title-deeds and have 
had nothing to show in support of their claims to their holding ; " 
they had taken the lands on the oral assignment of the seign- 
iors {sur la parole des seigneurs). Others had brief memoranda 
(Jes simples billets) which proved the allotment of lands, but 
gave no indication whatever as to the terms upon which the 
grants had been made. Many had lost even these memoranda, 
and not a few who had received formal title-deeds had either 
lost or mislaid them. To make matters worse, many of the 
habitants had been forced to abandon their lands temporarily in 
consequence of the Iroquois wars, and hence could not show 
even continuous possession.' Raudot made a list of sugges- 
tions which, had they been adopted, would have most ma- 
terially altered the whole structure of Canadian feudalism; 
but when his despatch reached Paris, it was found that Messrs. 

^ As the last ships that would go to Quebec in 1708 were to leave France before 
the middle of July, it seemed impossible to prepare the decree in time. 

* Pontchartrain to Deshaguais and Daguesseau, July 10, 1708. These letters are 
printed in Correspondence between the French Government and the Governors and 
Intendants of Canada relative to the Seigniorial Tenure (Quebec, 1853), lo-ii. 
The latter of these two lawyers was probably Henri-Francois d'Aguesseau, or 
Daguesseau, who afterward became chancellor of France (cf. Boullee, Histoire de 
la Vie et des Ouvrages du Chancelier d*Aguesseau, Paris, 1835). 

* Raudot to Pontchartrain, October 18, 1708, Correspondance Generate^ xxviii. 
"75-»«7. 



42 LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

Deshaguais and' Daguesseau had not yet drawn up the decree 
based upon the desires of the intendant as expressed m his first 
communication. In fact it was not until 171 7 that the draft 
was ready for the signatures of the king and the ministers.^ 
These signatures, however, the decree appears never to have re- 
ceived. It is not unlikely, in view of the fact that Raudot*s 
plan proposed to sweep away several of the most important 
seigniorial rights, including the right of exacting corvee, that its 
recommendations seemed too radical to Louis XIV. At all 
events, they were set aside ; and, without waiting for the draft 
decree, the king proceeded to correct the evils in his own time 
and way. 

After a careful consideration of the measures necessaiy^ His 
Majesty issued, on July 8, 171 1, two of the most important 
enactments in the whole history of the colonial land-tenure sys- 
tem, the Arrets of Marly.* The ^t of these decrees relates to 
the seigniors, and more especially to the obligation of seigniors 
to subgrant their lands. The crux of the whole difficulty ap- 
peared to be, in the opinion of the king, that the seigniors had 
not been forced to have their seigniories settled within a reason- 
able time. His Majesty seems to have believed that, if every 
seignior were compelled to get settlers for his lands, he would 
not be likely to resort to legal technicalities in order to impose 
additional burdens on his habitants, but rather would vie with 
the other seigniors in offering favorable terms to settlers. The 
first of the two arrets, therefore, provided in general that gt the 
expiration of a year, all seigniors who should have shown con- 
spicuous failure ifi developing and settling their seigniories 
should be deprived of their grants. Furthermore, it declared 
that the practice of exacting anything more than the customary 
dues and services from those who applied for lands within the 
seigniories was " entirely contrary to His Majesty's intentions." 
To prevent the continuance of the practice, it decreed : " All 
seigniors in the country of New France shall grant to the set- 

1 For a copy of this decree, see Correspondence between the French Government 
and the Governors and Intendants of Canada relative to the Seigniorial Tenure, 
17-18. 

3 Edits et Ordonnances, i. 324-326. These arrets took the name of the place at 
which the royal signature was appended. 



LATER SElGmORIAL GRANTS, 43 

tiers whatever lots of land the latter may demand of them, at a 
ground rent' (4 titre de redevance\ without exactmg from them 
any bonus as the price of such grants ; otherwise, and in the 
event of their refusing to do so, the said settlers are permitted to 
make formal demand on the seigniors for such lands, and, in the 
case of a further refusal on the part of the seignior, they shall 
have power to make application to the governor and intendant of 
the said country, whom His Majesty hereby empowers and or- 
ders to make the grants applied for in the said seigniories on 
the same terms as those imposed upon the other inhabitants in 
the said seigniories. In such cases the seigniorial dues shall be 
paid by the new habitants into the hands of the receiver of the 
royal domain ^t Quebec, and the seigniors shall have no right to 
claim anything whatever from them." 

The second arrfit relates to the habitants. After reciting the 
usual tale of royal disappointment at the fact that many sub- 
grants within the seigniories " remained uncultivated and even 
unoccupied," a condition which "is decidedly detrimental both 
to the development of the colony and to the interest of the other 
habitants of the seigniories," this arrfet ordained that all those 
who did not cultivate and inhabit {tenirfeu etlieu) their holdings 
within the space of one year should, on the certificate of the 
cur6 and the captain of the militia ^ to this effect, forfeit their 
lands to the seigniorial domain ; such forfeiture to be made 
effective by order of the governor and intendant 

These two arrets, as will be seen later, had very important ,^ 
effects. They formed alike a means of protection for the habit- 
ants against extortion on the part of the seignior, and a guar- 
antee to the seignior against the acquisition of his lands for 
speculative purposes.) At one stroke they took away any pro- 
prietary right which the seignior might have assumed to possess 
in his ung^anted lands, and placed him, as regards them, 
in the position of a mere trustee for the crown.^ From 171 1 

1 The capiiaine de la milice was a local military and executive officer appointed 
in each parish by the colonial authorities. His duties were to prepare and keep the 
muster-roll of the parish, to promulgate and see to the enforcement of decrees issued 
by the intendant or the council, and, generally, to perf9lm such administrative duties 
sui might be from time to time laid upon him by the authorities at Quebec. 

' Cf. Doutre and Lareau, Nistoire GhuraU du Droit CvvU Canadien, 244. 



44 LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

onward, if a habitant paid a bonus to the seignior for a grant of 
uncleared lands, or paid higher dues than were customary in the 
neighborhood, it was not because the crown intended that he 
should do so. 

The machinery provided for the enforcement of the arrets of 
171 1 was in some degree effective. Very frequently settlers 
sought and received grants from the officials after seigniors had 
refused them lands on reasonable terms; but in many other 
cases incoming settlers seem to have been unaware of the real 
situation and to have paid what seigniors unreasonably asked, 
being mulcted as the price of their ignorance.^ The seigniors, 
moreover, used the new provisions to get back a good deal of 
land which had been left uncleared by the grantees. In 1731 
the governor and intendant reported that they had decreed the 
reannexation to various seigniorial domains of over two hundred 
gfrants, "by reason of the grantees having failed to reside 
thereon."^ As regards the forfeiture of seigniories which re- 
mained uncleared, however, the arrets seem to have accomplished 
little or nothing.^ 

During the six years following the issue of the Arrfits of 
Marly only five grants of seigniories were made,* and during 

1 See below, p. 48. 

* Beauharnois and Hocquart to Maurepas, October 3, 1731, Correspondence 
GeneraUf liv. 39. 

> I have found only one case in which a seignior had his title revoked and hia 
lands reunited to the domain of the crown as a result of the issue of these arrets. 
On March I, 1 7 14, the governor and intendant pronounced the forfeiture of the 
seigniory of Mille Isles, granted to the Sieur Dugue on September 24, 1683. So far 
as I am aware, the ordinance of forfeiture has not been printed; but it is mentioned 
in the regrant of this seigniory to Messieurs de Langloiserie and Petit, a few daya 
after it was taken from its former holder (March 5, 1 714, Tiires des Seigneuries, 59) » 
From this time to 1737 there seems to be no instance of the forfeiture of any 
seigniory under the provisions of the Arrets of Marly. There are, however, a num- 
ber of intendant's ordinances, authorizing seigniors to resume possession of lands 
granted en arriere fief to persons who had failed to comply with the conditions 
imposed in their grants, more particularly with regard to residence (see Edits ef 
OrdonnanceSf ii. 585-589). 

^ These were as follows : Riviere Yamaska to Ramezay, and Belceil to Longue- 
nil, March 24, 1713 {Tiires des Seigneuries, 4$4r-4$$y, Beaumont to Charles Couil* 
lard de Beaumont, April 10, 1713 (/did, 64); Mille Isles to Gaspard Piot, dt/ 
Langloiserie, and Sieur Petit, March 5, 1714 {/M. 59); and Lac des Deux-Mont- 
agues to Messieurs **Le8 Ecclesiastiques du S6minaire de St. Sulpice, ^tablis k Mont- 



LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 45 

the ten next ensuing years (171 7-1 727) there were none at 
alL The reason for this entire absence of seigniorial grants 
during the latter period may perhaps be found in a clause 
of a despatch from the minister to the governor and intendant 
(Vaudreuil and B^gon), dated May 23, 17 19, in which the 
minister, referring to the petition of one " Sieur Desjordy 
Moreau, captain in His Majesty's forces," for the grant of a 
seigniory, declares : " This favor would be very willingly granted 
but for the fact that, since it has become apparent that the great 
number of seigniories is proving prejudicial to the settlement 
of Canada, it has been for some years the policy of the crown 
not to grant any more of them, which policy and decision His 
Majesty communicated to the Sieur Vaudreuil in his despatch 
of June 15, 1716,^ • . . and in consequence of which he does 
not wish to make any grants except en roture'' ^ 

Just what moved the minister to this determination in 17 16 
there is no way of definitely ascertaining, for the despatch in 
which he first communicated his decision to the colonial au- 
thorities is not at hand. It is not unlikely, however, that the 
report of the engineer G^d^on de Catalogue,^ which was trans- 
mitted by the intendant to the French authorities in the autumn 
of 1712, may have had an influence in determining the change 
of policy. This report gave an exhaustive and very compre- 
hensive description of colonial resources and conditions, dealing 
particularly with the progress made upon the various seigniories.* 

Tetl," October 17, 1717 (^Ibid, 337). Of these five, the first does not appear to have 
been taken possession of; the second and third were augmentations of former 
grants; the fourth was a regrant of a forfeited seigniory (see above, p. 44, note 3) ; 
and the last was made to a religious corporation in order to provide a site for an 
Indian mission. 

^ I have been unable to find this despatch ; it is not in the Correspondance 
GeneraU. 

* Minister to Vaudreuil and Begon, May 23, 1719, Correspondance Generate^ xl. 
245. See also Ibid, xli. 11-16. 

* For a sketch of the life of Catalogue, see Tanguay, Etude sur une Famille Cana- 
dienne : Famille de Catalogney in Royal Society of Canada, Proceedings^ 1^84, 
MemoireSy sec, L 7 fF. 

* " M6moire sur les Plans des Seigneuries et Habitations de Quebec, les Trois- 
Rivi^res, et de Montreal, par M. de Catalogue, Ingenieur,'' November 9, 17 12, 
Correspondance Generale, xxxiii. 278 ff. A small portion of this report is printed 
in the appendix to Parkman*s Old Regime in Canada. 



46 LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

As Catalogne visited most of the important seigniories in the 
colony, his report contains a great deal of interesting infor- 
mation regarding the topography of the grants, the extent to 
which the seigniories had been developed, the nature of the 
crops raised, the relations of the seigniors to their habitants, — in 
short, a mass of interesting data concerning the structure and 
incidents of Canadian feudalism in the earlier years of the eigh- 
teenth century which can be had nowhere else. He describes 
ninety-one seigniories in all, of which the majority belonged 
to the religious orders (more particularly to the Jesuits), to 
members of the council, to judges, and to other ofHcials. A 
score or more belonged to discharged officers of the regular 
army, and a number to the widows and sons of officers; 
of the remainder, ten belonged to merchants and traders, two 
to sailors, and only a dozen to those who gave then: occupation 
as laborers. Catalogne remarked that in most of the seign- 
iories a considerable portion of the land was still uncleared, 
and that the habitants were usually unable to cultivate a quarter 
of what they held. 

Catalogne complained that the people were compelled by the 
church to leave their work for the too numerous f 6tes, a circum- 
stance which was very detrimental to the proper cultivation of 
the soil. On account of these f^tes, he declared, not more 
than ninety working days were left to the habitants in the 
whole busy season between the beginning of May and the end 
of September. This, he thought, was one of the reasons why so 
many of them abandoned their lands and went off to the forest, 
preferring to sacrifice a whole harvest for the chance of making 
thirty or forty icus} Catalogne, it may be remarked, was not 
the only one to complain of this practice ; successive governors 
and intendants adverted to the great difficulty experienced in 
persuading the habitants to stay on their farms. The fascina- 
tion of forest life appealed especially to the young men, 
who went oflE to the western wilderness by the score almost, 
every year. 

According to Catalogue's report, the methods of agriculture 

^ The ecu of Louis XIV may be reckoned at slightly more than five francs, or 
somewhat more than a dollar in American currency. 



LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 47 

in the colony were both slovenly and crude. " If the land were 
not better cultivated in France than here," he wrote, " three- 
quarters of the people would starve." He found, moreover, 
that the habitants were uneconomical and improvident, taking 
little thought for the morrow ; even the very poorest of them, 
he said, kept one or more horses, which did little but eat their 
heads off for seven or eight months of the year. In his opinion 
the people would do much better to raise beef cattle, which 
could be made a source of profit. As for the seigniors, they 
appeared to him to be lacking in energy as well as in capital. 
Many of them seemed poorer than their dependents, and, being 
often men of low extraction, were frequently unable to command 
the respect of their habitants. 

Taken all in all, the report of M. de Catalogue was not such 
as to convince the king or the minister that the seigniorial 
system was making very encouraging headway in the colony. 
As the old king was, however, about to close his long reign, the 
recommendations contained in the report appear not to have 
been acted upon at that time; but two years later, when the 
death of Louis XIV, in 171 5, resulted in the establishment of a 
regency, the decision to cease making further seigniorial grants, 
at least for the time being, seems to have been one of the early 
acts of the new government 

After the lapse of a decade, grants of seigniories began to be 
made once more, the first one to the Ursulines of Three Rivers 
on April 18, 1727.* This seems to have been an isolated 
grant made for a special reason,^ and it does not appear that 
anymore were made until 1731; but from that time on they 
became quite numerous. With the resumption of the grants, 
however, came a renewal of complaints regarding the existence 
of seigniorial abuses. Apparently the provisions of the -^rrfits of 
Marly were being evaded by many of the seigniors. ' If one 
may trust a report made to the minister by Messrs. Beauhar- 

1 Dunkin, Address at the Bar of the Legislative Assembly of Canada^ Appendix, 
No. 376. I have not been able to find a copy of this title-deed; the original was 
destroyed by fire at Three Rivers in 1806. 

* The Ursulines of Three Rivers had acquired by purchase and otherwise several 
small parcels of land. The grant of 1 727 consolidated these into a single fief, adding 
thereto a considerable tract from the ungranted domain. 



48 LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

nois and Hocquart in 1730, the seigniors found several ways of 
circumventing the provisions of the first of the two arrets of 
171 1, which prohibited them from exacting any entrance fee 
from those taking up uncleared lands within the seigniories, 
and ordered them to make g^nts, at the usual terms, to all 
settlers who applied for them. In this report complaint is 
made that some seigniors " reserve considerable aomains within 
their seigniories, and, under the pretext that these lands form 
part of their own demesne, have refused to grant any part 
of this reservation, claiming that they have a right to hold 
it for sale." It is also shown that those who hold lands en 
arriire fief coxitmyiQ to exact ^prixcCentrie^ on the ground that 
the arrdt applies only to the dominant seigniors and not to 
sub-seigniors ; that many seigniors who " appeared to concede 
their lands gratis have taken means to secure payment rfor 
such lands (without mentioning the fact oh the face of the 
deed), by obtaining separate obligations from the grantees for 
sums pretended to be due the seigniors for other considerations;'* 
and, again, that some seigniors exact an entry fee under color of 
some inconsiderable clearing without cultivation, or under pretence 
that natural prairie land is to be found upon the grant The 
governor and intendant refer to the fact that most of the 
habitants are ignorant of the provisions of the first arr^t of 171 1 ; 
and they call attention to the existence of considerable land 
speculation, ''which is injurious to the colony and tends to 
foster indolence among the habitants without furthering the 
settlement or cultivation of the lands." Naturally enough, as 
they point out, " the seigniors are doing nothing to discourage 
this speculation, for a mutation fine {lods et ventes) accrues to 
them whenever the lands change hands ; in most cases, therefore, 
they do not seek to reunite unoccupied lands to their domain 
(as they have been empowered to do by the second arrfit of 
171 1), preferring to have such lands made the basis of specula- 
tive sales as often as possible." Accordingly the governor and 
intendant pray the minister to secure the issue of another decree 
prohibiting the sale of wild lands on any pretext whatever.^ 

^ Beauharnois and Hocquart to Maurepas, October 10, 1730, Correspondana 
Generale, liv. io6 ft 



1^ 

\ 



LATER SEIGmORIAL GRANTS. 49 

In due time the minister, Maurepas, replied that he had taken 
the matter before the king, who had ** learned with pain of the 
inexecution of the arrfits of 171 1." ^ The nonchalant manner in 
which both Louis XIV and his successor heard again and again 
that their decrees were either unexecuted or evaded in New 
France is worthy of remark. Instead of recalling those officials 
who had been responsible for the outcome, they merely ordered 
that the decree in question be republished, or they issued a new de- 
cree along the old Unes, Consequently, the minister now informed 
the colonial officials that His Majesty stood prepared either to 
order the republication of the Arrets of Marly, or to issue a 
new and more stringent decree, as the governor and intendant 
might think best The latter replied that the republication 
would probably effect the desired end for the time being, but 
that a census {terrier) of the colony was then being taken, an 
examination of which, when completed, would best indicate 
what further action would be necessary. They complained, 
however, that the religious orders were delaying the completion 
of this enumeration through their failure to respond to requests 
made to them for information regarding the extensive territo- 
ries which they held. In the following year a royal decree 
issued from Versailles reiterated the provisions of the Arrfits 
of Marly, and ordered that these be forthwith *' enforced accord- 
ing to their form and tenor." ^ 

As the census was not completed for two years after the issue 
of this decree, the colonial officials meantime delayed proceeding 
to the forfeiture of uncleared seigniories. Even after the census 
had been fully taken in 1734,^ they continued to put off action; 
and it was not until the spring of 1741 that the governor and in- 

^Manrepas to Beanhamois and Hocquart, April 24, 1731. This document is 
calendared in the Report on Canadian Archives for 1904, p. 143. It has not yet 
been transcribed for the Ccrrespondance Genirale. 

' Edits et Ordonnancesy i. 531 (March 15, 1732). 

* This census was, it is belieyed, the most exact that had been taken up to this 
time. The total population of the colony is given as 37,716. The amount of cleared 
lands is placed at i8o,S68 arpents, of which 163,111 were under cultivation. Since 
1 721, when the last previous census had been taken, the area of cleared lands had 
more than doubled. A manuscript copy of the census is in the archives of the 
Quebec Historical Society ; a summary of it is printed in Censuses of Canada^ 
1665-1871, p. 57. 5 



50 LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 

tendant finally bestirred themselves to the work of enforcing the 
royal orders in the case of tardy seigniors. On May lo of that 
year they issued a joint judgment forfeiting to the crown do- 
main some twenty seigniories, the owners of which were deemed 
not to have showed sufficient energy in clearing and settling thek 
lands.^ The stroke was a drastic one, for no compensation what- 
ever was given to the seigniors ; but it ought to be mentioned that 
some of the forfeited lands were later restored to their former 
owners by grants de novo^ However, the issue of the ordi- 
nance had a very wholesome efiFect on the remaining seigniors 
of the colony, who from this time forward seem to have given 
more attention to the development of their seigniories. 

The procedure to be followed by the governor and intendant 
in making grants of seigniories and in arranging for their for- 
feiture had never been clearly defined until the summer of 1743, 
when it was set forth in detail by a royal arrfit. According to 
the terms of this arrfit, either the governor or the intendant might 
make grants in the absence of the other from the colony. When 
the two officials difiFered as to the advisability of granting a seign- 
iory to an applicant, they were to leave the matter in abeyance un- 
til the king's wishes could be known; but when they differed as 
to the advisability of decreeing the forfeiture of a seigniory, they 
were to call in the oldest available member of the Superior 
Council. Any seignior who felt that his seigniory had been 
wrongfully taken from him was, by the terms of the arrfit, to 
have the right of appeal to the king.^ 

During the remaining seventeen years of the French regime in 
Canada (1743- 1760) many grants were made; but none of them 
contained any peculiar features, and the system itself seems 
to have developed nothing that was new. This was a period 
of military storm and stress in New France, and all the en- 
ergies of the population were directed toward the attain- 
ment of success in the great struggle. Seigniories were often 
deserted, for almost the whole adult male population was 

} Edits et Ordonnances^ ii. 555-561. 

' For example, the Sieur Foucault received back his forfeited seigniory on May i, 
1743 ( Titres des Seigneuries, 204). 
« Edits et Ordonnances^ L 57*-574. 



LATER SEIGNIORIAL GRANTS. 51 

concentrated at Quebec, Montreal, and the other strategic points. 
Whenever possible, the habitants were allowed to go back to 
their farms for short periods during seed-time and harvest; but 
the enforced absence of the cultivators of the land was severely 
felt, and when the colony passed into British hands the whole 
agricultural area showed very plainly the disastrous results of 
neglect 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

In general it was the policy of the crown to grant out lands 
in the colony en seigneurie only, and of those who received 
grants en seigneurie to subgrant their lands to be held en 
censive. It will be found, however, that, although this was the 
ordinary procedure, there were some deviations from it; for, 
strictly speaking, there were no less than six distinct forms of 
^ tenure in existence, although four of them were clearly excep- 
tional. These six forms may be enumerated as follows : {i) en 
franc aleu noble, (2) en franc aleu roturier, (3) en franche aumdne^ 
or frankalmoign, (4) en fief or en seigneurie, (5) ^« arribre 
fief (6) en censive, or en roture. /While it is true that there 
were but very few examples Of each of the first three forms 
of tenure, and while the fifth was not nearly so general as the 
fourth and the sixth, some consideration must be given to even 
the exceptional forms. 

I. Grants en franc aleu noble were not really feudal, but 
rather allodial, grants ; they were held without other condition 
than that the grantee should render fealty and homage.^ When 
made to individuals, they conferred upon the holders rank in the 
noblesse ; but no grants to private individuals were ever made 
in the colony^^ttfiider this tenure. ) In fact, only two grants en 
franc aleu noble were made throughout the French regime, and 
both to the Jesuit order, — one of a small strip of land at 
Three Rivers in 1634,^ the other of Charlesbourg, near Quebec, 
in 1637.^ The reason gpiven for making the grants in this form 
rather than en seigneurie was that, since the titles of all lands 

* Henrion de Pansey, Dissertations Feodales^ i. 1 1-27. 

* This tract of about six hundred arpents was known as Pachiriny, or Pachirine. 
See Tiires des Seigneuries, 70 ; also below, p. 1 80. 

* Tiires des Seigneuries, 346-347. 

52 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS, 53 

granted to the Jesuits vested in the general of the order, the 
quint, or mutation fine, would, in the case of lands held en fief ^ 
become due and payable each time a change in the headship of 
the order was made, whereas by the tenure en franc aleu noble 
this payment was avoided.^ The Jesuits did not, however, find 
it advisable to adhere to this policy, for in the case of other 
grants they requested and received the allotments as seigniories. 
In 1678, however, they secured the issue of a royal edict where- 
by all their lands were amortised and freed from the usual 
obligations to the crown.^ 

2. The grant of a tract of land to be held en franc aleu 
roturier did not bring to the grantee any rank in the nobility ; 
but in other respects it corresponded to a grant en franc aleu 
noble X\\. was, in fact, roughly analogous to a grant in free and 
commoh socage. Lands held en franc aleu roturier -vjtvt subject 
to no dues or payments ; indeed, they were not feudal grants at 
all.' Only a few of them were madeJ and for each one there was 
usually some good reason, which was not infrequently stated in 
the preamble of the title-deed. Sometimes, for example, a 
seignior received en franc aleu roturier a grant of land which 
happened to lie where it was naturally exposed to Indian 
attacks, and for which, therefore, it would be difficult to obtain 
settlers ; or, as in one case, he received the grant of an island 
lying off his seigniory, merely in order that he might erect upon 
it any small works which he might deem essential to the proper 
defence of his seigniory against Indian raids. On such hold- 
ings it seemed only fair that no quint should be made payable. 

3. Grants en franche aumdne, or frankalmoign^ were made in 
considerable number, invariably to religious, educational, or 
charitable orders or institutions. The sole obligation imposed 
upon the holders of such grants, in addition to that of rendering 

1 Robert Abraham, Some Remarks on the French Tenure of Franc Aleu Rotu- 
rier and its relation to the Feudal and other forms of Tenure^ 7. 

* Edits et Ordonnances, L 102-105. The same royal favor was similarly granted, 
at Tarious times, to the R6coUets, the Ursolines, and to the authorities of the Hdtel- 
Dieu of Quebec (^IHd, 98, 243-244). 

» " A freehold, exempt from all burdens, and subject to no seigniorial rights or 
dues, either pecuniary or honorary " (Tocqueville, The Old Regime and M/ Revo- 
luium^ S42). 



54 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

fealty and homage, was the duty of performing some specified 
religious, educational, or charitable service in return for the 
grant^ ^ Usually this latter obligation was definitely set forth in 
the title-deed. Thus, for example, some of the grants made to 
the Jesuit order by the Company of One Hundred Associates 
stipulate that the fathers shall, on the first Tuesday of the 
month of December, — which is the date of the annual meeting 
of the company, — " say and celebrate forever a mass for the 
repose of the souls of the deceased copartners of the company, 
to which they shall be obliged to invite the officer commanding 
for the said company within the fort of Quebec, that he may 
attend thereat if he think fit.*'* Occasionally, however, the 
obligation is expressed in more general terms, as, for example, 
in the case of the grant of La Prairie de la Magdelaine, which 
was given to the Jesuits in 1647 merely in order, as the title- 
deed states, "that the company may be participating in their 
prayers and holy sacrifices."^ One can scarcely fail to remark 
the ostentation with which professions of religious impulses on 
behalf of the French crown are inserted, not only in all the 
ecclesiastical title-deeds, but in many of the purely secular ones 
as well. On more than one occasion laymen are informed, in 
the preambles of their deeds, that "His Majesty has always 
sought, with that zeal which is suitable to his title as eldest son 
of the Church, the means of making known in the most unex- 
plored countries, by the propagation of the faith and the dif- 
fusion of the Gospel, the glory of God and the Christian 
name, — the first and principal object of his establishment 
of the French colony in Canada."* As the Jesuits were the 
most active and successful agents in this work, their order was 
made the recipient of the royal bounty to a very generous 
degree.* 

4. By far the greater part of the larger land grants were made 
en fief or en seigneurie^ terms which were used synonymously 
in the colony, j The few concessions, made either by the com- 

1 On the nature of tenure enfranche aum6ne, see Henrion de Pansey, Disserta* 
Horn Feodales, ii. 54-149 ; and Viollet, HUtoire du Droit Civil Fran^ais, 702-708. 
» 7Y/r« des Stignturies, 344. « Ibid. 75. 

* a. Ibid, 1 1-43. » See below, ch. x. 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS, 55 

panics or by the crown, to be held under other terms, must be 
looked upon as exceptions to the general rule ; for, when peti- 
tioners applied to the colonial authorities for grants of land, 
they invariably, if their applications were favorably entertained, 
received grants en seigneurie^ unless some special circumstance 
or circumstances rendered some deviation from the rule advis- 
able. vThe seigniory was the basal unit of the colonial land-\ 
tenure system. 

Seigniorial grants were not regulated, in regard to their 
area, by any fixed rule, but were in this respect left to the "^ 
discretion of the royal officials in the colony. Hence they 
varied very widely in extent, ranging from small plots con- 
taining only a few square arpents, to huge tracts containing 
many square leagues and more extensive than many European 
principalities.^ In determining the area several things were 
taken into consideration, — the rank of the grantee, his ser- 
vices to the crown, his means, the location of the g^nt 
{ whether favorable or otherwise ), the nature of the land, and 
so on. As a rule, the boundaries of the grant were stated 
in the title-deed with a fair degree of definiteness; but not 
infrequently the delimitation was so vague or ambiguous as 
to result in subsequent disputes. The reason for this confusion 
seems to have been that the applicant, in making his petition, 
usually described the bounds of the territory, and the authorities, 
in drafting the deeds, merely followed this description, which 
would later often prove to be inaccurate. Surveys preliminary i 
to the making of seigniorial grants seem almost never to 
have been made. The common practice was, apparently, to 
fix the bounds of a new grant by reference to some grant or 
grants already made;^ and, when these had themselves been 
vaguely defined, abundant room for dispute was afforded.^ 

^ The seigniory of Minville, for example, was sixteen by fifty arpents, that of 
Gobin ten by twelve leagues. See TUres des Seigneuries^ 296, 367. 

^ For example, the seigniory Des Islets de Beaumont (1672) comprised "all 
that quantity of land which may be found on the River St. Lawrence between the 
property of the Sieur Bissot and that of M. de la Durantaye" {Ibid. 298). 

' In 1676 the king gave orders that all seigniorial grants should be located 
contiguously {Edits ei Ordonnances, i. 90). There seem, nevertheless, to have been 
frequent departures from this rule. 



56 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

V Whatever the area of the seigniorial grant, however, or wher- 
ever its location, it invariably assumed the shape of a paralleled 
gram, with the shorter sideJronfing^^Jiisjiverjj^ fact which, as 
will be seenlater, had a very interesting and important bearing 
on the system in the final period of its history, and was in- 
directly one of the most potent causes of its downfall.^ 
On being placed in possession of his seigniorial grant, the 
yi seignior was put under certa in well-define d obligations toward 
"Y the company orlhe crown asTIominant seTgnior. First among 
these was the perfor mance of theceremo ny of fealty and hfl mags 
t^ifoi et homntage\ an obeisance which has always been accounted 
^ an indispensable obligation of every seignior to his dominant 
lord. In the heyday of feudalism the ceremony consisted of 
two quite distinct parts, — the taking of an oath of fealty or 
allegiance involving pledge of fidelity, and the performing of 
some symbolic act of homage expressive of submission to con* 
trol; but as the two parts were invariably performed on the 
same visit of the seignior to his dominant lord, the ceremony in 
time lost its double significance. In New France the seignior 
was under obligation to appear, within a reasonable time after 
coming into possession of his fief (whether by grant, purchase, 
or succession), or upon the occasion of each succession to the 
French throne of a new sovereign, before the royal representa- 
tive at the Chiteau de St Louis in Quebec, there with uncovered 
head and on bended knee to render his fealty and homage. 
When the colony passed into the hands of Great Britain the 
obligation continued in existence, and was regularly rendered 
by the seigniors to the representative of the new sovereign, 
the governor-general.* The last act of fealty and homage was 

1 Below, pp. 235-238. 

^ In Actes de Foi et Hommagt^ iv. 43, is found a detailed description of this cere- 
mony as performed by one of the seigniors before General Murray, the 6rst British 
governor-general : *< In the year 1760, on the 23rd of December in the forenoon, in 
the presence and in the company of royal notaries in the military court and council 
of Quebec, Jean N5el, dwelling in this city . . . repaired to the government house of 
Quebec, and at the principal door or entrance of the said house, where being, the 
said N5el, having knocked at the door, there immediately came a servant, of His 
Excellency James Murray, governor-general of Quebec, and the said N5el having 
demanded of the said servant if His Excellency James Murray was in his aforesaid 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 57 ^ 

performed on the eve of the abolition of the seigniorial system 
in Canada, February 3, 1854, by J. S. C. Wurtele, Esq., be- 
fore Major-General William Rowan, administrator of the 
colony. 

In addition to rendering fealtv and h omag e, the seignior 
was obliged, w jthin the spa ce of forty days after receiv ing hia 
grant , to deposit with the proper authorities at Quebec an aveu\^ 
et dinombrement. This was a paper comprising two separate 
documents, — the aveu^ which 'was a gene ral map or plan of the 
seigniory, showing its location in the colony, its boundaries, and 
configuration, and the^//«^?w^/ww«j/, which was, on the other hand, 
a de tai l ed^descripti on or census of the seigniory, setting forth the 
circumstances under which the grant was originally made and 
the manner in which it had come into the hands of the present 
owner, together with the terms^ tenure, the ^.cx^^ige {arpentage) 
of the seigniory, the degree or aegrees of jurisdiction possessed 
by the seignior, and various other data. Within forty days after 
a mutation in the ownership of a fief, the aveu et difwmbrement 
was filed again, and in this case a detailed statement of the 
progress made in the development of the seigniory was included. 
This report set forth the number of acres cleared and the num- 
ber under cultivation, the number of subgrants made either en 
arriirefief or en censive^ the number of settlers on each grant, 
the amount of produce raised by these settlers in the last year, 

goYernment house, the said servant said that His Excellenqr was within and that he 
would go and give him notice, and His Excellency having appeared, the said Jean 
NOel, in accordance with his duty as a vassal, without sword or spur, his head uncov- 
, ered, and one knee on the ground, said to him that he performed faith and homage 
on account of his land and seigniory of Tilly and Bonsecours holden in fuU fief of 
His Britannic Majesty, which fief belonged to him as eldest son and heir of the late 
Philippe N5el his father . . . which faith and homage His Excellency received from 
the said Jean N5el, who made oath on the Holy Evangelists to be faithful to His 
Britannic Majesty, to do nothing contrary to his interests, to keep his vassals in the 
obedience which they owe to their king, the present faith and homage received sub- 
ject to the condition on the part of the said N6el to furnish his aveu et denomhrement 
within the usual time, and the dues which he may owe by reason of the mutation 
of the said fiefs and seigniories agreeably to the original title-deeds. Of all of which 
the said Jean N5el has demanded Acte of the undersigned notaries, who have 
granted him the same • . . and His Excellency has signed, also the said Jean 
N5cL . . . 

f J. Murray, Jean Noel, Barolbt, Panbt." 



% 



f 



S8 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

the number of horses, cattle, sheep, and swine in the seign- 
iory, the location and structure of the seigniorial manor, mill, 
and church, if such had been erected, the presence of any oak 
or pine timber suitable for use in the royal shipyards which 
might have been found within the limits of the grant, and a 
statement of the profits annually derived from the seigniory.^ 

In many of the title-deeds the stipulation was made that an 
aveu et cUnombrement should be made at certain specified times 
whether the seigniory changed hands or not,* the usual period 
in such cases being an interval of twenty years. These returns 
were placed on file at Quebec, and formed a most convenient 
source of data for the compilation of the frequent reports re- 
quired by the home authorities as to the ag^cultural progress 
of the colony. One cannot but admire the facility with which 
the colonial officials were able tMpresent detailed statements of 
conditions in New France on the shortest notice. Requests for 
such statertients came from the French government by the 
spring vessels, and the returns had to be transmitted by the 
same ships when they sailed in the autumn. In almost every 
case the governor and intendant were able to compile the desired 
reports from the data on file in- their office at Quebec ; and, so 
far as one may judge at the present day, these reports were 
,, accurate and trustworthy. It was the system of aveu et dinom- 
brement that rendered statistical data so accessible. 
f\ , A tbird^oibligation imposed upon the seigniors was that of 
subg^gA^ng the lands within their seigniories, or, as it was 
officially called, thtjeu defief. This obliga tion has an especial 
interest from the^fact_ihatjt_had no existence in France, but 
was peculiar to the colony; it is one of the features which 
served to give the seigniorial system in Canada a character and 
individuality somewhat distinct from that which it possessed 
in the motherland. Its introduction into the colony marks an 
attempt on the part of the royal authorities to modify the 
system in such a way as to adapt it to the circumstances of a 

1 Coutume de Paris, articles viii, x, xi; cf. also Rq>ort of the Solicitor-General 
to the Council, 1790, Titles and Documents relating to the Seigniorial Tenure^ 
i. 27. 

^ See, for example, the title-deed of the seigniory of Isle aux Roaux, Titres des 
Seigneuries, 46. 



X 



THE SElGmOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 59 

new country whose most prejssing need was an influx of set- i.- - 
tiers. 

The Custom of Paris, which was, one might say, the commori\ - 
law of New France, imposed upon the seignior no obligation 
to subinfeudate his fief. On the contrary, it expressly forbade 
the alienation of more than two-thirds of its extent, and even up 
to that point permitted alienation only under certain conditions^ 
For a considerable time after the introduction of the seigniorial 
system in New France, the seigniors were left entirely free to 
alienate, subgrant, or otherwise dispose of their holdings on 
whatever terms might seem best to themselves ; or, on the other 
hand, they were left just as free to refuse to alienate or subgrant 
any portion of their seigniories. Down to 171 1 not a single 
seigniorial title-deed definitely imposed any obligation to sub- 
grant lands ; and after that d||^ only four deeds contained any 
reference to such condition.* The seignior was regarded by the 
crown, not as a mext fideicommts^ but as having a dominium 
plenum in his grant. 

It was, however, as has been already noted, the ear nest desire 
of the French crown _to have t hecolony settled as ra pidly as 
possible; and it was loot very long before the marked propen- 
sity^of many seigniors to hold their grants for speculative 
purposes began to stand in the way of the royal desires. 
Settlers found, on arrival in the colony, that they had either 
to take up imf avorable locations in out-of-the-way seigniories, or 
else pay a bonus to the more favored seigniors for choice 
locations ; and, naturally enough, they protested. As it was not 
the intention of Louis XIV that the seigniorial system should 

1 " Le vassal ne peat demembrer son fief au prejudice et sans le consentement de 
son seigneur : bien se pent jouir et disposer et faire son profit des heritages, rentes, 
ott cens, ^tant da dit fief sans payer profit au seigneur dominant, poarva que I'alien- 
ation n'exc^de des deux- tiers et qu'il en retienne la foi enti^re et quel que droit 
seigneurial et domainal sur ce qu'il ali^ne " {Couiume dt Paris, article li). 

• These were the deeds to the following seigniories : Beaumont, April 10, 1713, 
granted "subject to the condition of conceding the said lands at a simple rent 
charge" {TUres des Seigmurtes, 64) ; Mille Isles, March 5, 17 14, the grantee "to 
concede the said lands subject to simple dues" (Idtd, 59) ; Deux Montagnes, Octo- 
ber 17, 1 71 7, the grantee "to concede at a simple rent charge ... as provided" 
(/iid. 337); St. Jean, April 18, 1727, "subject to the condition . . . not to concede 
Ihe said lands except on a simple rent charge " (JBrevtts de PaHJuation, 84). 



% 



v/^seij 



t 



60 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

jthus operate as a hindrance to colonial development, he inter- 
/vened, as soon as the matter was brought to his notice, in 
/ such a way as distinctly to limit the seigniorial pretensions. 

The first reference — but a very indirect and inconclusive 
one — to the existence of any obligation on the part of seign- 

s to subgrant their lands appears in the title-deed of the 
seigniory of Ste. Anne de la Parade, in 1672. One of the con- 
ditions named in this deed was that the seignior should, "in 
granting lands, stipulate with his habitants or tenants {tenanciers) 
in such wise as to compel the latter to take up residence upon 
their grants within the space of one year from the date of 
concession." ^ This clause can, however, scarcely be taken as 
implying any obligation to subgrant ; it merely provides that, if 
the seignior did choose to make subgrants, he must, in such 
cases, impose a certain condit^. 

From 1672 onward, this or a similar clause appears in a 
number of deeds.^ In a few cases the bond stipulates that 
the seignior himself shall reside on his land, without obliging 
him to exact any similar condition of his tenants.^ In at 
least one case, that of the seigniory of Ste. Anne des Monts 
(1688), the wording of the deed is such as to imply that the 
power of subgranting seigniorial lands is permissive and not 
mandatory, for reference is made to " those grants which the 
seignior will be allowed to make in the said seigniory." * As 
a matter of fact, some of the seigniories were too small in extent 
to permit any subinfeudation ; such, for example, was the seign- 
iory of Isle aux Ruaux, granted to the Jesuits to be used as 
a pasture for their stock, and none too large for this purpose 
alone.* The seigniory of Isle St. Joseph, near Three Rivers, 
which comprised less than fifty arpents in all, is a type of the 
small seigniory to which any requirement of subinfeudation 
can scarcely have been intended to apply.® 

In some few cases the right to subgrant lands within seign- 
iories was expressly restricted by provisions contained in the 
title-deeds. Thus, the deed of the seigniory of D'Autray con- 

1 Titres des Seigneurus, 275. 

* For example, the title-deed of Longueatl, Ibid. 99. • Ibid, 12, 

* Ibid. 329. » Ibid. 46. • Ibid. 85. 



OF 

THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 6l 

tained a clause providing that grants might be made '' only to 
persons already residing in New France " ; while the deed con- 
veying the island of Montreal to the Seminary of St Sulpice 
permitted the making of grants '' only to persons not already 
inhabitants of New France but who shall emigrate thither." ^ In 
the deed of the Isle aux Coudres to the Jesuit seminary at Quebec 
appears the provision that the lands shall be settled only by per- 
sons belonging to the seminary or directly connected therewith.* 

In the face of these facts, it can hardly be maintained that, 
down to 171 1 at least, any obligation rested upon the Canadian ^ 
seigniors as a class to subgrant lands within their seigniories 
to all who should apply for such grants. In fact, during the 
earlier days of the colony's history there would seem to have 
been no need of the establishment or imposition of any such 
obligation ; common prudence would ordinarily have been 
enough to induce any seignior to adopt the means which were 
obviously the easiest and most effectual for settling his seigniory 
and thus increasing its value. From time to time, to be sure, 
the king emphasized his desire to have the lands of the colony 
cleared; but down to 171 1 no attempt was made to insist upon 
the adoption of any particular means of attaining this end. So 
far as the law was concerned, the seignior could fully satisfy 
the royal desires by having the lands cleared by hired labor if 
he should see fit, instead of by making en censive grants ; for 
the mere reiteration of the royal desire for the speedy clearing 
of the lands could scarcely be construed as establishing a legal 
obligation to subinfeudate. Unfortunately, however, the Cana- 
dian seignior, by his persistent neglect to have his lands cleared 
either through his own enterprise or through that of others, 
and by his policy of holding his uncleared lands for specula- 
tive purposes, forced the king, in the end, to drastic action. 

His first decisive step was the issue of the Arrets of Marly in 
1 71 1, one of which provided that "within a year at the farthest 
• . . all the inhabitants of New France to whom His Majesty 
has granted lands en seigneurie^ who have no domain cleared and 
who have no settlers upon their grants, shall be held to bring 

* Titra dts Seigneuries^ 356, 365. • Ibid, 322. 



^ 



62 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS.- 



them under cultivation by placing settlers thereon." ^ The un- 
equivocal language of this arrfit was fully understood as estab- 
lishing an obligation to subgrant lands ; * for, in the arrdt 
drafted some years later by Messrs. Deshaguais and Dagues- 
seau, reference is made to the Arrets of Marly as having^ 
''obliged seigniors who have lands for concession within the 
limits of their seigniories, to concede them as an essential to the 
settlement and growth of the colony." * Futhermore, the whole 
tenor of the Arrfit of Versailles (1732),* and of the royal declara- 
tion of 1743,* serves to establish beyond doubt that the king de- 
sired to place the seigniors under a legal obligation to subgrant 
the lands within their seigniories ; and that it was, moreover, the 
royal wish that every settler who went to the colony should be 
entitled to demand a concession out of the ungranted lands of 
any seigniory, and to receive such without the necessity of 
paying therefor anything save and except the ordinary seign-| 
iorial dues at such times as. these might become payable. It was 
in order to insure these rig^t^ to settlers that the king empowered 
the governor and intendant to make the grants whenever the 
seignior should show an indisposition to do so.^ In the interest 
of colonial development, this action on the part of the king 
was highly commendable; it shows, as many of his orders 
clearly show, the deep interest which Louis XIV took in 

J everything that pertained to the advantage of New France. 

I After 171 1 the Canadian seignior was no longer possessed of 
any right of property in the ungranted lands of his seigniory ; 
he was merely a fideicommis for the crown. His position and ^^ 
powers had, in this respect, become differentiated from those of 
the seignior at home. 

A fourth obligation incumbent upon all holders of lands en 
seigneurie was the payment of a mutation fine known as the quint, 
the only pecuniary tribute rendered by the seignior to the com- 
pany or the crown as dominant seignior. The amount of the 
quint, as fixed by the Custom of Paris,^ was one-fifth of the muta- 



^ Edits et Ordonnances^ i. 324-325. 
* See above, p. 42. 
» Ibid, 572. 
T Article xxv. 



* See above, pp. 42-43. 

* Edits €t OrdonnanceSf L 53U 

* Sec above, p. 43. 



THE SElCmOR AND H/S SUPERIORS. 63 

tion value of the seigniory; but it was the custom of the com- 
pany, and this custom was followed by the crown, to allow a re- 
bate of one-third of the amount paid.^ In several other French 
coutumeSy the payment of the requint, or an additional fifth of 
the fifth, — making six twenty-fifths in all, — was rendered obliga- 
tory; but no attempt seems to have been made to exact the 
requint in Canada. 

The quint became due and payable upon each mutation QJEj^C^'^ 
the ownership of a seigniory, whether by sale, by contract equiva- 
lent to sale, by gift, or by inheritance other than in direct suc- 
cession^ Lineal descendants succeeding to seigniorial lands / 
were thus the bnly ones exempt. As thg mntatii>n value of 
seigniorial lands was never great during any part of the French 
regime, the amount of revenue derived by the royal treasury 
from this source was not of importance; and even after the 
British conquest, when the lands of the colony had undergone 
a very marked increase in value, the proceeds of the quint 
formed but a very modest sum per year. In the general 
list of colonial revenues they make but an insignificant item. 
During the years intervening between the cession of the colony 
to Great Britain and the abolition of the seigniorial tenure in 
1854, the average income from the quints of all the seigniories 
was less than fifteen hundred dollars per annum.' 

During the dominancy of the Company of One Hundred As-^' 
sociates some seigniories had been granted under the special 
custom of the French Vexin^ a small body of rules not form- 
ing part of the Coutume de Paris^ but supplementary to it.* In 
these cases a mutation fine, commonly called the relief, was sub- 
stituted for the quint The relief was the equivalent of one 
year's estimated revenue from the seigniory, and became due 
and payable upon every mutation of ownership, whether by 

1 Cugnet^ Traiti de la Lot des Fiefi, 1 1. 

■ Coutume de Paris, articles vi, xxiii. Cf. also Cugnet, Traite de la Lot des Fiefs, 9. 

* Daring the thirteen years 1 775-1 788 the amount was £ 3148. is. 4^.; during the 
period 1 803-1 841 it was £ 7385. 9^. ^. See Titles and Documents, i. 40, 175. 

* The rules of Vexin le Francois relating to the payment of the relief are printed 
in Abstract of those Parts of the Custom of the Viscounty and Provostship of Paris, 
which were received and practised in the Province of Quebec in ^ time of the French 
Government (1772), 14. See below, p. 198, note. 



64 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

inheritance, purchase, or otherwise ; there were no exemptions. 
In some cases the company made the stipulation that one 
ounce of gold (une maille (Tor) should be paid in lieu of the 
relief.^ 

The relief does not appear to have been exacted after the 
conquest. In the collection of laws compiled by order of Gov- 
ernor Carleton, the provisions relating to the obligation of the 
relief were omitted on the ground that they had "not lately 
been operative in Canada." Cugnet declares that the right of 
exacting the relief had been abrogated by the king " in an edict 
duly registered at Quebec in 1676."^ This edict does not, 
however, contain any express abrogation of the right to exact 
the relief ; but it does provide that grants made under the cus- 
tom^ of the French Vexin shall henceforth be deemed to be held 
under the Custom of Paris. In other words, the intention of the 
edict seems to have been to replace the relief by the quint in all 
cases in which the original title-deeds had made the former 
payabl^. ^In general, it may safely be said that the payment 
either of the quint or of the reUef was never a substantial 
burden upon the seigniors or a source of considerable profit 
to the crown, and that apparently its existence did not prove 
an important hindrance to the transfer of seigniorial hold- 
ings. V 
-y A fifth duty, that of rendering military service, was ex- 
pected of the seigniors ; but apparently it was not specifically 
made a condition of tenure, for the obligation does not appear 
in the title-deeds of any of the seigniorial grants made by the 
crown. ) It is true that, in the grant of the whole colony to the 
Marquis de la Roche, a provision was inserted to the effect that 
the marquis should make grants to persons on condition that 
they should " aid in the support and defence of the said coun- 
try *' ; and, furthermore, La Roche was permitted for a short 
term of years to relieve his settlers from all conditions " except- 
ing the duty of service in time of war " ; but he made no grants 
upon this or any other condition.* 
. *.^ The fact is, the French government counted upon the service 

1 For example, in the seigniory of Beauport. See Titres des Seigneuries, 386. 
' Cugnet, Traiti de la Lai des Fieft, 5. • See above, pp. 18-19. 



A 



/ 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 65 

of all colonists, whether landholders or not 1 In all the corre- 
spondence which passed between the home and the colonial 
authorities with reference to the military resources of the 
colony, the liability, and even the willingness, of the whole 
adult male population of the colony to render military service 
was taken as unquestionable. This fact appears clearly in the 
discussion as to the advisability of disbanding regiments in the 
colony after the purpose for which they had been sent out had 
been accomplished. The main advantage claimed for the policy 
was that the settlement of veterans in New France would add 
appreciably to its military strength. 

According to the laws of France, all those holding en fief or 
en seigneurie mediately or immediately from the crown were, 
with their dependents, liable to be called upon for military ser- 
vice. By an important edict, issued in 1674, Louis XIV made |^ 
it obligatory that " all nobles, barons, chevaliers, esquires, vas- 
sals, and others holding en fief or en arriire-iief shall, all ex- 
cuses apart, put themselves in arms, motmted and equipped, 
according to that to which they shall be held bound, and shall 
be present on the days and at the places fixed." ^ The terms 
of this edict, however, were never expressly applied to New 
France ; and it is at least questionable whether any royal de- 
cree, issued after 1663, could be binding in the colony without 
having been enregistered by the Sovereign (Superior) Council v - 
at Quebec* 

Furthermore, when the seignior took the oath of fealty, which, 
in the words of one of the prominent seigniors after 1763, 
pledged " the fidelity and military service of all possessors of 
fiefs and arrifere-fiefs," he promised his service in arms when 
called upon.' In explaining to the home authorities, in 1768, 

^ " Lettres-patentes pour la conyocation du ban et arridre-ban," August ii, 1674, 
in Isambert, Reciuil Central dei Aneiennes Ijfis Franfaises, xix. 13S-144. 

^ This question is discussed at length in Doutre and Lareau, Histoire CeniraU 
du Droit Civil Canadien^ 11 8-1 27. 

* Cf. the answers of Charles de I^naudi^re to some of the questions proposed by 
the "Honorable Committee of the Whole Council," October 17, 1790, Titles and 
Docwnents^ i. 35, 38. '* L'acte de foi et hommage . . . contenant ordinaire- 
ment une clause relatant les obligations militaires du vassal vis-k-vis du suzerain'' 
(Viollet, Histoire du Droit Civil Fran^ais^ 649). 



,-y 



66 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

the main incidents of the seigniorial tenure, Governor Carleton 
declared : " The oath which the seigniors take is very solemn 
and binding ; they are obliged ... to discharge whatever 
they owe to their sovereign, and to appear in arms for his 
defence in case • his province is ever attacked." ^ The ob- 
ligation of military service on the part of the seigniors, and 
through them on the part of those holding of them, was tbus 
regarded as having full force and efiFect, even though it did not 
appear expressly in any of the title-deeds. This omission has 
apparently led some writers to the inference that the obligation 
had no existence in the colony.* 

During the greater part of the French regime the seigniors 
were forced by the stern logic of facts to be in constant readi- 
ness to defend their seigniories; for, exposed as it was both to 
the Iroquois and to the English, the valley of the St. Lawrence 
was almost never free from marauding bands of raiders, both 
white and red. The seigniories were scattered along the banks 
of the stream, often far removed from the nearest fortified post ; 
and the small force of royal troops kept in the colony was 
never adequate for the effective defence of any considerable 
portion of its area. Left thus to shift for himself, the seignior 
naturally sought to increase the defensive strength of his own 
habitants, striving in this way to compensate, as far as possible, 
for the weakness of the central power.* He also aimed to build 
his manor-house so that it could be defended against Indian 
assaults, often constructing it of stone, with small windows and 
stanch hard-wood doors, and planning the whole with an eye 
to strength as well as to comfort. ' In a few cases the seigniorial 
manor-house assumed the proportions of a mediaeval castle. 
The commodious chAteau of Lemoyne de Longueuil, for ex- 
ample, was built of solid masonry and flanked by four strong 
towers, or bastions, each loopholed in such a way as to permit a 

^ Carleton to Shelbume, April 12, 1768, in State Paper Office, America and West 
IndieSy voL cccxxvi, No. 33. 

3 Cf. Weir, Administration of ike Old Regime in Canada^ 67; and Parkman, 
The Old Regime in Canada^ ii. 42. 

* In 1674 Frontenac informed the minister that he had ordered all the seigniors 
of the colony to drill their habitants as often as possible (JDocwnenis relaHng to 
the Colonial History of New York, ix. 1 16). 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS, 67 

flanking fire.^ Its resemblance to the fortified castles of France 
was noted by Frontenac* w- 

Another way in which the seigniors sought to strengthen y 
themselves in the event of attack was by offering particular 
inducements to retired soldiers, in order to secure them as 
settlers on their grants. Such settlers were given desirable 
locations, and were not infrequently exempted from the pay- 
ment of the seigniorial dues for a short term of years. They 
brought their muskets with them, and, in addition to holding 
themselves in readiness to repel Indian attacks, they rendered 
effective service in drilling or instructing the other habitants of 
the seigniories to which they came. Even the religious orders 
held out special incentives, in their endeavor to have lands 
within their seigniories taken up by veterans. 

Perhaps the most striking exemplification of the earnest ' 
desire on the part of the authorities to supplement the defensive 
strength of the colony is afforded by the numerous seigniorial 
grants made to the officers of the Carignan-Sali^res regiment in 
1668-1672. This regiment, the first body of regular troops sent 
out to New France, was one of the best in the French arm]f.*_ 
Originally recruited from the population of Savoy by the Prince 
de Carignan, it had seen signal service in the wars of the Fronde, 
and had won distinction in the service of Austria against the 
Turks. Under the command of Colonel de Saliferes it was sent 
out to Canada with Tracy in 1665, in order that the Mo- 
hawks might be crushed once for all and the Five Nations 
in general impressed with the punitive power of France. 
When it arrived in the colony the regiment numbered about 
twelve hundred men of all ranks, among its officers being many 
dashing young scions of the French noblesse. During the next ' 
half-4ozen years the operations against the Mohawks and other 
hostile tribes were carried to a successfiil outcome, and a per- 

1 Jodoin and Vincent, Histoire de L»ngueuil^ 296-297. The stnicture was 170 by 
2cx> feet in area. See also below, p. 167. 

2 ** Son fort et sa maison nons donnent ane id6e des chateaux de France fortifiez " 
(Frontenac to Minister, October 15, 1698, Correspondanct Getter aU^ vol. xvi). 

* For various details regarding the history of this notable regiment both in 
Enrope and in America, see Benjamin Suite, Le Regiment de Carignan^ in Royal 
Society of Canada, Proceedings^ 1902, Memoires^ sec. L 25-95. 



68 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

manent peace, based upon a new and wholesome respect for 
the military strength of colonial France, was concluded with 
the Iroquois. 

Ordinarily the regiment, when it had finished its work, would 
have been ordered home again ; for the king could scarcely be 
expected to bear the heavy cost of maintaining so large a force 
in the colony.^ Talon, however, came forward with a proposal 
that an effort be made to keep at least a part of the regiment in 
the country by inducing officers and men to become settlers ; 
and with this object in mind the intendant, with the approval of 
Tracy, drew up and despatched to the minister in Paris an 
elaborate project of military colonization.^ He placed strong 
emphasis on the advantages that would accrue from the settle- 
ment of so many trained soldiers in the colony, mentioning, 
among other things, the impetus which would be given to the 
colonial military spirit He pointed out that, once firmly estab- 
lished on the land, the soldier would be as completely at the 
service of the king as if maintained in garrison, while at the same 
time his support would no longer be a burden on the treasury, — 
that, in a word, the king would derive all the advantages of 
maintaining several hundred regular troops in the colony, and 
this with only the initial expense of placing the soldiers in a 
position to support themselves. Talon pointed to the Roman 
system of military colonization as a precedent' The discharged 
soldier settled in New France would, he claimed, develop a 

1 Part of the regiment wu sent home to France in 1668, but four companies 
were retained. 

^ " Projets de R^lemens qui semblent 6tre utiles en Canada, propose • . . par M. 
Talon,'' January 24, 1667, Edits et OrdonnanceSy ii. 29-34. 

* '< Cette maniire de donner un pays de nouvelle conqudte a son exemple dans 
Pantiquit6 romaine, et pent r6pondre k celle en laquelle on donnoit autrefois chez les 
m8mes romains les champs des proyinces subjug6es qu'on appeloit prcedia militaria : 
la pratique de ces peuples politiques et guerriers pent i mon sentiment 6tre judicieuse- 
ment introduite, dans un pays ^loigne de mille lieues de son monarque et du corps 
de I'itat dont il n'est qu'un membre fort d<tach6, qui peut se voir souvent r6duit i se 
soutenir par ses propres forces. EUe est i mon sentiment d*autant plus k estimer 
qu*clle fera quelque jour au roi, un corps de vieilles troupes qui ne seront plus k 
charge k Sa Majest6, et cependant capables de conseryer le corps de cet 6tat naissant 
de Canada avec tous les accroissemens qu'il peut regevoir contre les incursions des 
sauvages ou les violentes invasions des europ^ens, mSme dans les besoins pressanti 
ile Tancienne France, fournir un secours considerable k Sa Majesty *' (Ibid, 32). 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 69 

peculiar attachment to the colony as his own heritage, and 
would in consequence have a more aggressive interest in its 
defence.^ He suggested that the lands given both to military 
and to civilian settlers should be granted on the most favorable 
terms, ability to serve the crown well in time of war being made 
the ground of exemption from the usual payments. He pro- 
posed, in fact, that the title-deeds should expressly state the 
military nature of the tenure, and that upon the grantees should 
be imposed the obligation of sending their eldest sons, on 
attaining the age of sixteen years, to serve the king for a time 
on garrison duty without pay.^ 

The proposals of Talon were favorably considered by the 
king and minister in France; and in due course the intendant 
received despatches warmly approving of the projects, and giv- 
ing instructions as to the manner of carrying them into effect. 
In accordance with these instructions, Talon arranged to grant 
seigfniories to the officers of the regiment, and in so doing gave 
locations with direct reference to the vulnerable points in the 
colonial frontier. The most critical spot of all was the country 
along the Richelieu River. Though well adapted for settle- 
ment, it was dangerously exposed to Iroquois attacks, for it lay 
between the French settlements and the territories of the power- 
ful and aggressive Mohawks ; hence, much as the French au- 
thorities wished to have the district populated, settlers had 
shown no disposition to push out into the region. It was only 
natural, therefore, that Talon should regard this district as most 

suitable for the settlement of the military colonists- Accord- 

/ 

1 " lyim cdt^, eDe fpargnoit les finances du tresor pablic, et que de Vautre, elle 
interessoit Tofficier et le soldat en la conservation du pays, comme en celle de son 
propre heritage" {Edits et Ordonnances, iL 33). 

s (< Et pour le b6n4fice qu'elles [qu'ils] resolvent par la concession de la terre au 
lieu de cens sur cens, censives ou autre redevances qu'emportent avec soi les conces- 
sions de ce pays, ils engageront au service du roi leur premier-ne lorsqu'il aura atteint 
rflge de seize ans, qui commen^era son noviciat dans une garnison des forts, sans qu'il 
puisse pretendre autre solde que celle de sa subsistance, ou celle qui lui pourra 6tre 
ordonnie par les <tats de Sa Majeste durant le service qu'il rendra. Cette obligation 
n'ajoute presque rien k celle qu'un v&itable sujet apporte au monde avec sa nais- 
sance, mais il semble que lorsque cette condition est stipul6e, elle est moins rude 
quaiid elle est exigee que lorsqu'il n'en est rien dit dans les contrats des terres 
donnees comme se donnent toutes celles du Canada " {IbidJ), 



70 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

ingly, generous tracts lying along the river, from its junction 
with the St Lawrence to a point near the present town of 
Chambly, were parcelled out en seigneurie among the Carignan 
officers, who, in turn, were instructed to subgrant the lands 
among their former soldiers. In all about twenty-five or thirty 
officers, chiefly captains and lieutenants, together with some- 
what more than four hundred non-commissioned officers and 
soldiers, decided to avail themselves of the opportunity to be- 
come permanent settlers. 

As neither officers nor men possessed the capital wherewith to 
develop their grants, the king provided some twelve thousand 
livres to be divided among the officers as the intendant might 
deem fit. The sums apportioned out of this amount do not 
seem to have been granted according to any fixed rule. To 
the non-commissioned officers and soldiers fixed amounts were 
given from the royal treasury, each non-commissioned officer 
receiving one hundred and fifty livres, or one hundred livres and 
a year's rations, at his choice, and each soldier one hundred livres 
in cash, or fifty livres and a year's rations, at his option. It was 
in this way that the progenitors of some of the leading families of 
French Canada first became settlers in the country. The names 
of St. Ours, Saurel (Sorel), Soulanges, Contrecoeur, Dugue, 
Varennes, La Valterie, Verchires, Perrot, Roque, Morel de 
la Durantaye, Berthier, Chambly, Lanaudiire, Granville, and 
many others will be found in the list of those who received 
seigniories at this time. Several of these, however, subse- 
quently returned to France.* 

It is interesting to note that, despite Talon's suggestion, there 
is no express mention of the obligation of military service among 
the various conditions of tenure imposed in the title-deeds of 
the military seigniories. In each case, the preamble states 
'clearly the royal expectation that the settlement of the officers 
in the colony will serve materially to strengthen its capabilities 
of defence ; but there is no definite provision that the rendition 
of service shall be regarded as an incident of tenure.* ^ As later 

^ See Suite, Le Regiment de Carignan^ 89. 

* '* His Majesty . . . having judged that there were no surer means of making 
known the greatness of his name and the strength of his arm than to compose this 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 71 

events showed, however, there was little occasion for insistence 
on the obligation : the military seignior proved only too ready to 
gird on his sword on every possible occasion. Several of them 
were gentilshommes, who did not take very enthusiastically to 
the prosaic life of the yeoman, but found their real vocation in 
border raids along the frontiers of New England and New York. 
But when officers and soldiers had been placed on the land 
the project of the intendant was not entirely fulfilled. If the 
colony was to grow from within, the military settlers must 
have wives; and of these New France afforded no adequate 
supply. Even before his plan of settlement was completed. 
Talon prayed the minister to send out consignments of 
women, strong and vigorous peasant girls for the soldiers, 
and fifteen demoiselles, or ladies of gentle birth, for the un- 
married officers who had now become seigniors of New 
France.^ The generous king promptly directed that the desire 
of the intendant be gratified ; and for a few years batches of 
girls in charge of nuns were sent with almost every vessel. 
As to the character of many of these mothers of French 
Canada, some contemporary writers have expressed very un- 
favorable opinions.* Lahontan gives a racy description of their 
arrival and distribution among applicants ;' but his picture is 

colony of people properly qualified to fill it up by tbeir labor and application to agri- 
culture and to maintain it by a vigorous defence against the insults and attacks to 
which it might hereafter be exposed, has sent to this country a number of his faithful 
subjects, officers of his troops in the Carignan regiment, most of them, agreeably to 
the great and pious designs of His Majesty, being willing to connect themselves with 
the country by forming therein settlements and seigniories . . . and the Sieur de 
la Durantaye, captain of a company of infantry in the said regiment, having petitioned 
US to make him a grant of land therein ; 

^ We, in consideration of the good, useful, and praiseworthy services which he has 
rendered to His Majesty in various places, both in Old and New France since he 
came thither by order of His Majesty, and in view of those which he declares himself 
willing to render hereafter, . . . have given and granted," etc. (translated from 
Titres des Seigneuries^ 151)* 

1 Talon to Colbert, November 10, 1670, Correspondance GeneraU, iii. 86-87. 

* William Perwicb, English agent in Paris, wrote, May 22, 1669 : " What y« Gaze- 
tier mentions of 4 or 500 Women going for America volontaryly is false, becaus they 
are lewd strumpets gathered up by the officers of the citty & transported according to 
the law" (Camden Society, Publications^ 1903, p. 13). 

* Lahontan, Nottvcatuo Voyages (1709}, i. 11-12. 



72 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

/ y 

V in all probability overcolored. There is reason to believe that 
considerable care was taken by the authorities in selecting the 
prospective brides who were thus transported to the colony ; 
and yet we have the unimpeachable testimony of Mire Marie 
de rincamation that there was beaucoup de canaille among the 
arrivals.^ So far as can be ascertained, about five hundred 
women were sent out by the authorities during the years i6g9r 
1673,* an enterprise of which the result may be seen in the 
significant report of Laval that eleven hundred baptisms had 
been performed during the year 1672.' According to the 
census of 1666, the population of the colony was 3,215 souls; 
in 1673 Frontenac estimated that it was 6,705. If these figures 
be accepted as accurate, the population had more than doubled 
in six years ; but there is every reason to believe that Frontenac's 
estimate was below, rather than above, the mark.* 

y The settlement of the officers and soldiers in the colony 
seems to have stirred up the lay seigniors to make greater 
efforts in the direction of securing settlers, and for a time 
there was considerable rivalry in this respect The majority 
of the military seigniors, however, were not very successful : 
as is too often the case, the good soldier made a very indifferent 
husbandman, for he lacked both the heart and the capacity 
for pioneer work. Moreover, the soldiers who settled in their 
seigniories knew for the most part nothing about farming ; and, 
finding it hard to make both ends meet, many of them aban- 
doned their fiefs to their creditors.^4 Nevertheless, the estab- 
lishment of the military cantonments Along the Richelieu proved 
advantageous to the colony in more ways than one. It formed 
a barrier against the Mohawk incursions ; it enabled the French 
to establish safe bases from which blows might be directed 
with stealth and rapidity against the outlying hamlets of 
New England ; and, in addition, on jnore than one occasion 
the Richelieu seigniories contributed generously toward the 

^ M^re Marie de rincaroation, Lettres, October, 1669. 

* On the increase of population during this period, see Chapais, Jean Tahn^ 
412-413. 

*G}lbert, LeUres^ Imiruciums, it Memoir es (ed. Pierre Qement), iii. pt iL 
541. * QL Chapais, /mil TaUn^ 418. 

* Catalogue's report (above, p. 45}. 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 73 

carrying out of various defensive projectsJ Thus in 1673, 
when Frontenac decided to build a fort at the junction of the 
St Lawrence with Lake Ontario, the personnel of his ex- 
pedition was, to a considerable extent, drawn from the 
disbanded Carig^ans ; and the success which attended the ex- 
pedition was attributed by the governor chiefly to the discipline 
which was possible among a force composed so largely of 
veterans.^ 

It is, of course, true that the colony did not depend for its 
defence upon the seigniorial array alone. As villages an<!^,^ 
towns grew up, an official known as the captain of the militia 
(capitaine de la milke) was appointed in each to see that all 
those capable of bearing arms were duly enrolled and drilled. 
It was this utilization of almost every adult male colonist 
which served, among other things, to give New France a mili- 
tary strength far greater than her population seemed to war- 
rant. It was this which gave her such remarkable defensive 
power during the Seven Years* War, when the colony was a I 
huge armed camp. 

In addition to the foregoing rents and dues, the holder of -^. 
lands en seigneurie was under obligation to respect certain 
royaJ^reservations which were inserted in his title-deed. These 
varied in different grants, some of them appearing in very 
few deeds, others in almost all, while a few were so common 
as to be counted among the permanent incidents of the sys- 
tem. These were the reservations (i) of lands for fortifications, 
(2) of timber suitable for use in the royal navy, (3) of mines, 
ores, and minerals {minesy miniris^ et minireaux\ (4) of rights 
of way, (5) of the use of beaches, (6) of the right of appeal 
from the seigniorial to the royal courts, (7) of the right to 
withhold ratification. 

Very many of the seigniorial title-deeds contained the pro- 
vision that His Majesty's representatives might at any time 
take from the seigniory such land as might be found necessary 

^ Among the officers of the expedition were Dugn^ St. Ours, Durantaye, and 
others. See the journal of the expedition, printed in Documents relating to the 
Colonial History of New York,ix, 95-114; also Frontenac to Colbert, NoTember 
13, 1673, Correspondance Generate^ yoL iy. 



74 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS, 

for the location of forts, batteries, or other military works; 
and it was also frequently stipulated that the crown should 
have the right to take such timber from the forest of the seign- 
iory as might be needed for the construction of the fortifications, 
together with such firewood as might be desired for the use of the 
military garrisons placed in charge of them. For lands and tim- 
ber so taken, the king was not bound to give any compensation 
whatever, but he usually did make some return. When lands 
were taken, for instance, the seignior was compensated by a 
grant of equal area elsewhere ; when building materials were 
expropriated, monetary indemnification was given.^ 

In most cases the seignior was required, by a clause in his 
title-deed, to report to the royal authorities at Quebec the 
presence on his seigniory of any oak timber suitable for use 
in the construction of ships, and to let this remain standing 
until it should be demanded by the naval officials, who were 
<^ermitted to take what they desired without paying for it. 
In a few cases pine as well as oak timber was included within 
the reservation, and in one or two instances a special reserva- 
tion was made of " all red or pitch pine suitable for making 
vtar." 

' In almost every grant, stipulation was made that the seignior 
^ should give immediate notice to the king (or company) of all 
mines or mineral deposits found within the limits of his seign- 
iory, in order that the share accruing to the crown might be 
exacted, v In a very few cases the royal rights in this regard 
were expressly waived, and stipulation was made that the 
seignior might retain full ownership in any minerals discov- 
ered. 

The king usually reserved the right to open such royal high- 
ways through the seigniories as the public convenience might 
from time to time dictate. In fact, some of the grants con- 
tained a provision that the seignior should himself undertake 
the building of a road along the water-front of his seigniory. 

In the case of such seigniories as fronted on the St. Lawrence, 

^ A decree of the Sovereign Council in 1664, for example, ordered the payment 
to the Sieur Poyrier of 150 livres in compensation for timber taken from his 
seigniory for use in the construction of a casemate. See Edits et OrdonnanceSf iL iS. 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS, 75 

the requirement was usually made that the seigniors should 
refrain from molesting fishermen using the beaches. The 
colonial as well as the home authorities were desirous of en- 
couraging the fishing industry ; and they foresaw that, unless 
the rights of seigniors to the river-front were strictly limited, 
the fishermen who plied their vocation in the St Lawrence 
would be subjected to restraint and annoyance. As will ap- 
pear later, however, the seignior was entitled to a share in 
the fish taken in seigniorial waters.^ V^^"^"^ 

Whenever seigniors were invested with judicial rights, it 
was stipulated that they should permit appeals to be carried 
by suitors from the courts of the seigniory to the royal courts 
of the colony. This reservation was intended to form a check 
upon the spread of feudal jurisdiction, and to obviate a too 
extensive growth of private, at the expense of royal, judicial 
jurisdiction, a precaution which, as will be seen later, was 
scarcely necessary.* - 

As has been said, the title-deed to a seigniory was drawn up 
and signed by the governor and intendant at Quebec, and pos- 
session was g^ven forthwith ; but the title was to be considered 
valid only in case the ratification of the king should be forth- 
coming within the space of one year.? As a matter of fact, 
however, this reservation was for the most part purely formal ; 
for it was only on the rarest occasions that the king withheld 
ratification or made any important modifications in the original 
terms of the deed.* 

In addition to these reservations, there were several prohib i- 
tions which appeared with considerable frequency in the seign- 
iorial grants. Of these the most common was the provision that 
the seignior should n^ carry on any traie with^the^Indians, or 
allow his dependents to do so. Seigniorial grants made during 
the company regime invariably contained this injunction, and 
for a very obvious reason ; but grants made by the crown often 
omitted it. Other prohibitions, — such, for example, as that 
which forbade the collecti on of t oll from vessels navigating the 
waters of the seigniors, — are to be found in isolated cases, but 

1 Below, p. 140. * Below, ch. ix. 

• Ediis et Ordcnnances, L 89-9a * Cf. above, p. 39. 






76 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS SUPERIORS. 

they were far from general. In practically every case the inser- 
tion of them seems to have been dictated by local circumstances. 

These six obligation ^ — of rendering fealty and homage, of fil- 
ing the aveu et cUnombrement^ of subinf eudating the seigniory, of 
paying the quint (or relief), of rendering military service, and 
of observing the reseryatigas and prohibitions contained in the 
title-deeds — were the only ones imposed upon the Canadian 
seignior.v Taken together, they were far from being oppres- 
sive ; in fact, they can hardly be called unreasonable. In view 
of the numerous rights which seigniors enjoyed with reference 
to lands granted within their seigniories, the holder of a seign- 
iorial grant was by no means the least favored individual in the 
colony. 

It was under one or other of these four forms of tenure 
that all the larger land grants in the colony were made ; but, as 
has been shown, the typical large grant was that of a seigniory* 
The others must be looked upon as clearly exceptional. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

In the foregoing chapter an attempt has been made to explain 
the various tenures under which the larger grants of land in the 
colony were held, and to analyze the several obligations im- 
posed by the crown upon the grantees. It is now in order 
to examine the forms of tenure in which the smaller tracts 
were held, and to consider, one by one, the obligations 
imposed by the seignior upon those who held lands within his 
jurisdiction. 

Occasionally the seigniors made grants of s ub-se igniories, or 
concessions en arriire-fief. Grants of this sort were not numer- 
ous, and yet they can scarcely be called rare. So far as can 
be learned, there was no dearth of applications for them from 
incoming settlers of all ranks and conditions, and it seems to 
be beyond doubt that the seigniors had full power to grant such 
applications at theu: discretion ; but very naturally their general 
attitude was against the creation of sub-seigniories, for the profits 
^accruing to them therefrom were sure to be small. 

The holder of a sub-seigniory was subject to the six general 
obligations which were imposed by the crown upon the seign- 
ior.* The only diflference was that the fealty and homage of 
the sub-seignior was rendered to the seignior and not to the 
representative of the crown; the aveu et cUnombrement was 
filed with the seignior, and not with the registrar at Quebec ; 
and the quint, when payable, went to the seignior instead of into 
the royal treasury. In making grants of sub-seigniories, the 

^ At the time of the abolition of the seigniorial system in 1854, the point was 
raised that the Arrdts of Marly (1711) did not apply the principle of compulsory sub- 
infeudation to these sub-seigniories. This, however, was not sustained by the Special 
Court 

77 






/ 



78 THE SEICmOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

seigniors usually inserted such reservations and prohibitions as 
had been imposed upon themselves; but the only financial 
emolument accruing to the seignior from the sub-seignior was 
that derived from the payment of the quint, and the amount of 
this was rarely of any substantial consequence. 

It is not strange, therefore, that seigniors preferred to 
have settlers tak^ their lands, not en arriire-fief^ but en censive^ 
or en roture^ ; for, as will be seen later, the seigniorial rights 
over such grants were much more extensive, and were more 
likely to be remunerative. When grants of sub-seigniories were 
made, there seems always to have been some special reason for 
giving lands under this tenure. In some cases they were made 
to relatives of the seignior ; in others they were made because 
the sub-seignior, in return, agreed to bring over from France a 
certain number of settlers ; and in still other cases, especially 
during the periods when the king decided to make no grants 
of seigniories, they were made to incoming settlers of rank 
and influence who would ordinarily have received full seign- 
iorial grants. Sub-seigniories usually took the same physical - 
form as the seigniory within which they were situated, — the 
shape of a parallelogram with its shorter side fronting on the 
river. In extent they varied greatly, sonletimes comprising half 
of the main seigniory, but more often only a few hundred 
square arpents of land. 

With very few exceptions, when an individual applied to a 
seignior for a grant of land, he received a small farm to be held 
en censivey or en roture^ and thus became technically a "censitaire " 
or "roturier" of the seignior.^-^ These terms were, however, . 
held in such aversion by the peasants that they were very 
rarely used ; even in the official documents of the old regime - 
the term " habitant " was usually employed instead. 

Between tenure en censive and tenure en roture there was 
in the colony practically no diflference. The former expression 
implied that the land was held subject to the payment of an 
annual due known as the cens {d titre de cens) ; while the latter 
indicated that the tenure was a base and not a noble one, and 

^ Hallam {^Europe during the Middle Ages, 3d ed., L 207} points out that there 
are no English words which properly translate these terms. 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS, 79 

that it was, consequently, subject to a different rule of succes- 
sion from that which regulated the descent of seigniories or sub- 
seigniories. For all practical purposes the terms may be used 
synonymously. 

In a very few cases, grants en censive were obtained directly ^"^ 
from the crown and not from a seignior. Some town lots in 
Quebec were granted in this way, but it was because the land 
from which the grants were made belonged to the crown. In 
another instance, some settlers upon en censive lands in the 
vicinity of Fort Pontchartrain (Detroit) received their title-deeds 
from the governor and intendant. In this case, titles to the 
lands which they occupied had, in accordance with the royal 
instructions, originally been given them by Lamotte-Cadillac, 
commandant of the fort ; but, the deeds proving to be irregular, 
the king, in 17 16, ordered all grants to be cancelled and new titles 
to be issued in regular form,* a command which was executed 
some years later.' These two cases must be regarded as ex- 
ceptional ; for, as a rulq^ incoming settlers were compelled to \^ 
apply to the seigniors ibr their locations. 

In extent, grants en censive varied Considerably. Although 
in almost every case they assumed the oblong shape, they 
ranged in width of river frontage from one to five lineal arpents, 
and in depth from ten to eighty arpents.' In making subgprants, 
most of the seigniors do not appear to have followed any fixed 
system of survey, the boundaries of allotments being indicated 
with considerable carelessness. One grant would be made ; 
then others would be given alongside it, the more favorable 
locations being first chosen, and each subsequent grant being 
delimited in its title-deed by reference to a former concession. 

i Frequently a settler took up a plot of land, and, having decided X 
that it was worth keeping, applied for and received from the 
seignior a title to the land " held by " him, without any further 
description of its extent. Many settlers took up locations with- 
out titles of any Sort, others on the mere word of the seignior, l 

'^Jugemtnti et Deliberations du Conseil Superitur eU Quebec, vL 121 3 (December 
I, 1716). 

* Titres des Seigfuuries, 173-175. 

* As noted above (p. 24), the Ihieal arpent was equivalent to 192 English feet. 



8o THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

and still others on informal tickets which established nothing but 
the fact of the grant. To this haphazard method of allotting 
lands en censive many 6f the dif&culties which arose between the 
seignior and his habitants, and between the habitants themselves, 
can be directly traced. 

The one feature in which there was almost absolute uni- 

^ formity was the peculiar shape assumed by all the land- 
holdings iuNthe colony, whether en seigneurie^ en arriire-fief^ or 
en censive, /Mr. Suite has endeavored to determine definitely 
the origin-n>f this peculiar method of shaping grants, distinct 
traces^of which remain in the configuration of the farms along 
the St. Lawrence River to-day, and which is further perpetuated 
in the present counties of Quebec, which in many cases are co> 
extensive with the old seigniories and bear their names. Mr. 
Suite is inclined to credit the origin of the system to Jean 

\/ Bourdon, the first surveyor-general of New France, who is said 
to have thought it wise, in locating seigniories, to economize 
the frontage granted along the river, but to be generous as to 
the depth of the grants.^ This plan, it is claimed, gave the 
seigniors a formula which they followed closely in making their 
subgrants both en arrHre-fief and en censive? 

It seems to be more likely, however, that the system merely 
grew out of the conflicting desires of the crown and the seigniors. 
Most of those who petitioned for grants of seigniories in New 
France were men of some rank, and it was only natural that 
they should want grants of extensive area. These the king, in 
his desire to induce men of position to emigrate to the colony, 
was willing to give them, until he found that most of the lands 
were allowed to remain undeveloped, and that the seigniors 
were holding them for speculative purposes. Down to the 
close of the seventeenth century, therefore, extensive grants 
were the rule. Now, those who applied for extensive seigniorial 

> grants naturally desired to obtain lands fronting on the St. 

1 See Mr. Suite's article on *'The Seigniorial Tenure in Canada," in Canada: an 
Encyclopedia of the Country (ed. J. Castell Hopkins), vol. iv. 

* See Jean Bourdon's map of the seigniories on the Lower St. Lawrence (1641), 
reproduced in Tanguay, Dictionnaire Ghuaiogique des Families Canadiennes, voL i. 
Appendix. 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 8 1 

Lawrence and situated between Quebec and Montreal, because 
the river, both in summer and in winter, formed the great high- 
-way of communication. As the amount of this frontage was 
not unlimited, the authorities had to see that individual seigniors 
did not receive too much of it ; on the other hand, since there 
-was plenty of land back from the water-front, there appeared 
to be no immediate necessity of restricting the depth of grants. 
Hence they gave the seignior access to the river, but only 
within moderate limits ; and they gave him an extensive area, 
but only by running his seigniory miles back into the uplands. 

There was, moreover, a reason why the seigniors actually n ^ 
preferred the narrow river frontage. At an early period the'* 
colonial authorities began the construction of a road along the 
north shore of the St. Lawrence from Quebec to Montreal, and 
issued orders that every seignior should build that part of 
the road which was to lie in his seigniory, while the sections 
through the ungranted lands were to be built by the crown.^ 
As those who applied for seigniorial grants were, of course, not 
anxious to assume the obligation of constructing any more of 
this road than was necessary, they probably interposed no ob- 
jections to receiving their grants in that shape which, while 
giving them plenty of land as well as access to the river, at the 
same time reduced the obligation and burden of road-building, u- 
Eventually a good road, built by the seigniors and the author- 
ities, extended all the way from Quebec to Montreal along the 
north shore of the St. Lawrence, passing through the front of 
each seigniory and giving the whole colony, as Lord Durham 
afterward remarked, "the appearance of a never-ending, strag- 
gling village." * 

The same reasons which impelled the authorities to grant \ 
seigniories in this shape influenced the seigniors to make en 
censive g^rants in oblong form. The habitants wanted lands 
along the river in order to be near their neighbors on the ^ 
common waterway ; and after the road was built the desire for 
front locations was, if anything, even stronger. Moreover, a 
grant which ran back a long distance from the river had the 

1 Edits et OrdonnanceSf iii. 412-413. 

* Dnrham, Rtport on Uu Affairs of British North America (1839), II. 



82 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

advantage of giving the holder a variety of land, the slope 
toward the river being very well suited for cultivation, the 
uplands affording pasture, and the hills farther inland timber 
and firewood. These grants along the river-front, extending, 
as they did, frequently a mile or more inland, formed what was 
called the " first range " ; it was only after all the good land in 

Y/'this belt was taken up that settlers resorted to the "second 
range" farther back. 

But in this adaptation of the shape of the grants to the 
immediate convenience of the authorities, the seigniors, and the 
habitants, a very serious ultimate disadvantage was apparently 
not foreseen. This evil resulted from the repeated partitioning- 
of the seigniories and en censive farms among the heirs of 
holders. By the terms of the Custom of Paris, not more than 
one-fifth of a holding, whether en seigneurie or en censive^ could 
be devised or otherwise disposed of, except by actual deed of 
sale, to the prejudice of direct or collateral heirs, who may be 
said to have had the expectant reversion of the other four 
fifths.* The rule of succession differed considerably in the two 
classes of land, however, as the following summary shows : — 

^/ In the case of lands held en seigneurie^ the eldest son took 
the chief manor-house or seigniorial residence {chdteau ou manoir 
principal)^ the inner yard (basse cour\ and one superficial arpent 
of land adjoining the house, which was supposed to include the 
garden {un arpent de terre de Venclos et jardin). He also took 
the banal mill, if it happened to be within this enclosure ; but 
the profits of the mill went to all the heirs in proportion to their 
landed inheritance. This right on the part of the eldest son 
was known as the droit d^Anesse^ or principle of primo- 
geniture.* The remaining lands of the seigniory were disposed 
of in four ways: (i) when there were but one son and one 
other child, the eldest son took two-thirds, his brother or sister 
the remaining third ; (2) when there were a son and more than 
one other child, the eldest son took one half, and the remainder 
of the seigniory was divided equally among the other children 
without distinction of age or sex ; ' (3) when there were no male 

^ CotUume de Parish article ccxcii. * Ibid, articles xiii-xiv. 

• Ibid, articles xv-xvi. 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 83 

children, the daughters divided the whole seigniory equally 
among themselves, without any distinction as to priority of 
birth ;^ (4) when there were no direct heirs, the estate went 
to collaterals, but male and female collaterals did not share 
equally.^ 

Lands held en censive^ on the other hand, were partible among 
the heirs without any preference of older to younger or of male 
to female. All direct heirs took share and share alike ; in the 
absence of direct heirs, all collaterals shared equally.^ Lands 
held en franc aleu noble followed the same rules as lands en 
seigneufiey lands held en franc aleu roturier the same as lands 
en censive.^ 

The effects of this system of succession soon began to show 
themselves. Each participant in an inheritance manifested a 
desire to have his share front on the river, with the result that 
at each partition the frontage was narrowed, the depth of each 
plot remaining as it was in the original grant. In the case of 
the seigniories the evil was not so great, for in most instances 
the .river frontage had been liberal at the outset; but in the 
case of en censive holdings equal division of the land be- 
tween all the heirs of a holder soon reduced the frontage to , 
such a narrow margin that the plots assumed a ludicrous shape. 
The holdings became mere ribbons of land, in some extreme 
cases with a frontage of less than two hundred feet and a 
depth of more than a mile. The evil was not, as in France, 
that of morcellementy for in point of superficial area the habit- 
ant often continued to be well provided with land ; but the 
(abnormal shape of his holding seriously lessened its valuQ? As ^ 
his house and bams were usually located at the front of his 
tract, the processes of agriculture necessitated considerable 
travelling back and forth on the part of those who worked 
the land, a necessity which too often resulted in the practice 

1 CofUume de Paris, article xix. * Ibid, article xxv. * Ihid, article cccii. 

* Ibid, article Ixviii. These various articles may be conveniently found in Sequel 
of the Abstract of those Parts of the Custom of the Viscounty and Provostship of Paris, 
which were received and practised in the Province of Quebec in the time of the French 
Government (1772). See also Doutre and Lareau, Histoire Generate du Droit Civil 
Canadien, 87 ff; and Report of the Solicitor-General, 1790, Titles and Documents 



84 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

of tilling the front of the farm and letting the rear grow wild. 
In more ways than one the peculiar configuration of the farms 
seems to have militated against rotation of crops, and to have 
hindered agricultural improvements in general. Furthermore, 
the fact that the children participated equally in inheritance to 
en censive lands offered a temptation for them to remain at 
home even after it had become apparent that their shares 
would be too small to support them properly; and the situa- 
tion was aggravated by the prevalence of Very large families,' 
a feature which has characterized the social development of 
the Norman race in the New World from its first establishment 
to the present day. 

In the autumn of 1744 the governor and intendant, in a long 
report to the French minister, complained of the bad effects 
which were beginning to attend this continued subdivision of 
farms, an evil to which, among other drawbacks, they attributed 
in considerable degree the small harvests of 1743 and 1744.^ 
To this appeal the king promptly responded in the following 
year with an ordinance relating to the practice. This document, 
after declaring the royal opinion that the principal hindrance 
to agricultural progress in New France wg.s the ill-advised 
endeavor of a large part of the habitants to eke out a living 
from farms of too small area, ordered that no habitant should 
thenceforth build his house and barn on any piece of land less 
than one and one-half lineal arpents in front by thirty to forty 
arpents in depth.^ That the authorities were in earnest in en- 
forcing this ordinance is shown by the fact that four years later 
the intendant Bigot decreed the demolition of certain houses 
which had been erected by the habitants of the seigniory of 
L'Ange-Gardien upon pieces of land the areas of which were 
shown to be less than that prescribed in the royal order.' 

It seems somewhat strange that, in a colony where land was so 
abundant and where grants could be freely had on such favorable 
terms, the authorities should have found it necessary to inter- 
vene in this rather harsh fashion. Although clearings were made 

^ Beauhamois and Hocquart to Minister, October 12, 1744, Correspondance Gene- 
rale^ Ixxxi. 35 fF. 

* EdiU et Ordonnancest i. 585-586. « Rid. ii. 400. 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 85 

slowly, at no time during the French era was the population of 
the colony large in proportion to the amount of land actually 
granted. It has been estimated that in 1760 the average land- 
holding, cleared and uncleared, per family was not less than one 
thousand superficial arpents ; ^ and none of this, it must be re- 
membered, could be permanently held for speculative purposes, 
for the authorities stood ready to see to it that habitants obtained 
on very reasonable terms all the land that they could properly 
cultivate. ^ It may be added that the evils of which the officials 
complained in 1744 have not been eradicated in French Canada 
even at the present day. ' 

The obligations imposed by the seigniors upon holders of en ^ 
censive grants were determined fundamentally by the Custom of 
Paris ;jbut the provisions of this custom might be, and frequently 
were, altered by decrees and ordinances. [ Though the obliga- 
tions were numerous, they may be grouped mto t hree c ategories : >' 
those which were remunerative or were a source o f profit to the 
seignior ; those connected with the adm inistr ation of seigniorial 
justice, which might or might notproxe .remunerative ; and those 
which were of a purely honpxfiry or ceremonial character. 

First in logical order among the remunerative obligations 
imposed by the seigjnior upon his habitants was that of paying 
the annual cens etjxnt^s. \This payment, though ordinarily re- 
garded as forming a single aue, may be separated into two.parts, 
each of which had a different orig^ and nature. The cens has 
been defined by a leading commentator on the Custom of Paris 
as " a moderate annual tax imposed in recognition of the seign- 
ior's direct authority";* and it is true that in New France the 
cens was usually regarded as a merely nominal payment, valu- 
able not in itself but as establishing the seignior's legal right to 
other and more important dues and services. 

As to the origin of the cens there is much difference of 
opinion among writers on the seigniorial' system in France. 

^ Tache, A Plan for the Commutation of the Seigniorial Tenure, Appendix. In 
1739, when the last complete census of the French period was taken, the area of 
cleared lands was 180,768 arpents, and the population 37,7x6, — or five arpents of 
cleared land per capita (^Censuses of Canada^ 1665-1871, p. 57 ; also below, p. 237). 

* See Dnmoulin, Coutumes de la Prevtte et Vicomte de Paris (1681), unde r 
"Cens," ■ 



86 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

Herv6 believes that the payment was* not, in its origin, a merely- 
nominal due, but that it was a real rental {redevance\ entailing 
a burden upon the censitaire and resulting in substantial profit 
to the seignior.'^yHe claims, however, that through successive 
depreciations in the value of French currency, it came to be 
merely nominal in amount. " At the beginning of the thirteenth 
century," says he, " the silver mark, which is of fixed weight, 
was worth three livres ; to-day [1786] it is worth fifty-four livres, 
thus showing an eighteenfold depreciation of the latter." He 
calculates that one sol of cens in 1350 would correspond in 
burden to nearly two livres in the currency of the latter part of 
the eighteenth century ; for, since the rate of cens was fixed in 
sols per superficial arpent, — that is, in fractions of the livre, — 
a cheapening of the livre meant a diminution in the burden of 
the cens. In other words, he estimates that a censitaire who in 
the eighteenth century was paying only one or two sols per 
arpent was rendering to his seignior what would have been a 
rental of very substantial amount four or five centuries before.* 
This explanation, though bearing the air of plausibility, is 
open to some important objections. During the interval be- 
tween the fourteenth and eighteenth centuries there was no 
doubt a great depreciation in the value of the livre, and conse- 
quently of its fractions the sol and the denier, in terms of which 
the rate of cens per arpent was fixed; but this depreciation 
seems to have been neither so regular nor so exact as Hervi 
infers. Great changes in value took place even within a single 
century. In some years of the fourteenth century, for instance, 
the depreciation of the livre (in terms of the silver mark) was 
greater than at any time in the seventeenth.^ 

^ Herv£, Theorii des Matt^ns FeodaUi et CensueUes^ v. 109-110. 
^ The yariations in the value of the silver mark in terms of the livre and its frac- 
tions, by centuries, seem to have been as follows : 

1 200-1 300, from 40 sols 

1 300-1400, from 2 livres, 4 sols 



1400-1500, from 6 livres, 5 sols 
1 500-1 600, from II livres 
1 600- 1 675, from 20 livres 



to 3 livres, 15 sols. 

to 102 livres. 

to 26 livres. 

to 19 livres. 

to 33 livres, 16 sols. 



This table is compiled from Le Blanc's Traite Historique dei Mannoyes de France 
({Amsterdam, 1692}. The fluctuations in the value of money during the period in- 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 8/ 

Quite another explanation of the low rate at which the cens 
-was fixed is that given by Henrion de Pansey, who maintains 
that the cens was from the very first not a source of emolument 
to the seignior and not intended to be such, but that on the 
contrary it was imposed as a badge of ignoble tenure. It grew, ' 
he claims, out of the principle expressed in the feudal maxim 
Nulle terre sans seigneur^ and was exacted as a symbol of seign- 
iorial dominance.^ In confirmation of his view he cites various 
royal arrets providing that, if no payment of the cens had been 
stipulated for by the seignior, or if the payment had been inter- 
rupted, the seignior must forthwith create or revive it in order to 
hold valid his other seigniorial rights ; and in creating or reviving 
the payment, he was, according to the terms of these arrets, to 
accept the rates current in the neighboring seigniories.* 

In France, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 
there was of course no uniform rate of cens. The rate varied in 
different jurisdictions, but it was never high enough to form a real 
burden. The rate per arpent was ordinarily fixed by the terms 
of the original grant en censive; when it had not been specified 
on that occasion, the rate payable was that which happened to 
be current in the neighborhood.' It must be understood, however, 
that in France the seignior was nowhere compelled to subgrant 
his lands; nor was he, when he chose to subgrant, bound to do 
so at the rate current in the vicinity. He was under obligation 
to accept this current rate only when a stipulation of the precise 
rate had not been made in the original title-deed. In Canada, 

tervening between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries are also discnssed in Avenel, 
Hiitoire Eeonomiqui de la Propriite^ dts Salaires^ des Denrees, et de tons les Prix en 
gentral depuii Van I200jusqii en Van 1800 (4yol8., Paris, 1894-1898). 

1 This seems to have been the view taken by the colonial authorities : " Une 
redevance si modique, qui est plutdt donnee in recognUionetn domini et pour la 
marque de la directe seigneurie, que pour foire un revenu de quelqne consideration 
«u seigneur" {Edits et Ordonnances, ii. 489). 

* Henrion de Pansey, Dissertations Feodales^ L 269, 295. 

* '^ As regards the amount of the eens^ it is regulated by the titles if such there be ; 
sind where there is no title fixing the amount, custom, that is to say the amount most 
ordinary in the same place, governs it ; it is in this last case a sure and decisive 
guide" (Lafontaine, Observations^ 166, citing Bourjon, Le Droit Commun de la 
France et la Coutume de Paris redmts en Princifes^ i. 266). See also the references 
given by Lafontaine to many other authorities. 



88 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

'on the contrary, owing to the persistent royal mtervention in the 

interest of colonial progress, the fixing of the rate of cens was 

not permanently left to the discretion of the seignior ; for early 

/in the eighteenth century he was placed under obligation to 

/ subgrant lands to settlers at the rate customary in the neighbor- 

^ hood, without having any legal right to demand a higher 

I rate.^ 

In the charters granted to the Marquis de la Roche in 1598, 
to the Company of One Hundred Associates in 1627, and to the 
Company of the West Indies in 1664, no stipulation was made 
as to the exact terms upon which lands in the colony should be 
granted; each charter gave to the recipients power to grant 
upon such terms as might seem advisable to them.* Nor did 
any of the royal arrets down to the beginning of the eighteenth 
century make any reference, direct or indirect, to the existence 
of any uniform rate of cens. Consequently the matter was regu- 
lated by the "common law" of the colony, which was the Custom 
of Paris : the colonial seigniors, like those at home, stipulated 
with their censitaires for such rate of cens as they were able to 
obtain, and, when no title-deed was drawn up, collected such rate 
as was customary in the neighborhood. In the early days of 
the colony down to the close of the seventeenth century, settlers 
came in so slowly that there were not many applications each year 
for en censive grants; hence the seigniors, in their desire to obtain 
settlers on their lands, were willing to subgrant at a very low rate 
of cens. Toward the end of seventeenth century, however, when 
the despatch of large numbers of colonists under state auspices 
caused the applications for land grants to become more numer- 
ous, the seigniors began to demand more rent ; so that incoming 
settlers found themselves unable to get locations except on 
promising to pay a rate of cens very much higher than that paid 
by habitants already on the seigniorial lands. In a word, the\ 
seigniors, very much to the detriment of what the authorities con- 1 
ceived to be the best interest of the colony, — namely, facility of 
settlement upon the land, — began to abuse their right to stipu- 
late at their own discretion for any amount of cens. 

1 See below, p. 89. * Cf. above, ch. it 



I 

/ 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 89 

It was for this reason that the governor and intendant from 
time to time asked the king to curb the power of the seigniors in 
Jthis particular. In 1707, Raudot addressed Pontchartrain very 
vigorously on the point, asking that an arrfit be issued limiting 
the cens to the uniform rate of ''one sou for each arpent in front 
or twenty sous for the whole grant, at the option of the grantee 
... in order to prevent the seigniors from imposing vexatious 
conditions." ^ To this despatch the minister replied, expressing 
the opinion that "it would be very desirable to reduce the seign- 
iorial dues throughout the whole of Canada to the same level," 
but asking for further information as to the rates imposed in 
various parts of the colony.^ To this request the intendant re- 
sponded in the course of the same year, enclosing a memorandum 
showing the amount of dues exacted in different seigniories, and 
commenting upon the marked increase in the rates during the 
last few decades over those stipulated for "in innocent times 
when the seigniors did not so much seek their own advantage."^ 

The home government, however, took no decisive action till 
171 1. In the first Arrfit of Marly, promulgated in that year, ex- 
plicit provision was made to the effect that no seignior should 
henceforth exact from an applicant for lands a higher rate of 
dues than that which was customary in the vicinity. If the 
seignior should demand more, the arrfit gave the governor and 
intendant power to step in and make the desired grant at the 
customary rate, the dues thereafter to become payable to the 
crown and not to the avaricious seignior.* At first glance, it 
might be thought that this provision of the Arrfit of Marly 
would have effected what Raudot desired, namely, a uniform 
rate of cens throughout the colony; in fact, some writers of 
prominence and authority have expressed the opinion that a uni- 

^ Randot to Pontchartrain, November 10, 1707, Correspondance Ginirakt xxvL 

7-34. 

* Pontchartrain to Raudot, June 13, 1708, Correspondence between the French 
^gfernment and the Governors and Intendanis of Canada relative to the Seigniorial 
Wenure (1853), 9 flf. 

* Raudot to Pontchartrain, October 18, 1708, Correspondance Genirale,jayiiL 175-* 
187. The memorandum referred to as accompanjring this despatch has, unfortu- 
nately, not been preserved. 

A Edits et Ordonnances, L 325. 



90 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

form rate was actually established by this royal decree. Cugnet 
speaks of the cens as having been definitely fixed at ''one sol 
for each arpent in front by forty in depth." ^ Solicitor-Gen- 
eral WilUams, in his report on the nature and legal bases of 
seigniorial rights, made in 1790, declared that the rate was fixed 
at "one half -penny for every acre in front by forty in depth. "^ 
Judge Hay decided that it was fixed at "one penny for every 
superficial arpent";* and two of the judges of the Special Court 
established in 1854 to determine the rights of seigniors to com- 
pensation for the loss of their privileges, expressed the opinion 
that the arrSt of 171 1 intended to make the rate of cens imiform 
throughout the colony.* 

Color appears to be lent to this view, furthermore, by the 
wording of an intendant's ordinance issued in 1737. In that 
year Hocquart received from certain habitants of the seigniory 
of Gaudarville a petition setting forth " that the Dame Peuvret, 
seignioress of that place, had made some five grants en censive 
without having fixed the amoimt of dues for which the habitants 
should be held liable," and requesting that she be ordered to 
grant them titles in good form, " and this on the footing of the 
deeds of concession of other lands in the same seigniory." The 
intendant having, as he declares, " inspected the deeds of two 
other habitants of the same seigniory," ordered that " the peti- 
tioners be granted deeds of concession by Dame Peuvret . . . 
subject to the rate of cens ordered by His Majesty, namely, one 
sol of cens for each arpent in front." • 

This ordinance would at first sight seem to indicate that, inu 
the opinion of the intendant, the arrfit of 171 1 had established! 
a definite rate of cens ; but a closer examination will disclose] 
that it does not necessarily imply this. It should be noted that^ 
the intendant first inspected the deeds of other habitants in the 

^ Cngnet, Traite dt la Loi des Fiefi, 44. 

* This report may be found in full in Titles and Documents^ i. 37 ff. 

* Unpublished manuscript entitled *' Government and Justice in Canada," now in 
the library of the Provincial Parliament at Quebec. 

^ These were Judges Smith and Mondelet. See Proceedings of the Special SeigH" 
iorial Court (1856), 61 ; also Judge Smith's Observations^ 50, and Judge Monde- 
let's Observations, 5. 

* Edits et Ordonnances, u, 545. 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS, 91 

seigniory. Why should he have done this if a uniform rate had 
been definitely fixed for all grants ? Was it not that Hocquart 
wished to find out what was the customary rate of cens in the 
seigniory of Gaudarville, and upon this basis to determine the rate 
which the dame seignioress, having failed to make stipulation in 
the original grants, might now exact ? In other words, may not 
the words of the intendant's ordinance be fairly construed to 
read, " to the rate fixed by the king, [which in this case appears 
from deeds of other habitants of the seigniory to be] one sol per 
arpent " ? 

Support is given to this view by the fact that the words " to 
the rate ordered by His Majesty " do not appear in any other of 
the numerous ordinances which commanded seigniors to grant 
title-deeds to habitants at the customary rate, and that no other 
official document refers to the rate as having been uniformly fixed 
at one sol per arpent As amatter of fact, the purpose of th6^ 
Arr6t of Marly jcas^tQ keep the seigniors from stipulating for 
anHnfair rate to the detriment of colonial development, an end 
which did not, however, necessitate the reduction of all dues to 
the same level The royal intention, as seen from the wording 
of certain ratifications of grants made subsequently to 171 1, 
appears to have been to allow the rate to be fixed by the seign:. 
ior in accordance with the quality and situation gf the grant,^ but 
at the same time to prevent any abuse of this discretionary power. 
It seems scarcely possible that the king should have expected 
or desired seigniors to subgraht all lands, good, bad, and indif- 
ferent, at the same rate. 

If it was the intention of the crown to establish a uniform 
rate of cens for the whole colony by the arrfit of 171 1, it may 
fairly be assumed that in those grants which were made by 
the crown directly, without the intervention of a seignior, a 
uniform rate would have been prescribed ; but an examination 
of the title-deeds of the en censive grants thus made after 171 1 
shows nothing of the kind. Take, for example, the title-deeds 
of three en censive grants made by the crown during the years 
1750-1753, all three of them grants of land near the present 

1 ** En £garcl 2l la quality et dtuation des heritages au tempa des conceasions" 
ifirevets de RatificaHon^ 9). 



\ 



N 



92 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

site of Detroit.^ If we might fairly expect to find uniformity 
anywhere, it would be in the case of grants made by the same 
authorities at about the same time and in the same locality ; but 
as a matter of fact the rate of cens provided for in these three 
deeds varied considerably. It might furthermore be expected 
that, if the crown intended that the seigniors should exact a 
fixed rate of cens^ it would have so stipulated in the title-deeds 
of seigniories granted after 171 1 ; but out of the scores of such 
deeds executed by the governors and intendants from 171 1 to 
1759 there seem to be only four in which the rate of cens which 
might be exacted by the grantees is definitely fixed, aiyi in each 
of these four the rate allowed is a different one.^ ^^t may,* 
then, be fairly concluded that the amount of the cens was neveil 
regulated by any uniform rule for the whole colony .^^ 

When the colonial currency became depreciated, disputes 
arose between seigniors and habitants as to whether the cens 
should be paid in colonial money (monnaies de cartes) or in 
French ( monnaie de France ). The seigniors, naturally enough, 
wished to be paid in the latter, the habitants to pay in the 
former; but an end was promptly put to their disputes by 
the issue, in 171 7, of a royal edict providing that, unless it I 
had been otherwise stipulated in their title-deeds, the habitants/ 
should be allowed to pay their dues in French currency with! 
a deduction of one-fourth.* ) This peculiar arrangement is ex-' 
plained by the fact that at this time colonial currency was 
circulating at about three-fourths of its face value.*) The 
edict of 1 71 7 is not to be understood as giving the liabitant 
the option of paying the full rate in colonial currency or 
three-fourths of the rate in French currency. That, to be 

^ One to Pierre Reaame, April I, 1750, and two to DouyUle Dequindre, June 12, 
1752, and May 16, 1753. See Titres des Seigneuries^ 249, 251-252. 

* For copies of these four deeds, see Ibid, 59, 64, S4, 131. In all the others the 
obligation, when it appears at all, is that grants shall be made ** at the customary 
rate." 

* Edits et OrdonnanceSy i. 372, § ix ; cf. also Ibid, 393, 525. On the enforcement of 
the stipulations contained in the deeds, see Dupuy's elaborate ordinance in the case 
of the habitants of Bellechasse, Ibid. 486-494. 

^ The best outline of the history of currency and exchange during this period is 
Adam Shortt's Canadian Currency and Exchange under French Rule^ in Journal of 
the Canadian Banker^ Association^ ▼•271, 385, vi I, 147, 233 ( 1 898-1 899). 



THE SEICmOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 93 

sure, is what the arrangement • practically amounted to at the 
time the edict was issued ; but, as the colonial currency further 
depreciated, the habitants, when they tendered this money, were 
required to pay considerably more than the sum specified in 
their deeds. This was particularly true of the closing years of 
the French epoch, when the colony was flooded with inconvertible 
paper money .^ 

.--^The other part of this payment, the rentes^ was payable 
sometimes in kind, sometimes in both money and kind, and 
sometimes entirely in money/ In many cases the amount was 
fixed in terms of both produce and money, — as, for example, 
for each superficial arpent " twenty sols or one fat capon," or 
" twenty sols or one demi-minot of grain. "X The amount of 
the rentes^ like that of the cens^ w as fix efl by the seignior 
at the time the g^ant was made, otherwise the rate cus- 
tomary in the neighborhood obtained; and, as in case of 
the cens^ the amount stipulated varied in different seigniories, 
and even in the same seigniory at different period^ The 
rentes was no nominal due, but a real burden on the habitant 
and a tangible source of profit to the seigniorJ When its 
amount was fixed in terms of poultry or grain alone, the 
burden varied with variations in the value of these. The 
value of the " fat capon," for instance, rose and fell from year 
to year. In a deed granting lands within the seigniory of 
Gaudarville in 1708, it is given as twenty sols,^ while in the 
title of a g^ant within the seigniory of Isles Bouchard in 1709 
it is given as thirty sols.* The fluctuations in the price of wheat 
were also marked, extending, during the last thirty years of 
French rule, all the way from two to ten livres per minot, 
as may be seen from the appended table.^ 

^ Sterenson, The Card Money of Canada^ in Quebec Literary and Historical So- 
ciety, Transactions^ 1 873-1 875, pp. 84-112. See also Iax^^Xl^ Monnaie de Cartes 
au Canada^ in Revue de Montreal^ ii. 433-438 ; and Dionne, La Monnaie Cana* 
dienne sous le Regime Rranfais, in Revue Canadienne, xxix. 30-32, 72-83. 

* A minot was the equivalent of 39 litres, or 1.072 English bushels. 
■ Cited in Lafontaine, Observations, 178. 

* /Hd. 19a 

* This table is compiled by the Rev. M. Comte, and printed in Titles and Docu- 
ments, I. 177. 



94 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 



YEAR 


LiVRES 


Sols 


Year 


LiVRES 


Sols 


1729 


3 




1745 


3 




1730 


3 




1746 


2 


ID 


1 731 


2 


10 


1747 


3 




1732 


3 




1748 


3 




1733 


2 




1749 


2 


10 


1734 


2 




1750 


3 




1735 


2 




1751 


5 




1736 


3 


10 


1752 


4 




1737 


4 




1753 


3 


10 


1738 


3 




1754 


3 


ID 


1739 


2 




1755 


3 


ID 


1740 


2 




1756 


5 




I74I 


2 


10 


1757 


10 




1742 


3 


10 


17581 




1743 


4 


5 


1759 • 


Figures not obtainable. 


1744 


4 


2i 


1760 J 





In drawing up the deeds, many of the seigniors took care ta 
stipulate strictly as to the qu^ity of produce which might be 
tendered in payment of the rentes; thus, one will find the pay- 
ments fixed at " one good fat capon of the brood of the month 
of May for each arpent," or at " one minot of good sound mer- 
chantable wheat." When the rate of rentes was fixed both in 
produce and in money, the seignior usually stipulated that the 
option of payment in one or the other form should rest with 
him and not with the grantee ; if he omitted to do so, the habit- 
ants appear to have made it a point to tender their rentes in 
grain or fowl when prices were low and in money when prices 
were high. The authorities, however, seem to have felt that even 
in the absence of explicit stipulation the choice as to the form, 
of payment rested with the seignior, a fact of which Raudot com-l 
plained, in 1707, on the ground that it made the burden upom 
the habitants unduly heavy. "These dues," he wrote, " are paid 
to the seignior either in kind or in cash at the seignior's choicei 
The capons are valued at thirty sols, whereas they are not really' 
worth more than ten. The seigniors often compel the habitants! 
to give them money at great inconvenience, for the latter fre- 
quently have no money to give. Thirty sols may seem a mere 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 95 

trifle, but it is very considerable in a colony where money is so 
scarce. It seems to me that when there is a choice of payment 
it should be in favor of the party owing, cash being a sort of 
penalty against him when he is unable to pay in kind."^ When, 
however, the habitants appealed to the authorities at Quebec to 
be allowed to choose the form of payment, the latter invariably • 
upheld the seignior's contention, and finally, in 1730. decree d . 
by ordinance the enforcement of the general principle that the 
choice should always rest with the seignior unless the title-deed 
of the habitant expressly stated the contrary.^ 

Payment of the cens et rentes took place on^e a year, and ^ 
usually late in the fall. I'* Every autumn," writes Casgrain, " as 
Michaelmas (November 11) approached, the seignior warned 
his habitants at the church door after mass that their cens et ' 
rentes was payable. As soon as the winter roads were good 
the manor-house became the centre of as lively activity as is 
the presbytire to-day when the habitants assemble to pay their 
tithes. Some arrived in carioles, some in sleighs, each bringing 
with him a capon or two, oats by the bushel, or other products 
of his lands." * The occasion was a gala day for the seigniory, i 
There appears to have been "a prodigious consumption of 
tobacco and a corresponding retail of neighborhood gossip, 
joined to the outcries of the captive fowls, bundled together 
with legs securely tied but with throats at full liberty." * When, 
as occasionally happened, the seignior did not reside on his 
seigniory, he was obliged to keep an agent on the ground to 
receive the payments at the time and place appointed in the 
deeds of the habitants. An intendant's ordinance, issued in 17 14, 
makes it clear that the habitants could not be called upon to 
make payments of the cens et rentes except on the exact day and 
at the particular place specified in their title-deeds.* 

The s econd financial obligation- ainder which lands en censive^^ 
were held was that of the payment of a mutation fine, known as 

^ Randot to Pontchartrain, Noyember 10, 1707, Correspondance GeneraU^ xxvi 
7ff. 

' Edits et Ordonnances, ii. 512. 

' H. R. Casgrain, Une Paroisse Canadienne au xvii^ Siecle^ 173. 

^ Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada^ ii. 47. 

* Edits et Ordonnances^ it 440. 



96 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

the lods et ventes^ which became due and payable upon the 
occasion of each mutatioi\jiLjayner.ship of thgjjands, whether 
by salej.j3ft,_iMLinhentance otier than in dprect descent.^ In 
France the amount ^of the lods et venies varied somewhat in 
different provinces, amounting sometimes to from on&-fourth 
to one-sixth of the mutation price.^ In Canada, on the other 
hand, the amount uniformly exacted was that fixed by the Cusy 
tom of Paris, namely, one-twelfth, of which the seignior usually 
remitted one-third, although he was under no legal obligation to 
do so.* A judgment of the Superior Council in 1677, for in- 
stance, ordered certain habitants of the seigniory of Gaudarville 
to pay the full twelfth without rebate, despite the fact that, as 
the habitants alleged, '' a remission of one-third was made by all 
the seigniors of the country." * 

s The lods et ventes was payable in cash at the seigniorial 
manor-house within_forty days of the date of mutation. In 
default of payment, the seignior might obtain from the intendant 
a judgment giving him the right to seize the grain or other per- 
sonal property of the delinquent habitant ; or, if there were not 
sufficient property to distrain, he might obtain a judgment re- 
uniting the land to the seigniorial domain.^ At the time of making 
payment, the new owner of the en censive lands exhibited his title 
and rendered his fealty and homage to the seignior. 

Ordinarily the lods et venies could not be collected on the ex- 
change of inheritances between direct heirs any more than on 
direct inheritances; but by an edict issued in 1673 ^^ ^^S 
made provision that this exemption should not apply to those 
en censive lands which had been granted directly by the crown ; • 
and some time later the Seminary of St. Sulpice, which possessed 
the seigniory of the island of Montreal, was given the same 

^ Coutume de Paris, artide IxxiiL 

* Taine, VAncien Regime, 536. 

* Report of the Commissioners, 1S43, Titles and Documents, L 51. Solicitor- 
General Williams, in his report of 1790, states that *' a fourth of the fine was usually 
remitted by the seignior '' (Jbid, 30) ; bat this is probably an error. 

* Edits et Ordonnances, ii. 75-76. 
» Ibid, 64, 341. 

* This edict does not seem to have been printed. It is cited in the report of 
Solicitor-General Williams, mentioned above. 



THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 97 

privilege as the crown, by way of compensation for relinquish- 
ing its judicial privileges within the seigniory.^ 

In the earlier period of the French regime the seigniorial 
profits accruing from the payment of the lods et venies were 
not large, for lands en censive changed hands, except by inherit- 
ance in direct succession, very infrequently; but in the later 
years of French dominion the increase of colonial population 
made transfers of land, especially in the vicinity of the settle- 
ments, much more frequent, and the seigHjorial profits became, 
in conse quence^ very considerable. *^ Still, the payment does not 
seem senouSty^ have hampered the normal course of land 
transfers until aAr (he conquest, when it became one of the 
generally acceptecHj^ncidents of the seigniorial system, by 
operating, especial^^^L the case of valuable lands, as an 
unwholesome check aH|^ free alienation of real property. 

As the seigniorial system developed, it became a common 
practice to attempt to* deprive the seignior of his proper lods ^ 
et ventes by concealing from him the actual transfer price and 
tendering him one-twelfth of an alleged mutation price, which 
was, in each case, fixed much below the actual. According to 
the Custom of Paris, the dominant seignior had the right, in 
case of mutation in the ownership of seigniories, to protect him- 
self against being defrauded out of his proper quint by exercis- 
ing his droit de reirait fiodal {jus retractum)^ which gave him 
the privilege of buying a sub-seigniory at the alleged price any , 
time within forty days from his receipt of notice of sale. The 
custom, however, provided no means whereby the seignior might 
protect himself from being defrauded of his lods et ventes. By 
some of the other French customs, seigniors were allowed to 
exercise the droit de retrait over transfers of land within their 
seigniories ; and it would seem that in Canada they began at 
an early date to stipulate, in the deeds which ^hey granted to 
their habitants, for the recognition of this right, y Raudot, in his 
despatch of November 10, 1707, complains that the colonial 
seigniors "have even introduced in nearly all their deeds a 
retrait roturier [or right to preempt lands en roture\ of which 
no mention is made in the Custom of Paris, — although that is 

^ Edits et OrdonnanceSf L 54J-546. ' Cautume de Paris, article xz. 



9? THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

the custom observed in this country, — by stipulating that the 
seignior, at each sale, may withdraw the lands which he grants 
at the same price as that at which they would be sold; and 
they have thus abused the right of feudal preemption {retrait 
fiodal) spoken of in that custom, and which is sometimes in- 
serted in grants en fief . . . but is not established as between 
seignior and habitant. This claim. My Lord," he concludes, 
" shackles very injuriously all sales of land." Raudot finished 
by recommending that a royal decree be issued forbidding the 
seigniors to stipulate for this right^ 

In reply to this recommendation, Pontchartrain agreed that, 
since the Custom of Paris had been adopted as the general rule 
of seigniorial rights in the colony, the exercise of any droit de 
retrait roturier could not be permitted ; and he said further that 
even the droit de retrait f^odal should not be insisted upon by 
the crown unless special stipulation therefor had been made in 
the title-deeds of the seigniories.^ This reply only complicated 
matters : for, according to Pontchartrain, the seigniors were not 
to exercise the right with reference to the lands of their habit- 
ants, even when they had stipulated for it in the title-deeds 
granted by them, because it was not recognized by the Cus- 
tom of Paris ; while, on the other hand, the representatives of 
the crown were not to exercise the right in reference to the 
seigniories unless they had expressly stipulated for it in the 
deeds, although this right was permitted by the custom. 

The intendant did not, of course, wish the policy of suppres- 
sion to be carried so far; he wanted to have the seigniors 
curbed in their rights without being freed from one of the 
checks which the authorities had upon them. He therefore 
communicated again with the minister on the subject, pointing 
out that the right of retrait f^odal was a very serviceable one 
in several ways. Even if it did hinder the transfer of seign- 
iorial lands, it was, he claimed, not an evil, since it was well 
that the " ownership of seigniories should be perpetuated in the 

^ Raudot to Pontchartrain, Noyember lo, 1707, Correspondance GeneraU^ xxvi. 
7ff. 

3 Pontchartrain to Raudot, June 13, 1708, Correspondence between the French Gov- 
ernment and the Governors and Intendants of Canada, etc., 9 S. 



THE SEIGNIOR Aim HIS DEPENDENTS, 99 

same families." ^ With this correspondence the matter seems to 
have dropped, for no edict on the subject followed. In the 
absence of express prohibition, the seigniors made good their 
claim to exercise the right; and in 1714 the intendant Bigon 
decided in one of his judgments that they were justified in so 
doing.* 

One writer on the subject of land tenure in Lower Canada 
has remarked that the existence of the droit de retrait was nec- 
essary in order to keep the seignior from being defrauded of 
his proper amount of cens et rentes? There seems to be no 
ground for this view, for the cens et rentes was reckoned upon 
area and was a definite annual due ; it was only the lods et ventes 
which was reckoned upon the mutation price of the land and 
hence was liable to variation. In France, where the amount of 
lods et ventes was high, there was naturally a strong temptation 
on the part of censitaires to report a fictitious mutation price to 
the seignior ;^ut in Canada, where it amounted to only one- 
twelfth of the value, the temptation was much less dangerous.; 
Still, the possibility of fraud existed, and the Canadian seignior 
clung to the droit de retrait as a protection. It may be worth 
while to note that something corresponding to this right may 
be found in almost every land-tenure system in which the peas- 
ant holder pays a mutation fine to him from whom the land is 
held, and where this fine is paid upon the value and not upon 
the extent of the lands.* It seems, therefore, to have been a 
natural supplement to the payment, and to have come into 
being as a preventive to fraud. 

Toward the close of the French era, complaints were ma4e. 
that some of the seigniors were asserting their right to purchase 
not only the lands, but the grain, cattle, and even the personal 

* Raudot to Pontchartrain, October 18, 1708, Correspondance GeneraU, jxnvu 
175-187. 

' Edits et Ordonnances, ii. 438. 

* Robert Abraham, Some Remarks on the French Tenure of Franc Aieu Roturier^ 
and its relation to the Feudal and other forms of Tenure , 25. 

* M. Emile de Laveleye, in his De la Propriete et de ses Formes Primitives^ 98, 
notes the existence, among the Arabs in Algeria, of what was substantially the droit 
de retrait under the name oicheffa, or ehefaa. See also Leroy-Beaulieu, De la Colo- 
nisation chez les Peuples Modernes (5th ed.), ii. 24-25. 



100 THE SEIGNIOR AND HIS DEPENDENTS. 

chattels, of their habitants, whenever the latter had these for 
sale.^ In some parts of France this right seems to have been 
exercisable by the seigniors ; ^ but the Custom of Paris gave no 
warrant for it, and in Canada it was never sanctioned by the 
authorities. Many of the Canadian habitants, however, drawn 
as they were from the provinces of Normandy, Perche, and 
Poitou, knew very little about the provisions of the Custom of 
Paris, and by their absolute ignorance were often led to submit 
to seigniorial exactions which were without any legal basi^ It 
not unfrequently happened, indeed, that the habitants in various 
outlying seignories would submit quietly to the enforcement 
of unfounded seigniorial claims for many years before making 
the discovery that they were merely being made to pay the 
price of their ignorance. From time to time, it is true, the 
authorities deplored this apparent disposition of the seigniors 
to take unfair advantage of their unsophisticated dependents ; 
but they could deal only with cases which came to their notice. 

The cens et rentes and the lods et venies were the only direct 
payments made by the habitants to their seigniors ; but there 
were several other obligations to which the former were subject, 
some of which came in the course of time to be regarded as little 
more than direct payments or seigniorial dues. Chief among 
these were the banalities, or banal rights, of the seigniors, a 
consideration of the nature and extent of which forms the topic 
of the next chapter. 

^ See Glasson, Precis Elemeniaire de Pffistoire du Droit Franfais^ 476. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE BANALITIES. 

Among the important incidents of the seigniorial system in 
France were the various rights and privileges known as the 
droits de banal^ banaliUs^ or banal rights. These were the 
rights of the seignior to control exclusively various public or 
semi-public services within his seigniory, and to compel his 
dependents to make use of these at a stipulated toll or charge. 
In various parts of France the seigniorial banalities included 
the right to build and operate gjist-mills, cork-factories, hemp- 
factories, saw-mills, bakQK)yens, wine=Eresses, cider^mills, slaugh- 
ter-houses, and so on ; but the nature and extent of the rights 
varied very greatly in different provinces. Out of the long 
list of privileges only two were ever claimed in Canada, the 
grist-mill and bake-oven banalities; and of these only the former 
was ever enforced to any extent. 

Whether, in their origin, these banal rights resulted from un- 
lawful usurpations on the part of the seigniors, or whether they 
arose naturally from the mutual wants and interests of the 
parties concerned, has never been very satisfactorily determined. 
On this point students of the development of seigniorial insti- 
tutions disagree.^ According to Henrion de Pansey, however, 
there were in France but eleven coutumes which expressly 
recognized the banal rights as accruing to a seignior without 
special contract made with his dependents.^ The other customs 
either are entirely silent upon the whole subject of banalities, 
or speak of them only as rights which a seignior might exercise 
as the result of stipulations made in the original grant of lands 
within his jurisdiction. Whatever their origin, the exaction of 

1 See M. Rioufol, VOrigine et VHUtoire des Banalites (1893). 
* Henrion de Pansey, Dissertations FeodaUs^ L 175. 
10 1 



'ibft" '.; - :•': : : the banauties. 

/'. tWi^jigilr'rijhtfe.^fetfj^^ the end of the seventeenth century, 
more or less general throughout a considerable part of France ; 
in fact, one writer has declared them to have been " the most 
terrible and the most general abuse " of the whole seigniorial 
system.^ 

The Custom of Paris recognized the right of the seignior to 
enforce mill and oven banalities only when he had stipulated to 
this effect in the title-deeds granted to his dependents, and 
then only under certain limitations. The articles in the custom 
that relate to this matter run as follows : (i) "No seignior can 
compel his dependents to go to the mill or oven which he claims 
to be banal ... if he have not such right by title . . . and no 
title is to be reputed valid if it has not been executed more than 
twenty-five years;" (2) "A windmill (w^«A« d «/^«/) cannot be 
a banal mill, nor [when a seignior possesses such only] can 
neighboring millers be hindered from soliciting grist within the 
seigniory." ^ 

In New France, therefore, after the introduction of the Cus- 
tom of Paris in 1664,^ the possession by the seignior of the rights 
of mill and oven banality was not a necessary incident of 
the ownership of a seigniory, but accrued to him only when be 
had made the proper stipulations with his habitants. In the 
title-deeds which he granted his dependents, however, it was 
; the almost invariable practice of the Canadian seignior to insert 
a clause providing that the grantee should have his grain ground 
only at the seigniorial mill ; and if no mill had been erected at 
the time the grant was made, the clause was made to provide 
that this obligation should go into force whenever a seigniorial 
mill should be established.* As will be seen, however, the 
provisions of the Custom of Paris requiring that a title, to be 

1 Championni^re, De la Propriiti des Eaux Courantes (1846}, 552. Tocque- 
ville, in his Old Regime and the Revolution^ 336, mentions that there were no banal 
rights in the provinces of Artois, Flanders, and Hainault. 

. ^ Articles bud-lxxii. These articles were not in the Custom of Paris as drawn up 
in 1 5 10, but were inserted at the time of its revision in 1580. 

• See above, p. 31. 

* " Que le dit . . . seront tenus de porter leurs grains moudre au moulin banal, 
lorsqu'il y en aura d'etabli, 21 peine de confiscation des grains et d'amende arbitraire ** 
(^Titres des Seigneuries^ 242). 



(' UNIVERSITY I 

"" THE BANALITIES. IO3 

accounted valid, must have been executed more than twenty-five 
years, and providing that no windmill could be deemed a banal 
mill, were, like some other provisions of the custom, set aside by 
the king and by the colonial authorities as being unsuited to 
conditions existing in New France.* 

The first mention, so far as official writings are concerned, 
of the existence of banal mills in the colony is to be found 
in an ordinance of Governor de Lauzon, issued in 1652. This 
ordinance has not been preserved; but it is referred to in a 
decree of the Sovereign Council, which, some fifteen years later 
(March 28, 1667), reiterated the purport of Lauzon's decree 
and ordered its enforcement. This later decree,^ after declar- 
ing that sundry complaints had been made regarding abuses of 
the banal right by millers, — abuses which were apparently in 
the form of excessive exactions of toll and the rendering of 
inferior service, — went on to direct that the provisions made 
by Lauzon for the protection of the habitants should have 
their full force and effect What these provisions were cannot,j 
in the absence of any copy of the earlier decree, be definitely 
stated; but from some passages in the decree of 1667 it would 
appear that they had given the habitants the right to claim 
damages from those seigniors at whose mills their grain was 
improperly ground or whose millers took excessive toll. One 
clause of the decree, in fact, provided that seigniors who were 
mulcted in damages might deduct the amount of the damages 
from the wages of their millers. 

Other regulations on the subject of the banal right followed X 
quickly, one of them, issued in June, 1667, fixing definitely! 
the amount of toll which might be taken at the seigniorial \ 
mills for the grinding of grain.-^ It appears that a petition, ' 
signed by a number of seigniors, had been presented to the 
authorities, in which attention was called to the fact "that 
the mills of this colony cost double or treble those of France, 
as well for their construction, maintenance, and repair as for 
the wages and board of the millers." In consequence of 
this circumstance, the petitioners declared that they might 

1 Below, pp. 108-109. ' Edits it Ordonnances^ iL 36. 



104 ^^^ BANALITIES. 

very justly ask to have the rate of toll proportioned to the 
increased expense, — to have it fixed, perhaps, at twice or thrice 
the rate of toll allowed by the Custom of Paris. They did not, 
however, ask that this be done ; on the contrary, they declared 
themselves willing to maintain the mills in operation at the 
existing rate of toll, but requested that an ordinance be issued 
sanctioning this customary rate throughout the colony. In 
compliance with the prayer of this petition, the intendant or- 
dered that the rate of toll at the seigniorial mills should be 
one-fourteenth of the grain ground.^ 

The same ordinance contained various other regulations. It 
empowered officials, for instance, " to go from time to time 
and from place to place to gauge the measures used in the 
banal mills and to find out, in general, what is going on " ; it 
provided that, when seigniors had leased their banal mills to 
private parties, the habitants, " in the event of malversation by 
the millers," should have recourse against the lessee and not 
against the seignior ; and finally, in order to guard alike against 
sharp practices on the part of the millers and unreasonable 
suspicions on the part of the habitants, it required that "all 
owners of grain taken to seigniorial mills to be ground shall 
be held to have their grain weighed in their own presence, 
in default whereof no subsequent complaints against the mil- 
ler will be heard." This practice of administrative interference 
in the management of the banal mills was not peculiar to the 
colony; it had long been common in France, where it was 
Justified on grounds of public policy.^ 

Despite the assertion of the seigniors to the effect that they 
would be satbfied with a toll of one-fourteenth, there seems to 
have been no dearth of attempts to exact a higher rate from the 
habitants. In the lengthy code of police regulations issued by 

^ Edits et Ordonnances^ ii. 39. 

^ On this point Henrion de Pansey remarks : " But above the authority of the 
seigniors there is an authority of a higher order to which belongs all that can interest 
public policy, . . . and which has the right to restrict the liberty of each individual 
for the good of the greatest number. The mills intended to give the first prepara- 
tion to the chief article of food must necessarily be subject to the inspection of the 
chief authority, which has, then, the right not alone to control them but to regulate 
their number'' (^Dissertations Feodales,L 215, cited in LAfontaine, OiservatioHSfi^g), 



THE BANALITIES. IO5 

the Superior Council at Quebec in 1676, it was therefore deemed \ 
necessary to provide penalties against all millers who caused \ 
" more than one-fourteenth to be paid for the toll of grist," and 
to prohibit millers from competing with one another {de chas- 
ser les uns sur les autres), or from soliciting grist in any way 
from the habitants of seigniories other than their own.* 

Owing to the comparative poverty of many of the seigniors, i 
le number of banal mills in the colony increased very slowly/ 
during the last quarter of the seventeenth century.* Thej 
establishment of a grist-mill involved considerable expense;! 
for, with the exception of the millstones, which were quart 
. ried in the colony, all the machinery and utensils had to be\ 
imported from France, and the cost of transportation was { 
jyery high. Moreover, the amount of toll received was never 
'^large enough to make the operation of the mill profitable, unless 
the seigniory in which it was situated happened to be a popu- 
lous one ; in most of the seigniories the toll collected did not 
even suffice to pay the wages of the miller hired by the seignior 
to do the g^ding. Accordingly, in many seigniories no mills 
were built, the seigniors allowing their habitants to take their 
grain wherever they wished. 

In course of time this condition of affairs was brought to the 
attention of the king,' with the request that some steps be 
taken to compel seigniors to provide mills for the use of their I 
dependents even when such mills would be sources of loss 
rather than of profit ; and in prompt response a royal decree 
was issued along the desired lines. After setting forth the fact 
that " most of the seigniors who are proprietors of fiefs in New 
France persistently neglect to erect the mills necessary for the 
subsistence of the inhabitants of the said country," the decree 
goes on to declare the necessity of providing some remedy for 
" an evil so prejudicial to colonial welfare," and to this end it 
ordains that " all seigniors who are proprietors of fiefs within 

^ ** R^glemens G^n6raax du Conseil Sup^rieur de Quebec, poar la Police/' May 
II, 1676, Edits et Ordonnances, it 65-73, § xxxv. 

^ The census of 1698 gave the total number of mills in the colony as 43. This 
included saw-mills as well as grist-mills. See Censuses of Canada^ 1 665-1 871, p. 41. 

* Meulles to Minister, November 12, 1684, Corresptmdance Gerurale^ vi. 145 ff. 



X 



I06 THE BANALITIES. 

the territory of New France shall be bound to erect their banal 
mills therein within the space of one year after the publication 
of this decree " ; if they fail to do this, " His Majesty permits 
all individuals, of whatever condition and rank they may be, to 
erect such mills, granting them in that respect the full right of 
mill banality, and prohibiting any person from disturbing them 
in the right thereof."^ v'fhe tenor of this decree is perfectly 
clear : if the seignior did not build a mill, any private individual 
might build one and become possessed of the banal right for all 
time, y 

On October 21, 1686, this decree was duly recorded in the 
registers of the Superior Council at Quebec, and ordered to be 
promulgated at the accustomed times and places.^ Strange to 
say, however, this required publication was not made for some 
twenty years ; ^ and, outside the immediate circle of colonial offi- 
cials, no one seems to have known that such a decree ever ema- 
nated from the king. Duri ng th e_pe^iod,jLfi86;J7Q7-^matters 
c^iimied-fust tw-Aey were: the seigniors built their nulls i)r 
not, as they found it profitable or unprofitable to do so. In the 
latter case they took good care to insert in the deeds of con- 
cessions made to dependents the usual obligation on the part of 
the latter to carry their grain to the seigniorial mill " whenever 
such shall be erected within the seigniory." 

The reason for the long delay in the publication of the 
decree of 1686 might easily have been surmised; but in the 
despatch transmitted to the French minister by Raudot in 1707 
iT appears very frankly stated. Raudot writes : " I should 
think, My Lord, that it would be necessary . . . that the 
exclusive right of grinding should be preserved to the seign- 
iors on condition of their building mills in their seigniories 
within a year, failing in which their right should be forfeited, 
and the habitants would not be obliged, when one was built, to 
have their grain ground there ; otherwise, My Lord, they will 
never be induced to build the mills, from the deprivation of 
which the habitants suffer greatly, being unable, for want of 

1 Edits et Ordonnances, i. 255-256. 

^ J^ements et Deliberations du Conseil Souverain de la Nouvelle- France, iii. 87. 

• See the note appended to the copy of the arrfit in Edits et Ordonnances, i. 256, 



THE BANALITIES. 10/ 

means, to avail themselves of the favor which His Majesty 
granted them by permitting them to erect mills in cases where 
the seigniors omitted to do so. . . . This privilege," he con- 
tinues, "was granted to them in the year 1686 by an arrfit which 
was registered by the Superior Council of this country ; but, as 
it was not sent to the subordinate jurisdictions to be promul- 
gated, the inhabitants have not hitherto profited by this favor, 
and it is only since my arrival here that the decree has been 
published, the fact of its non-promulgation having but just 
come to my knowledge in the course of a lawsuit, recently 
determined, in which the arrfit was produced, but could not be 
used to advantage by one of the parties because it had never 
l)een promulgated. . . . The fault," he adds, "can only be 
attributed to the Sieur d' Auteuil, whose duty it is, as attorney^ 
general, to transmit such decrees to the subordinate courts ; but * 
it was his interest as a seignior, as it was that of some of the 
other councillors who are also seigniors, not to make known 
this decree."^ 

In the foregoing despatch we find what was, in all probability, 
the reason why many of the royal decrees, sent out to the colony 
and duly unregistered, were never put in force. The members 
of the Superior Council were, for the most part, owners of seign- 
iories, and hence sought to negative, in every possible way, any 
attempt to curtail seigniorial powers. Raudot, however, was a \ 
fearless and conscientious official ; and as soon as the real state 1 
of a£Fairs came to his notice, he issued an ordinance commanding I 
the publication of the arrfit at the subordinate jurisdictions with-** 
out delay.* \/T'rom this time on, the seignior was under legal 
obligation to erect his banal mill within the space of one year / 
from the date of the creation of his seigniory ; if he failed to do i 
so, the right might be claimed by any private individual who 
chose to provide milling facilities for the seigniory, i^ 

Within a few months of the promulgfation of the long-delayed 
decree, the intendant found himself called upon to enforce its 
provisions. During the month of June, 1707, he received a 

1 Raudot to Pontchartrain, November 10^ 1707, Correspondance Generale^ xxyL 

7-34. 

s December 20, 1706^ Edits et Ordonnances, ii. 145-150. 



^e 



I08 THE BANALITIES. 

petition from " all the habitants of the seigniory of Mille Isles," 
praying that the Sieur Dupri, seignior of that fief, "be 
ordered to build a mill for them, or, if he will not, to consent 
that they build one for themselves, and that they be, in conse- 
quence, discharged from banal obligations, and be allowed to 
utilize this right to their own profit." The seignior of Mille Isles, 
being duly summoned before the intendant at Quebec, admitted 
his inability to proceed with the erection of a mill ; whereupon 
the intendant issued an ordinance permitting "the said habitants 
to build a mill in such part of the said seigniory as they deem fit, 
and by their so doing to be discharged forever from the right 
of banality." ^ 

In the same month a similar enforcement of the provisions 
of the royal decree was obtained by the habitants of the seign- 

ry of Varennes,^ and during the next few years there were 
several examples of like action. These enforcements seem to \ 
have had a wholesome effect upon many seigniors, for a good / 
many mills were erected during the years 1 707-1 720.* After 
Raudot's tenure of the intendancy, however, the enforcement of 
the decree seems to have been tacitly relaxed ; for it is certain 
that many seigniors neither built their mills nor were deprived 
of their rights.* When the habitants could conveniently use 
the mill of an adjoining seigniory, they resorted to it with the 
consent of their seignior, who in such cases merely held the 
banal right in abeyance to be exercised later, when, with the in- 
creasing population of his seigniory, the erection of a mill would 
be justified by the expectations of profit. 

It will be remembered that, by the Custom of Paris, no 
seignior was entitled to exercise the banal right unless he had, 
in the title-deeds granted to his habitants, expressly stipulated 
for the exercise of this right. In Canada the seignior, when 

^ Edits et Ordonnances, it 427. The name Dapr£ is not a misprint for Daga6, 
as Lafontaine (^Observations, 317) supposes. Dupr6, a merchant of Montreal, is 
mentioned by Catalogue as owner of the fief in 1 712. 

* Edits et Ordonnances, iii. 132. 

* The census of 1720 gives the total number of grist-mills as 90. See Censuses of 
Canada, 1665-1871, p. 53. 

* In some cases seigniors were, by intendant's ordinance, given an extension of 
time. Cf. Edits et Ordonnances, ii. 364. 



THE BANALITIES. IO9 

he granted titles, seems to have taken good care that this 
stipulation was inserted. Whether, in the event of his failing 
so to do, the authorities would have supported him in the 
exercise of the right is not at all certain ; the question does not 
seem to have arisen. In a great many cases, however, as 
has been pointed out, the habitants took lands on the mere 
word of the seignior, or on the strength of location tickets, 
which simply stated the fact of the subgrant without naming 
any of the conditions on which the land was to be held ; and in 
more than one such case the question arose whether the seign- 
ior could, in view of the provision in the custom, compel such 
habitants to bring their grain to the seigniorial mill. On these 
occasions the intendant ordered the habitants to exchange their 
location tickets for regular titles, in which the seignior was 
allowed to insert the banal obligation in its regular form. 
The wording of several of the ordinances, moreover, seems to 
lend color to the idea that the colonial authorities regarded the 
banal right as accruing to the seigniors whenever they built 
their mills, whether this right had been stipulated for or not ; ^ 
but the invariable insertion of the stipulation seems to have 
relieved the officials from the necessity of passing definitely 
on the point and of determining whether the provision of the 
custom in this matter should be expressly set aside in the 
colony. 

The Custom of Paris also provided, it will be remembered, / 
that a windmill could not be deemed banal ; ^ but as early as 1675 
this technical distinction between windmills and water-mills, so 
far as it served as a basis for banal claims, was abolished in 
New France. In July of that year a petition was presented to 
the Superior Council by one Charles Morin, miller of the seign- 
iory of Demaure, praying that he might be allowed to grind the 
grain grown by the habitants of the neighboring seigniory of 
Dombourg, inasmuch as the mill of the latter was a windmill 
and consequently could not legally be included within the 
category of banal mills ; and also prapng that the seignior 

1 See, for example, Edits tt Ord&nnauces, ii 448-449 ; also Lafontaine, Observa- 
Hons, 292 fL 

* See above, p. 102. 



/- 



no THE BANAUTIES, 

of Dombourg be forbidden to interfere with those of his habit- 
ants who chose to take their grain to the Demaure mill. The 
council, having heard the defence of the Dombourg seignior 
and his miller, and having taken the opinion of the attorney- 
general on the matter, decided '' to dismiss the demand of the 
said Morin and to order that all mills, whether they be water- 
mills or windmills {soit d eau soit d vent)^ yNhich the seigniors 
have built or shall hereafter build in their seigniories, shall be 
deemed banal mills." Furthermore, the judgment forbade 
millers to offer inducements to habitants of other seigniories 
than their own, and provided that a habitant who took grain to 
any mill other than that of his own seigniory should be liable to 
have both his grain and the vehicle carrying it confiscated by 
his own seignior.^ 

The effect of this judgment was completely to set aside one of 
the important limitations which the Custom of Paris had placed 
upon the exercise of the banal rights ; indeed, the action of the 
council was but one of several instances in which the custom 
was disregarded and its provisions varied to suit the condi- 
tions existing in the colony. Many of the seigniories did not 
possess available water power ; and if water-mills alone were to 
be deemed banal, some of the seigniors would very probably 
have pleaded the absence of power as an excuse for refusing to 
proceed with the erection of their mills. In France the peas- 
antry were not likely to suffer through the non-erection of seign- 
iorial grist-mills, for, in the absence of these, facilities would be 
provided by private entrepreneurs ; but in the colony the sparse- 
ness of the population precluded any likelihood that private 
enterprise would undertake to provide flour-mills for the habit- 
ants. The burden was therefore imposed upon the seigniors, 
but with a relaxation of the strict provisions of the Custom 
of Paris in regard to the nature of the mills. Many of 
the mills, perhaps most of them, were windmills, for the 
plain reason that in many seigniories no water power was 
available ; and windmills were discouragingly unreliable. Some- 
times, for example, men would bring their grain to the wind- 
mill of the seigniory, and find themselves forced to wait for 

^ £di/s et OrtlonfMHceSt ii. 62-63. 



THE BANALITIES. Ill 

days before the wind was strong enough to drive the clumsy . 
wheels. To protect the habitants in this respect, the council 
provided that, if grain were not gfround within forty-eight hours 
after its arrival at the mill, it might be taken to the water-mill 
of some neighboring seigniory.^ 

It is evident, then, that by the early years of the eighteenth y 
century the banal right in Canada had become differentiated in 
three particulars from that existent in France under the Custom 
of Paris: (i.) the Canadian seignior exercised the right over 
every holder of en censive lands within his seigniory , — no one 
was exempt ; (2) any seignior who failed to build a mill within , 
the space of twelve months from the time of receiving his seign- <- 
iory was liable, on the petition of any person or persons who 
chose to provide the service, to lose his banal right; (3) all 
mills, whether driven by water or by wind power, were capable 
of being made the basis for the exaction of the banality. 

From time to time regulations designed to reform various 
abuses connected with the milling system were issued by the 
intendants, for complaints seem to have been by no means few. 
In 171 5, for example, the bakers of the colony complained 
lustily that the flour made by the colonial mills was very poor, 
and that they were frequently cheated by the millers because 
the latter did not have proper weights and measures ; where- 
upon the council forthwith issued a code of regulations for the 
governance of both bakers and millers. By this code, the own- 
ers of mills were to be " held, under pain of fine, to have scales 
and weights, duly stamped and marked, wherewith to weigh 
the wheat which shall be carried to them to be ground as well 
as to weigh the flour which shall be made therefrom " ; and 
when these scales and weights were not provided by the seign- 
ior or the lessee of the mill, they were to be furnished at 
his charge by the judges of the royal courts. The judges 
were further instructed to examine the toll measure of each mill, 
" to see that it is made exact and plainly stamped, and to pro- 
hibit all millers from using any other measure than that which 
shall have been so inspected and marked." Millers were also 
enjoined to mark the weight of the grain on a tally and to hand 

^ EdUs et OrdannanceSf ii. 63. 



112 THE BANALITIES. 

an exact duplicate of this tally to the owner of the grain, in 
order that he might therewith verify the weight of his flour 
when it .was returned to him ; and, finally, they were prohibited 
under pain of corporal punishment {mime de punition corporelle) 
from "wetting the grain brought to them in order to render 
the flour thereof heavier,*' — apparently a common trick of the 
millers.* 

In addition to this general code of regulations, ordinances 
were issued from time to time with a view to improving the 
machinery, equipment, and management of particular mills ; and 
from the considerable number of these ordinances it would seem 
that the system of seigniorial flour-making was far from being 
always satisfactory to the people. A few examples will suffice. 
In 1 7 14 one of the habitants of the seigniory of Vincelotte, 
having been summoned before the court of the Priv6ti at 
Quebec to answer to the charge of having sent his grain to 
" strange mills," urged in his defence that the banal mill of his 
own seigniory was a poor one, that it " made very bad flour," and 
that the miller" gave a too small return of flour for the grain."* 
The court declared that the defence was a good one, and forth- 
with ordered the seignior to have his mill improved, giving him 
to understand that his exclusive right should be enforced when 
this order was obeyed. From this decision the seignior of 
Vincelotte made appeal to the Superior Council, which suspended 
any definite action pending a reference of the matter to the king.^ 
The latter promptly confirmed the action of the court of the Pr6- 
v6t^, and issued instructions that, whenever the seigniorial mill 
was shown to be defective in any respect whatever, the habit- 
ants should be allowed to have their grain ground elsewhere.* 

^ " Arrfit da Conseil Sup^eur de Qu6bec, portant R^glement pour les Boulangers 
et Meuniers,'' December 2, 1 715, Edits et Ordonnances, ii, 169-170, especially §§ y-x. 

3 A copy of this judgment is not printed, but a manuscript copy of the original 
was laid before the Special Seigniorial Court in 1854. See Lafontaine, Observa- 
Horn, 323, note. 

■ Tht Jugemenis et Deliberations du Conseil Souuerainde la Nouvelle- France does 
not contain the records of the council proceedings after December, 17 16. The 
documents in this contestation have, therefore, not been printed; but reference is 
made to them, and extracts are given, in Lafontaine, Observations^ 322. 

^ The royal despatch was dated April 16, 1 7 19, and was enregistered by the council 
on October 2, 1720 (Jbid, 323). 



THE BANALITIES. II3 

In 1728 a number of residents in the seigniory of Grondines 
set forth, in a petition to the council, that 'Mt is most 
grievous and prejudicial to them to be compelled to take 
their grain to the windmill of the seigniory, inasmuch as the 
stones of this mill merely crack up the wheat; for the mill 
has been absolutely ruined by the different persons who have 
been operating it, and the defects are increased by the fact 
that the Sieur Hamelin, who now works it [ Hamelin was him- 
self the seignior] is not a miller by trade." The seignior, 
being called upon for his defence, declared that his mill 
was in excellent order; that, while it was true that he was 
trying to work the mill himself, this was not his fault, as his' 
miller had been called out to do military service ; that he was 
about to secure the services of a competent miller, and hence 
there would be no reasonable ground of complaint in future. 
Finally, Hamelin asked the council to appoint experts to ex- 
amine the mill in order to verify the truth of his state- 
ments. Taking him at his word, the council forthwith ap- 
pointed a commission to inspect the Grondines mill, but with 
what result is not recorded.^ 

In the same year the habitants of the seigniory of Sainte- 
Anne de la Parade sent a delegation before the authorities 
at Quebec to make complaint that the mill of their seigniory 
was "entirely out of order," that the miller "not only was 
a dishonest man but was known to the seignior to be such," 
and that the mill was not of sufficient capacity to serve the 
needs of the numerous habitants. For these reasons, they 
asked to be allowed to take their grist to the mill of a neighboring 
seigniory. The intendant, Dupuy, finding on careful examina- 
tion of the complaints that the habitants had greatly exagger- 
ated the real condition of affairs, issued a judgment ordering 
them to patronize the mill of their own seigniory.^ 

The inhabitants of the seigniory of Neuville seemed to be 
more fortunate than their neighbors; for their seignior had 
provided two mills for their use, a windmill and a water-mill. 
This double facility, however, appears not to have rendered 
them very satisfactory service, for in 1733 they made vigorous 

^ Editi €t Ordormances^ iii. 241. ' Ibid, ii. 497-49S. 



114 THE BAIKAL/TIES, 

protests to the intendant that one of the mills was seldom in 
operation and that the other turned out defective flour. " Our 
seignior," they further complained, "when the windmill fails 
for wind or the water-mill for water, keeps us hauling grain 
back and forth from one mill to the other as often as three 
times."* They also enumerated a list of improvements 
which they desired to have made in the mill of their seigniory, 
asking, among various other things, that the seignior be com- 
pelled to employ a professional miller who should live near 
the mill, " in order that the habitants may not have to travel 
leagues in search of him when they want their grain ground." 
In their further request that the seignior be ordered to 
provide his mill with '' stamped weights of iron instead of 
common stones, the weight whereof is not shown," they 
unconsciously furnish an interesting commentary on the rjidc 
equipment of some of the banal mills.^ 

Complaints were sometimes made that the seigniorial mills 
were situated in inaccessible places, or at least in places which 
the habitants could not reach easily. Many seigniors appear to 
have built their mills along the banks of some rivulet or creek, 
without taking much thought as to the accessibility of the loca- 
tion ; and consequently their habitants were often left to make 
their way through the forest with loads of grain as best they 
might In this difficulty the intendant, as usual, came to the 
relief of the people. In one case he ordered a seignior to re- 
build his mill at a point where it could be reached by water, or 
else to build a road to the mill at his own expense;' and in an- 
other case, in which the seignior refused to open up a road, the 
court of the Pr6v6ti at Quebec rendered a judgment absolving 
all the habitants from their banal obligations to the recalcitrant 
seignior until a "passable road" should have been provided for 
their use.* Since a seigniory frequently comprised from fifty 

^ This was not the first complaint on this score ; for three years previously 
(1730) the authorities had found it necessary to issue a decree giving habitants of 
the seigniory of Saurel the right, when their grain remained unground at a windmill 
for forty-eight hours, to take it away and have it made into flour wherever they 
chose. See Edits et Ordonnances^ IL 340; also above, p. ill. 

« JHd, iii. 286-289. • li^- 210. 

* Perrault, Exiraits ou Precedents tires des Registres de la Prevoste de Quebec^ 71. 



THE BANAUTIES. 1 1 5 

to on^ hundred square miles, the difficulty of transporting grain 
to the bsmal mill was at best often a very serious one. Ordi- 
narily transportation took place in winter, when heavy loads 
could be taken on sleighs along the river; for throughout the 
greater part of the French era the frozen St. Lawrence was the 
great inland highway for winter traffic. 

^Xpart from the n ecessity of building his mill in a place that \^ 
would be easily accessible to his habitants, the seignior was com- 
"pletely free as to the choice of a mill siteJ If he saw fit to 
erect it upon land which had previously be^n granted to a habit- 
ant, he might, on application to the council, obtain a decree L 

reuniting the site to his own domain, the habitant having the 
privilege of selecting a new concession of similar, extent from 
any portion of the ungranted lands of the seigniory. Several 
decrees of this sort were obtained.* 

Through constant pressure upon the seigniors, the intendan^ 
Gilles Hocquart managed, during his tenure of office, to improve 
very noticeably the colonial milling industry. Hocquart hoped v 
that Canada might become a large exporter of flour to the 
French West Indies, if not to France itself; but his hopes were 
not realized, for, even with the improvements which he managed 
to secure, the mills remained extremely crude. Very few seign- 
iors made any profit from them, and with no gain in sight 
were not easily induced to sink money in machinery; besides, few 
of them could have afforded to do so even had they been dis- 
posed. Moreover, the spur of competition, which serves in 
modem times to force improved methods in all branches of in- 
dustry, was entirely lacking in the milling system of the old 
regime, when the seignior had. a monopoly of the grinding of 
his habitants' grain. Whatever his facilities might be, he re- 
ceived the same amount of toll; for the improving of his mill 
would not necessarily bring him a single additional minot of 
grist per year, or a whit more than one-fourteenth as his share. 
Under these circumstances, it is easy to see why Hocquart found 
his task of improving the system so difficult, and why the quality 
of the flour caused the bakers continually to complain. 

In one of his despatches, Hocquart advised the minister 

^ Sec, for example. Edits et Ordonnances^ u. 466. 



\ 



Il6 THE BANALITIES. 

that the quality of the flour might be materially improved 
if the grain were properly cleaned before it was ground. He 
reminded him that there were, of course, no fanning-mills in 
the colony, and hinted that, since it seemed out of the ques- 
tion to compel the seigniors to provide them, His Majesty 
might lend a hand in the matter.^ As usual, the king, professing, 
his constant interest in the development of colonial industry, \ 
promptly gratified the wish of the intendant by sending out six 
fanning-mills (cribles cylindriques et de fil de fer d la fafon 
d'Hollande) at the royal expense. These arrived in 1732 and \ 
were distributed gratis among the more important mills, — those 
of the seigniories of Sault-4-la-Puce, Petit-Pr6, Beauport, Pointe 
de L6vy, St Nicholas, and St Famille. Accompanying the 
king's gift was an ordinance instructing the millers of these 
mills "to have all the wheat, of whatever quality, passed and 
fanned before its conversion into flour," and, furthermore, to 
take their toll merely upon the cleaned and fanned grain, not 
upon the whole grist In compensation for this loss, however, 
they were to be allowed to exact six deniers per minot on the 
whole grist, in addition to the usual toll of one-fourteenth. All 
" tailings " were to be g^ven back to the habitant^ 

During the next year five more fanning-mills were shipped 
out by the king, and distributed by the colonial officials among 
the mills of the Montreal district.' The king promised to send 
out a small number each year imtil all the mills should have 
been provided with fans ; but apparently he did not carry out 
his good intentions. 

The seigniorial mills were usually constructed of rough-hewn 
timber, but not a few were built substantially of stone.* The 
stone mills were usually of circular shape, and were frequently 
loopholed in order that they might be made to serve as places 
of refuge and defence in the event of sudden Indian attacks. 
The mill of the seigniory of St Sulpice at Montreal, for ex- I 

1 Hocqnart to Minister, October 4, 1731, Correspondance GeneraUt liv. 43. 
3 EdUs et Ordonnances, ii. 352-353. 

' They were given, one each to the mills of Lachine, Isle Jesus, and Isle Ste^ 
Hel^ne, and two to the mill of Terrebonne. 

^ Several of these old stone windmills are still standing. 



THE BANALITIES. II7 

ample, was a veritable fort, and was rightly counted as one of 
the chief strongholds of the district. The mills 'built in seign- 
iories belonging to the various religious orders were, in general, 
much more substantial and much better equipped than those in 
the lay seigniories, a fact which is accounted for by the com- ' 
parative opulence of the orders. 

In all cases the seignior took from the lands of the seigniory, 
both granted and ungranted, such material as he found neces- 
sary for construction, and in some cases compelled the habit- 
ants to render their corv6es in preparing the materials and 
erecting the mills. He was quite at liberty to have the ordi- 
nary annual days of corvee applied to this work when he so 
desired, but apparently he could not exact any special corv6e 
for the purpose.^ 

In the negotiations which led to the abolition of the seign- , 
iorial system in 1854, there were three questions regarding the^ 
extent of the banal rights which had to be determined before 
the amount of compensation due the seigniors for the loss of 
their seigniorial privileges could be properly ascertained. The i 
first of these was the question whether all grain grown by the \ 
habitant was subject to the banal obligation, or only such portion \ 
of it as was required for the consumption of the habitant and his * 
family. The seigniors took the ground that their rights extended 
over all the grain of the habitant, whether it was intended for 
home consumption or for sale; but the authorities at Quebec 
did not support them in this view. The Parliament of Paris 
had decided that, according to Article LXXI of the custom, the 
seigniors could exercise their banal right only over the grain in- 
tended for consumption by the families of their censitaires, who 
were at complete liberty to have the grain intended for sale ground 
wherever they chose ; and this rule was fully recognized in Can- 
ada, as may be seen from the wording of an intendant's ordi- 
nance issued by B6gon in 171 6, whereby the habitants of the 
seigniory of Champlain are ordered to take to the mill of the 
said seigniory the '' grain intended for the sustenance of their 

^ In one case, however, the tntendant ordered the habitants of a seigniory to give 
special corv6e to reboild a bridge leading to a seigniorial mill. See Edits et OrdoH' 
nafueSj ilL 459. 



/ 



Il8 • THE BANAUTIES. 

families on pain of paying a fine of ten livres to the church of 
the parish of the said seigniory.-'^ During the greater part of 
the French era the question was of no considerable importance, 
for the amount of grain raised by the habitants was not much 
more than was necessary for their own use; in many years, indeed, 
it was found necessary to import grain from France. After the 
colony passed into British hands, however, the production of grain 
rapidly increased, and the question whether a seignior lawfully 
enjoyed a monopoly of milling all the grain raised within his 
seigniory became one of very considerable moment to both parties 
concerned. 

I The second question was whether the banal right extended to 
"^ pa.Il kinds of grain, or to wheat alon^ As to the status of this 
question in France under the Custom of Paris there is some dif- 
ference of opinion. Henrion de Pansey affirms that the banal 
right extended not only to wheat but to barley, buckwheat, and 
all other grains;^ but other authorities of equal weight declare 
that the right could be legally enforced in regard to wheat alone.* 
Judge Caron, in his opinion delivered before the Special Seign- 
iorial Court of 1854, declared that, while there might be a dif- 
ference of opinion regarding the legal extent of the right in 
France, the fact was that in that country wheat alone was gener- 
ally ground. " If any other kinds of grain were ground," says he, 
" it was such a rare occurrence that it was not thought of suffi- 
cient importance to be mentioned." In Canada, however, the 
(extent of the right was undoubtedly wider.* In the title-deeds 
granted by the seigniors the phrase ** porter moudre leurs grains** 
was almost invariably used ; likewise in the various ordinances 
the term ** grains ** usually appears ; in some few instances the ex- 
pression is ^* porter moudre leur bled** but these cases are dis- 
tinctly exceptional.^ The fact that, so far as can be ascertained, 

1 " Grains qu'ils consomment pour la subsistance de lenn families " {^Editi et Or^ 
donnanceSf ii. 452). For other ordinances in which precisely the same words are 
used, see IHd, i. 225, ii. 497, iii. 1 19. 

' DisserkUions Feodales^ i. 89. 

* See the authorities cited by Judge Caron in his OhservoHons^ 38. 

* IHd. 39. 

' See ordinances of July 10, 1728, and July li, 1743, Editi et Ordonnances, iL 
•497> 5^5 9 ^^ Titres des Seigneuries, 242-243. 



THE BANALITIES. II9 

none of the habitants ever appealed to the authorities against 
the seigniors' claims to the extension of the banal right to all 
forms of grain would seem to indicate that the extension was 
not opposed. In fact, if we may judge broadly from the single 
case in which the matter came before the intendant, it would " 
appear that the habitants actually desired to have all their g^ain ^ 
ground at the seigniorial mill. In 1738, for example, the habit-' 
ants of the seigniory of Beaumont petitioned the intendant to 
have it declared that the miller of the seigniory should be bound 
I to grind '' not only the wheat of the said habitants but also their 
I other grain " ; whereupon the intendant ordered that " their other 
, grain be ground in the said mill as well as their wheat" ^ 
Since there was little or no profit to be had by the seignior from 
the grinding of wheat, the work of grinding the less valuable, 
grains must have been attended, in many cases, with actual loss^ 
to the mill owners. 

\ The third question was whether a habitant who purchased 
(grain outside the seigniory and brought it within was or was /' 
'not bound to have it ground at the seigniorial milly There 
seems to be no colonial ordinance or judgment bearing directly 
upon this point; but the understanding appears to have been 
that, when grain was both purchased and ground outside the 
limits of a seigniory, the habitant might bring home the flour 
without having to pay any toll to his own seignior, but when 
the grain was purchased outside and brought home unground, it 
was to be on the same footing as that grown within the seign- 
iory. The disposition was to look upon the right of banality as 
extending in no case beyond the limits of the seigniory; the 
grain was held subject to the obligation if it were brought within 
the seigniorial limits and made use of there, even if it had ' 
been grown outside.® 

\ The right of banality carried with it the right, not only to pre- y 
I vent the erection of other than seigniorial mills within the seign- ' 

* Edits et Ordonnances^ iii, 324. 

• Henrion de Pansey {Dissertations FeodaUs^ i. 191) asserts that in France a ccn- 
sitaire who purchased gprain elsewhere than within the limits of the seigniory might 
liave it ground elsewhere, and might carry the flour home without violating the 
seignior's right of banality. 

' See Caron, Observations^ 39~40* 



I20 THE BANALITIES. 

1 iory, but even to compel the demolition of such after they had 
I been erected, a power which was sometimes exercised under cir- 
cumstances which entailed much hardship) For example, in 1698 
one of the habitants of the seigniory 01 Lauzon was permitted 
by the seignior to erect a mill, as there was at that time no 
banal mill in operation within the seigniory. Some few years 
later the seigniory was sold ; whereupon the new seignior forth- 
with ordered the mill to be closed, and upon the refusal of the 
owner to close it he procured an ordinance compelling compli- 
ance.* Another case was that of the Brethren of the Hospital 
{Frires Charron) at Montreal, who had erected, on the plot of 
ground granted to them, a small windmill, which they used 
solely to grind their own grain. The Seminary of St. Sulpice 
at Montreal, within whose seigniory the land lay, not only de- 
manded the demolition of this mill, but obtained from the 
Superior Council an ordinance supporting its demand.^ Several 
other instances of the exercise of this right of demolition are on 
record.® 

It will be seen from the foregoing consideration that the 
obligation of mill banality did not bear heavily upon the habit- 
ants so long as the country was sparsely settled. On the 
contrary, the presence of a mill within the limits of the seign- 
iory was a great convenience to the habitant ; and the amount 
of toll exacted was far from exorbitant, especially in view of the 
limited custom which the mill might expect, Throughout the 
jgreater part of the French era the burden, s^ch as it was, fell 
/rather upon the seignior^ who was obliged by the authorities 
to build the mill and work it, — for the most part, at a loss, — on 
pain of being deprived of what was sure to become in time a 
very valuable right. Moreover, the authorities showed them- 
selves ready at all times to listen to complaints on the part of 
the habitants as to the inefficiency of the seigniorial milling 
facilities, and were equally ready, when these complaints ap- 
peared well founded, to order the necessary improvements at the 
seignior's expenser As the population increased, however, 

^ Edits ei OrdannanceSf il. 145. 

3 This ordinance is not printed. Its authenticity is vouched for, however, by 
dief-Justice Sir L. H. Lafontaine, in his ObsirtfoHom, 334. 
* Cf. Caron, OburvaHons, 40. 



THE BANALITIES. 121 

'toward the^osfi^of the French period and especially with the 

(British acquisition of the colony, the burden shifted from the 
seignior to the habitants. The seigniorial mills now had plenty 
to do, and frequently found it impossible to handle all the grain 
, brought in. In such cases the habitants were compelled either 
to wait their turn, often at great inconvenience, or to purchase 
the seignior's permission to take their grain elsewhere. Indeed, 
as will be seen later, the banal right gradually developed, with 
the growth of the colony in population, into a right on the part 
of the seignior to exact a money payment from the habitants for 
permission to take their grain where they chose. 

The other form of banal right which was claimed by the(J?^/ 
Canadian seignior, — the droit de four banal^ or right of oven 
banality, — though exacted in very few instances, deserves some 
notice if only to show how zealously the authorities sought to 
curb any unreasonable pretensions on the part of the seigniors 
• and to modify the seigniorial system into accord with colonial 
.' conditions. By the terms of the Custom of Paris the right of 
oven banality was put upon the same footing as that of mill 
banality ; that is to say, it was not an incident of the possession 
of a seigniory, but rested upon the contract made between the 
seignior and his censitaire when an original grant of lands was 
made. As the seignior could oblige his censitaire to have his 
grain ground at the seigniorial mill, so he had the right to stipu- 
late that the censitaire should make exclusive use of a banal 
oven or ovens erected within the limits of the seigniory, paying 
him a toll for such privilege.^ At the most, only three or four 
i seigniorial ovens were ever erected in Canada ; but a clause re- / 
f quiring the habitants to bring their dough to a banal oven 
whenever such should be erected appears in a number of 
title-deeds.^ 

1 The amonnt of toU exacted in France seems to have been usually one twenty- 
fourth of the bread. Cf. Mathieu, VAncien Regime dans la Province de Lorraine 
(1879), 285. 

* A banal oven was erected in the seigniory of Vincelotte by the seignior, M. 
Amiot, and there is some evidence that a few other seigniors followed M. Amiof s 
example ; but it is unquestionably misleading to speak of the obligation of oven 
banality as having been imposed in any such general &shion as was that of mill 
banality. Ct Thwaites, France in America, 132 



122 THE BANALITIES. 

The increasing disposition to insert this obligation seems to 
have attracted the notice of the intendant in 1707; for in his 
despatch to the French minister in that year the ever-watchful 
Raudot speaks of this growing practice as one of the abuses of 
the seigniorial system. " The seigniors," he writes, " have also 
introduced into their grants the exclusive right of baking, or 
maintaining an oven, of which the inhabitants can never avail 
themselves, because, the habitations being at great distances 
from the seignior's house, where the oven must be established 
(which indeed could not be in a more convenient place for them 
wherever placed, since the habitations are very distant from 
one another), they could not possibly at all seasons carry their 
dough to it ; in winter it would be frozen before it got there. 
The seigniors, moreover," continues the intendant, "feel them- 
selves so ill-grounded in claiming this right on account of its 
impossibility, that they do not exact it now, but they will at 
some future time make use of this stipulation to compel the 
inhabitants either to submit to it or to redeem themselves from 
it by means of a large fine ; in this way the seigniors will have 
acquired a right from which the inhabitants derive no benefit 
whatever. This, My Lord, is what I call getting a title to vex 
them afterwards." ^ I 

In reply to this despatch, the French minister advised the in- 
tendant : " With respect to the privilege of baking in seigniorial 
ovens, all that is to be done is to follow the arrdt of 1686, by 
which that matter has been definitely settled." ^ The minister, 
however, was here clearly in error, for the arrfit of 1686 had ref- 
erence wholly to banal mills, and contained not a single word 
in either direct or inferential relation to the question of seigniorial 
ovens; it simply ordered that seigniors who claimed the right of 
mill banality should forthwith erect their milb, or stand prepared 
to lose their privilege.® Did the minister mean, then, that the 
same principle should be applied to the right of oven banality, 

^ Raudot to Pontchartrain, November 10, 1707, Correspandance GeneraU, xxvi. 

7-34. 

^ PontchartraiD to Raudot, June 13, 1 70S, Correspondence between the French GoV" 
ernmeni and the Governors and InUndants of Canada^ etc., 9-10. 

■ See above, p. 105. 



THE BANALITIES, 1 23 

namely, that the seigniors who claimed this right should proceed 
' at once with the erection of the ovens, or be deprived of the right 
for all time ? The intendant appears to have taken this to be the 
purport of the minister's instructions ; but as this interpretation 
would entail the pursuance of a policy which he did not regard 
as conducive to the interest of the colony, he sent a second de- 
spatch to France, in the autumn of 1708, in which he again adverted 
to the matter in order to show the minister the wide difference 
in the practical operation of the two forms of banal rights. 

In this communication Raudot stated very clearly his reasons 
for wishing a continuance of the obligation of mill banality and 
a suppression of the obligation of oven banality. " The only 
reason," he writes, "for which I have proposed that the privilege 
of baking {fours banaux) be suppressed is that those who are 
subjected to it find that it is impossible to use the banal ov^ns 
on account of the distance at which they live from their seign- 
ior's houses, the seigniories in this country not being settled as 
they are in France, where almost all the inhabitants are collected 
in villages near each other, and all within reach of the banal 
ovens. Here the inhabitants of the seigniories, which are at 
least two leagues in extent along the river St. Lawrence, are 
all settled along the said river, so that, the banal oven being in 
the seigfnior's house (which is always in the centre of the seign- 
iory), some of the inhabitants would be compelled to carry their 
dough a distance of a league, or even two or three leagues, from 
their homes. Besides the inconvenience to which this would 
subject them at all seasons, there is even an impossibility in 
winter, as their dough would be frozen before they could reach 
the place where the oven was situated. It is a right, My Lord, 
which must be suppressed, because the inhabitants cannot derive 
any benefit from it, and because the seigniors have established, 
or wish to establish it only to oblige the inhabitants to redeem 
themselves from it by consenting to pay in future some heavy 
charge in consideration of the servitude from which they wish 
to be liberated. It is not so. My Lord, with the banal mill, ' 
this being always to the advantage of the inhabitants, who have 
not the means of erecting mills themselves; whereas the banal 
oven is to their disadvantage, since there is not one of them 



4 



124 THE BANAUTIES. 

who has not an oven in his own house and as much wood as he 
wants to heat it." * 

This correspondence is of interest and importance as showing 
two significant features which seem to have characterized the 
working of the whole seigniorial system in Canada. I n^the first 
placgi^jt^jnpbasiges-tb^ ncrasional disposition on the part ofjhe 
sdgniw^ t^^tretehjhm jegal^lahns^the point oTmterf erence 
with the normal comfort of their dependents, and to stipulate 
for rights which, from the very nature of things in Canada, could 
not be enforced in their stipulated form. On the other hand, it 

as clearly showsuthe zeal with which the colonial authorities ^ 

so^ight to protect the habitants against obligations which, though 
strictly within the letter of the law, were regarded as unreason- 
able or detrimental to the interests of colonial development as a 
whole. It is evident that the authorities viewed the colonial 
feudal system as resting, partly at least, upon a utilitarian basis. 
To Raudot the question was not whether the grant of a seigniory 
gave the seignior a right to impose the obligation of oven banal- 
ity upon his dependents, for he knew that by the Custom of 
Paris the seignior clearly possessed such right; the question was 
rather whether a seigniorial privilege which operated to the 
inconvenience of the habitants without giving them any corre- 
sponding benefit should not be peremptorily suppressed. The 
rights of the seigniors, it may be added, were not, under the 
French rule, regarded as vested rights which might not be taken 
away without compensation ; it was only after the British con- 
\ quest that they came to be so regarded. 

The forebodings of the intendant in regard to the exercise of 
the right of oven banality proved, however, to be ill founded ; 
for, although no authority seems to have been obtained from 
the home authorities for the suppression of the right, the seign- 
iors, with very few exceptions, do not appear either to have 
insisted upon the rendering of the obligation or to have exacted 
a money payment in its stead. 

In France, as has been said, there were many other forms of 
banality, among them the right of maintaining banal wine- 

<^ 1 Raudot to Pontchartrain, October iS, 1708^ Corrtspondanct Generale, zxviL 
175-187. 



THE BANALITIES. 12$ 

presses, banal slaughter-houses, and so on ; but none of these 
privileges seem to have been claimed in Canada. In a few in- 
stances the seigniors erected cider-mills ; but in each case this 
was done as a private commercial enterprise on the part of the 
seignior, and cannot be regarded as the exercise of any right 
of banality. ^ 

V^\t is the practice of most writers on the history of Canada to r^^ \ 
look upon the banalities as among the most odious incidents of ^ ' 
the seigniorial system^^ and this attitude is, no doubt, accounted 
for by the fact that, with the growth of the colonial population 
during the latter days of the system, the enforcement of the 
seigniorial right of mill banality was attended with large profits 
to the seigniors and with considerable inconvenience to the in- 
habitants. The fact is, however, as has been pointed out, that 
both the French government and its colonial representatives 
sought to develop the system of banal mills in the interest of ' ^' 
the poorer habitants, and not merely to the profit of the seign- 
iorial proprietors. This is shown by the issue of royal edicts 
like that of 1686,^ compelling the seigniors to erect their banal 
mills as '' necessary for the subsistence of the inhabitants," as 
well as by the argument of Raudot that, whereas the mills were 
a great convenience to the people, the ovens were not, and that 
the rights of mill and oven banality ought, therefore, to be 
regarded from two entirely different points of view. It will be 
noticed that throughout the French period the complaints of 
the habitants to the authorities were not that the system of 
banal mills was burdensome as a system, but that individual 
seigniors were not living up to the obligations imposed upon 
them in the way of providing proper facilities. 
V If one may judge from the amount of pressure necessary to 
compel the erection of the seigniorial mills, it seems probable 
that, had the milling industry been left to private enterprise, ^ 

large tracts of sparsely settled territory would have remained 

1 Cf. Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada^ ii. 48. On the other hand, the 
milling right seems to have escaped the criticism of some in the belief that it was not 
enforced. Professor Goldwin Smith, for example (in his Canada and Ae Canadian 
Question^ 72), thinks that it " must have been almost a dead letter." 

' See above, p. 105. 



126 THE BANALITIES. 

without any milling facilities at all. Since, at the best, colonial 
agriculture developed under many very serious difficulties and 
discouragements, it behooved the authorities to see that any 
desirable conveniences which could be placed at the disposal of 
the farmers without expense to the public treasury should be 
given them, even though such favor imposed a burden upon the 
seigniors ; for, although the latter were by no means opulent as 
a class, they were better able than their habitants to bear the 
load. 

The action of the authorities of New France in encourag- 
ing the seigniorial milling industry is only one feature of a 
general economic policy which aimed at making agriculture 
more attractive and more profitable to the colonist; and agri- 
culture was strongly in need of official encouragement, for the 
attractions and profits of the fur trade exerted an almost irre- 
sistible influence in drawing the habitant off his land into the 
forest. Whatever judgment may be passed upon the methods 
which the authorities employed in fostering ag^culture and in 
endeavoring to hold the passion for forest trade within its proper 
bounds, there can be little doubt that the general policy was 
dictated by the soundest interests of permanent colonial progress. 
Talon, Raudot, and Hocquart fully recognized that they could 
lay solid foundations for later colonial growth, not by permitting 
the population to devote its whole energies to the exploitation 
of a transitory resource, such as the peltry traffic was sure to be» 
but by encouraging it to clear and cultivate the land. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 

The seigniorial rights enumerated in the foregoing chapters 
by no means exhaust the list of privileges possessed by the seign- 
iors in relation to their dependents. There were various other 
rights, no one of which constituted in itself an important incident - \ 
of Canadian feudalism, but which, taken together, contributed 
substantially to increase the prestige, power, and income of the 
seigniors. y^Among these were the right to exact a certain num--y 
ber of days of corv^, or forced labor, in each year; the right to 
make certain reservations in the deeds of lands granted to habit- 
ants, and to insert divers prohibitions in them; the droit de 
ptche^ or right to a share of the fish caught by the habitants in 
seigniorial waters; the right of ferry over rivers within the seign- 
iorial jurisdiction; and various other privileges. 

First in point of importance was, of course, the corv6e. By 
^the Custom of Paris the seignior's right to exact days of corv6e -■ 
from his dependents stood upon the same basis as his right to 
enforce the banalities ; that is to say, he could legally enforce 
the right only wjien he had stipulated for it in the title-deeds of w. 
granted lands.* /It would seenrthaf;"auriifg the earlier years of 
the French rule in Canada, it was not customary to stipulate 
for or to enforce the exaction. There may have been, and prob- 
ably were, exceptions to the general rule ; but the fact that in 
Raudot's despatches of 1707-1708 the corv6e is not mentioned at 
all would seem to indicate that forced labor was not being exacted 
by the seigniors in any general fashion, otherwise the watchful 
intendant would in all probability have included it with the oven 
banality and the droit de retraitxn his list of "vexatiousexactions."* 

1 " Nol seigneur ne pent contraindre ses sujets . . . faire corv^es, s'il n'en a titre 
▼alable, on aveti et d^nombryment ancien" {Coutume de Paris^ aitide bczi). 
* See above, p. 98. 

127 



128 THE CORVJ&E AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 

As time went on, however, the seigniors seem to have begun 
the practice of stipulating for a certain number of days of corvte 
per year, and apparently of exacting it even in cases in which 
they had made no such stipulation. In such instances the habit- 
ants were sometimes told that the labor was to compensate the 
seignior for the use of the seigniorial commons by their cattle, 
or for their privilege of taking wood from the seigniorial forests, 
or for some other benefit of a like nature.^ In 1716 the in- 
tendant B6gon, in a despatch to the French minister, complained 
that many of the seigniors induced their habitants to render 
corvee in clearing the timber oflf parts of the seigniorial domains, 
on the understanding that, when the land had been cleared, it 
would be placed at their disposal for pasturage ; but that after 
the work was done the habitants often found that they were com- 
pelled, as the price of using this newly cleared land, to give 
their seignior a number of days of free labor each year on his 
other lands. B6gon, therefore, asked for an ordinance forbid- 
ding the exaction of corv6e, — and particularly upon such pre- 
texts as those mentioned, — except in such cases as the Custom 
of Paris permitted.^ 

In the spring of the following year (171 7) the matter was 
referred by the minister to the Council of the Regent, which 
passed a minute declaring that, in the opinion of the council, a 
decree in accordance with the wishes of the intendant should 
be issued. No special decree seems to have followed; but in 
the general arrfit, which was drafted in May, 17 17, for the reform 
of the whole seigniorial system in the colony, a clause was in- 
serted explicitly forbidding the exaction of corvee " under any 
pretence whatever." Had this arrfit received the royal assent 
and been promulgated in Canada, the end sought by B6gon would 
have been attained; but, as has already been shown,* it never 
received the assent of the authorities, and affairs remained just 

^ In France, the right of the seignior to exact corvee or other compensation from 
peasants for the privilege of pasturing their cattle upon the waste lands of the seign- 
iory was known as the droit de blairie. The right was recognized in several 
coutumes, Cf. Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the Revolution^ 337. 

^ B6gon to Minister, February, 1716, Correspondance Generale^ xxvi. 9a This 
despatch does not bear the day of the month. 

* See above, p. 42. This unsigned arr8t is printed in Titles and Documents^ i. 18-19. 



THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS, 129 

as they were before B^gon brought the matter to the notice 
of his superiors. 

The unsigned arrfit of May, 171 7, proposed to go much far- 
ther, however, than the intendant had suggested ; for it sought 
to put an end to the exaction of corvee even when the seignior 
had stipulated for it, as, according to the Custom of Paris, he 
had a perfect right to do. On the other hand, the colonial 
authorities had, on more than one occasion, sanctioned the 
exaction when the seignior had been able to show them a copy 
of his contract of concession to the habitant containing the 
corv6e clause. 

In 1 7 14, for example, certain habitants of the seigniory of 
Desjordy presented to the intendant a petition complaining that 
the seignior sought to exact days of corv6e in proportion to the 
amount of land held by them ; that despite this exaction he 
refused them the use of the seigniorial domain for pasturage ; 
and that he persisted in asking for the labor in the busiest 
seasons of the year. 'The seignior, being called upon for his 
defence, contended that he was entitled to the corvee which he 
demanded, " inasmuch as by their deeds of concession the habit- 
ants are bound thereto"; that he was not bound by law or 
custom to allow his habitants the use of his land for pasturage ; 
and that he had a right to select the seasons of the year in which 
the labor should be given. The intendant, " having heard the 
parties, considered the petition, and examined a deed of con- 
cession," issued the following decree: "The said habitants 
shall give to the seignior the daily corv6e labor mentioned in 
their deeds, which said corv6e labor the said seignior will exact 
from them at different times and separately, — to wit, one day 
during seed time, one during hay time, and one during harvest ; 
those who have more than three days to give shall give the 
additional ones during the season of ploughing; such of the 
habitants as desire to exempt themselves from the said cor\'6e 
labor may do so upon payment to the said seignior of forty sols 
for each day of labor, provided payment be made forthwith to 
the person notifying them to furnish the labor." ^ 

It will be noticed that the exaction was enforced because it 

^ Edits et Onionnancgs, ii. 437. 



I30 THE CORVkE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 

'^ had been bargained for, not because it was regarded by the 
authorities as compensation on the part of the habitants for the 
use of the seigniorial domain as pasture land. It will also be 
noticed that the only steps taken by the intendant were in the 
direction of protecting the habitants against the enforcement 
of the right to the detriment of their own private employments. 
This protection he secured, in the first place, by providing that 
the corv6e could be exacted only at different seasons of the 
year, and in the second place by giving the habitants the option 
of commuting the obligation to a money payment 

Some two years later (January 22, 17 16) a petition was pre- 
sented to the intendant by Francois de Chavigny,^ who styled 
himself ** seignior of the fief and seigniory of La Chevroti^re," 

^ complaining that some of his habitants had refused to perform 
the days of corv6e to which they were bound by the terms of 

^. their title-deeds, on the ground that the seignior was not will- 
ing to furnish them with food and tools during their period of 
labor, as, they claimed, he was bound to do. Chavigny asked 
for an ordinance upholding his refusal to meet the demands 
of the habitants. 

The intendant, on looking into the matter, found that a some- 
what similar case had come before his predecessor, Raudot, in 
1 710, and that in this case the decision had been in the seign- 
ior's f avor.^ He therefore ordered that the habitants of La Chev- 
roti^re should "give their corvee labor free of all expense to the 
seignior, and without requiring him to procure for them their 
food and the necessary tools." In the concluding paragraph of 
this judgment, however, appears the somewhat startling prohi- 
bition : " We do hereby forbid the said Sieur de la Chevroti^re 
and the other seigniors of this colony to introduce into the 
deeds of concession which they may hereafter grant the said 
corvee clause {la dite clause de corvies) on pain of nullity." * It 
seems strange that, if the intendant had in mind a general inter- 

^ In the Edits et Ordonnances this name is erroneously spelled ^ Champigny." 
' Although no copy of Raudot's judgment seems to have been preserved, the gist 
of it is given in Begon's decree of January 22, 17 16, which shows that it was rendered 
in favor of M. Robineau, seignior of Portneuf, on June 4, 1710. See EtRU tt Ordon- 
nances, ii. 444. 
« Ibid. 445. 



THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 131 

diction of future stipulations for corvee labor in the title-deeds 
of subgrantSy he should not have issued, or have had the Supe- 
rior Council issue, a general ordinance to this effect, instead of 
inserting the prohibition in a judgment rendered in a private dis- 
pute and therefore to be published only in the neighborhood im- 
mediately concerned. Still, the intention of B^gon, as shown by 
the wording of the judgment, seems quite clear. 

This judgment was rendered on January 22, 1716; and hence 
it was with the case fresh in mind that the intendant, sometime 
during the course of the following month, wrote to the minister 
asking that a decree be issued dealing with the corvee " and a 
variety of other obligations contrary to the Custom of Paris and 
to the interests of colonial development." The outcome of his 
appeal has already been seen.^ Those seigniors who had before / . 
• 1716 stipulated for days of corvee continued to exact them from 
their dependents, and were supported by the authorities in so 
doing.^ There is also evidence that many of them took occasion 
to insert the stipulation in concessions made after 17 16; but it 
does not appear that they successfully sought the support of the 
authorities in this procedure. 

Extra days of corvte labor were sometimes demanded by ^ 
the seignior from his dependents for certain special purposes, 
such, for example, as the building and repair of roads and 
bridges, the erection and repair of the parish church and 
presbytery, and occasionally for the erection of the manor-house 
and mill. While the habitants do not appear to have been 
under any legal obligation to respond to such demands, in 
the event of their refusal the seignior could appeal to 
the intendant, who, if he thought that the case was one in 
which the habitants ought in the general interest to help the 
seignior, would issue an ordinance providing a penalty for 
continued recalcitrancy. Thus, in 1730 the habitants of the 
seigniory of Demaure were ordered to proceed to work as 

1 Above, p. 128. 

^ The Special Seigniorial Court of 1854 decided, with only one dissenting opinion, 
that " the covenants contained in some deeds of concession, imposing days of per- 
sonal labor (journees de corvee) upon the habitants for the advantage of seigniors, 
are legal and give ground for indemnity." B6gon's judgment of January 22, 171 6, 
was therefore held not to have established a general prohibition. 



1s 



/ 



132 THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 

soon as the harvest should have been garnered in, and "to 
work incessantly " until the bridge leading to the seigniorial 
mill should have been repaired.^ 

Ordinances were likewise issued from time to time command- 
ing the habitants to render service in the construction of 
fortifications, public highways, and other works of general 
colonial interest. The public roads of the colony were built, 
for the most part, by the corvee labor of the habitants super- 
vised by the seignior or by the captain of militia in the 
parish, the whole under the general coordination of a royal 
official known as the grand voyeKy The duties of this official, 
as set forth in an ordinance ot 1706, were, in general, "to 
visit all the seigniories in which main roads have not been 
built, and to build such in concert with the proprietors of 
seigniories, or, in their absence, with the capitaines de la milice^ 
unless there be a royal justice present; and to decide, in ac- 
cordance with the opinion of six of the oldest and most promi- 
nent habitants of the place, where the roads ought henceforth 
to traverse, provided always that such roads shall be at least 
twenty-four feet wide. " The ordinance further provided that 
the habitants of every such place should, "each for himself, 
aid in the construction of such roads and give his days of corv6e 
for this purpose whenever necessary." ^ I This corvee, exacted 
for the construction of public works under authority of the 
V royal officials at Quebec, was commonly known as the "king's 
corvee" to distinguish it from the ordinary annual corvte 
exacted by the seigniors for work upon their own domains. 

The amount both of seigniorial and of royal corv^ exacted 
from the habitants varied in different sections and at different 
periods, y Usually, but not always, the amount of seigniorial 
corv6e was proportioned to the size of the grant obtained by 
the habitant, the seignior exacting from one to thirty days per 
year. Very rarely, however, did he demand more than six 
days in all. The amount of royal corvte exacted in any 
locality obviously depended upon the extent and nature of 
the public works to be constructed.] In the third volume 
.of the collection of Edits et Ordonnances will be found 

^ EdiU et Ordimuances, iii. 459. ^ IHd, ii 137, § viiL 



THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 133 

many decrees ordering habitants in all parts of the colony 
to turn out and labor, under the supervision of the grand 
voyer^ in the construction of all sorts of public works.^ The 
extent of the burden thus imposed upon the population of 
the colony is not easily estimated, but it does not appear 
to have been so great as to evoke any general protest from 
the habitants. As the obligation might be commuted by the 
payment of a small sum, it may be regarded as little more 
than a tax upon the people for the construction and repair 
of necessary public works.* It was, in a way, the trinoda 
necessitas of the old regime in Canada, and did not differ 
very essentially from the so-called " statute labor " obligation 
which is imposed upon the rural population in some of the 
Canadian provinces at the present day. 

After the British conquest, however, the seigniors seem very 
generally to have increased their exactions of corvte labor, with 
the object of augmenting the sum due in commutation by 
the habitants. In the report of the commission which was 
appointed by the legislature in 1843 to examine the work- 
ings of the seigniorial system, it is affirmed that many of the 
seigniors had taken occasion, whenever new deeds {Hires nou- 
vels) were executed, to insert obligations of corv6e labor, and, / *' 
despite the prohibition contained in the judgment of 1716, had 
very generally continued the practice. ( The habitants, for ^ 
their part, according to the report, regarded the exaction of ^ 
the corv6e as "hateful, odious, humiliating, and a badge of 
servitude." * 

In granting lands, it was customary for the seigniors to make 
certain reservations, the nature and extent of which varied in 
different parts of the colony and at different periods in the 
history of the seigniorial system. Although there were in 
many seigniories reservations of a local character made to fit 
local conditions, there were only four which appeared so fre- 

^ See, for example, Edits ei Ordonnancest iii. 176, 197, 216, 217, 284, 436, etc. 

' In response to a petition presented by certain habitants of the seigniory of La 
Chevrotiire in 1 716, the intendant fixed the amount to be paid in lieu of corvee labor 
at *' twenty sols per year for each farm of three arpents in frontage by forty in 
depth" (/^i^. ii. 449-450). 

* Report of the Commissioners, 1843, Titles and Documents^ i. 70. 



*-'NiVE.-R3ITY 



) 






134 THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTION'S. 

quently as properly to be yfermed general features of the 
system. These were the reservations of wood and stone, of 
mines, ores, and minerals, of the use of beaches, and of mill, 
manor, and church sites. 

The resenration of wood and stone was the most common 
of the four Jit appears in so large a number of the title-deeds 
. of subgrailfe that it may very properly be looked upon as an 

\ ' ^almost invariable incident of tenure en censive. In the deeds 
of seigniories granted by the crown, it was, as has been seen,* 
the custom to stipulate for the reservation by the crown of such 
timber as might be found suitable for use in the royal ship- 
yards, as well as of such building materials as might be needed 
in the construction of forts, batteries, and other public works in 
the colony. In order, therefore, that these reserved rights of 
the crown might be protected against any interference by the 
habitants, the reservations contained in the seigniorial title- 
deeds were repeated in the deeds of subgrants, whether held 
en arriire-fief or en censive. 

f The seigniors, however, went farther than this. In addition 

/ to reserving such materials as might be sought by the royal 
authorities, they usually stipulated that they should be at lib- 
erty to take from the granted lands such quantities of wood and 
6tone as might be found necessary in the construction of 
the seigniorial manor-house, mill, and church, and frequently, 
also, such firewood as might be needed for heating any of these 
buildings when erected. Occasionally, too, they reserved to 
themselves all the standing timber on granted lands, allowing 
the habitants to fell it for use or for sale only on condition of 
paying a tax. 

From the beginning to the end, the seigniors seem to have 
had no legal right to make any reservations beyond what were 
necessary to give force and effect to the royal reservations 
stipulated for in their own titles. In general, the colonial 
authorities supported the habitants in resisting reservations 
beyond this point. Thus, in 1707 the intendant forbade the 
Sieur de Hertel to "take or carry away any wood from the 
lands belonging to his habitants" ;* and in 17 14 a further ordi- 

1 Above, ch. iv, ■ Edi/s et OrdonnanceSf iii. 13a 



THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS, 135 

nance directed that the seignior of Chambly should pay for all 
the pine timber which he had taken from the lands of his habit- 
ants for use in the construction of his mill.* Sometimes, on 
the other hand, the authorities pursued a different policy. In 
1706, for example, the intendant supported the seigniors of the 
island of Montreal in their claim to the right to take firewood 
{bois de chauffage) from the lands of habitants on the island, 
whenever they had stipulated for such right in the title-deeds 
of subgrants.^ The fact that, in this instance, the seigniors 
were a religious organization may have been regarded as a 
circumstance warranting a departure from the usual official 
policy. 

Presently, however, the intendant B^gon, in his long despatch L 
of 1 7 16, complained that the practice of making wide reserva-^ 
tions was proving detrimental to the progress of the colony. 
"Some of the seigniors," he wrote, "reserve to themselves in 
their deeds of concession, the timber necessary for their houses 
and other buildings, and the wood necessary for fuel Others, 
again, reserve timber for sale. Yet others grant to their habit- 
ants leave to cut timber upon the ungranted lands, on condition 
that they pay ten per cent of the value of the boards obtained 
therefrom. When they concede woodlands they reserve for 
themselves all the oak and pine timber thereon without com- 
pensation to the habitants, and thus they are able to exact any 
price they please for this wood, this being not only prejudicial to 
building, but preventing a trade in such timber with the West 
Indies and with France." ' 

It is worth noting that the draft arrfit of 171 7 proposed to 
" discharge the habitants from the seigniorial reservation which 
forbade them to take any wood of what kind soever, whether 
for building or for fuel, without payment " ; * but the general 
attitude of the authorities toward the whole matter of timber 
reservations is best stated in a judgment of the intendant, 

1 Edits et OrdonnanceSy iiL 166. 

' IHd, 123. By this ordmance the seigniorial right was, however, limited to tak- 
ing firewood from not more than one arpent in sixty. 

• B6gon to Minister, February, 1716, Correspondance Generale, xxvi. 124. 

* Printed in Correspondence between tfu French Government and the Governors 
4snd Itttendants of Canada^ etc., 17-18. 



136 THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 

rendered in July, 1722, in regard to certain claims on the part 
of the seignior of Isles Bouchard. It appears that one of the 
habitants of this seigniory had, in clearing his grant, cut down 
some oak timber in violation of a clause in his title-deed by 
virtue of which the seignior had reserved to himself the exclu- 
sive right of cutting and using all oak timber in the seigniory ; 
whereupon the seignior, by way of compensating himself, had 
seized a quantity of his habitant's grain. With a view to secur- 
ing its restoration, the habitant therefore made appeal to the 
intendant, who readily granted the redress asked for, and inter- 
dicted the seignior from any further interference with the 
habitants in this direction.^ In the course of the judgment the 
official attitude toward the question of timber reservations is 
clearly stated as follows: "The reservation by the seign- 
iors in their title-deeds of concession is made in consequence 
of the clause inserted in all the concessions of seigniories in 
this colony, by which His Majesty reserves for himself oak tim- 
ber for shipbuilding and obliges the seigniors to reserve and 
cause to be reserved the said oak by their habitants. This 
does not confer upon the seigniors any property in oak timber 
found on the lands which they concede ; His Majesty's inten- 
tion is that the lands conceded shall be made productive, and 
this can be done only by the habitants cutting down and clearing 
off all the wood thereon ; ... it would not contribute to the 
advancement of this colony if seigniors were allowed to retain 
any property in the lands which they have conceded subject to 
the seigniorial cens et rentes'' * 

This passage shows that the seigniorial rights in regard to 
reservations of timber were limited by the royal reservations, — 
that the seigniors were allowed to stipulate in the matter only 
so far as was essential to the proper enforcement of the reserva- 
tions made by the crown. From time to time the crown took 
advantage of the reservations which it had thus made. In 1731, 
for example, it issued an ordinance giving to certain naval con- 
structors power to take from the seigniories of Berthier and 
Dautray some two thousand feet of oak timber to be used in 
the construction of a public vessel, " agreeably to the reserva- 

^ Edits et Ordonnancest ii. 471. ^Ibid, 472. 



THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 137 

tions made by His Majesty of such timber for his own use in 
the concessions of lands and seigniories of the colony." ^ Even 
when the reservation had not been made in the original seign- 
iorial title, it was sometimes effected later by ordinance. Thus, 
in 1740 an intendant's ordinance, after declaring that informa- 
tion has been brought to the authorities as to the existence of 
considerable quantities of valuable oak timber in certain seign- 
iories in the vicinity of Montreal, summarily orders all proprie- 
tors in that vicinity, " of whatever quality and condition they 
may be,*' to refrain from cutting down any oak trees until " such 
of the same as shall be found suitable for the construction of 
His Majesty's ships shall have been marked and reserved."* 
In the same year a further ordinance summarily reserved a 
quantity of standing red pine in the seigniory of Sorel as being 
suitable for mastings for the navy ; ' and in 1742, in order that 
no suitable timber should escape reservation in any of the seign- 
iories, Messrs. Noel Langlois and Pierre Abraham, two car- 
penters, were commissioned to make a tour of the colony for the 
purpose of looking up all serviceable timber and presenting a 
report of their investigations to the council.* 

The members of the Special Seigniorial Court, which, after 
1854, looked into the validity of seigniorial reservations and the 
right of seigniors to compensation on the abolition of their seign- 
iorial tenure, were, with one exception, convinced that only such 
reservations were valid as the seignior necessarily imposed in 
order that he might be able to carry out the obligation laid 
upon him by the c^wn in regard to the preservation of suitable 
standing timber.^ The practice, therefore, of reserving fire- \/ 
wood, stone, sanoj and other materials seems to have had no/^ 
legal basis; and yet the fact remains that many such reserva- ■'^ 
tions were made and enforced throughout the whole period of 
the old regime, and even under British rule. 

1 Edits et Ordonnances, ii. 348. ' Ibid, 382. * Ibid, iii. 447. ^ Ibid, 469. 

^ *' AH reserves most be held to be legal, the object of which was the obligation 
upon the tenant (censitaire) to allow the accomplishment by the seignior, and the 
obserrance by himself, on his part, of the obligations of that nature, stipulated by the 
king in the grant of the fief (^Proceedings of the Special Seigniorial Co^rt, 1856, 
p. 82). From this decision the Hon. Mr. Justice Mondelet dissented, for reasons 
given in his Observations^ 5<^5^ 



138 THE CORVkE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 

With only two exceptions, all the title-deeds of lands granted 

^ . en seigneurie contained a provision requiring seigniors to report 

' to the representative of the crown in the colony the discovery 

of any mines or minerals within the limits of the conceded 

lands. This precaution was taken to secure the king in the 

exaction of the share due to him as dominant seignior. In 

order to carry out this obligation, the seigniors, in turn, inserted 

in the deeds which they granted to their habitants a provision 

reserving rights to all mineral deposits found in the subg^anted 

lands.^ As there appear to have been no important discoveries 

s^ of mineral wealth within the limits of the seigniories, however, 

this obligation was a formal one. 

Most of the seigniories, as has been noted, fronted on the 
St. Lawrence, in the waters of which a considerable fishing 
industry was carried on. As many of the seigniors claimed the 
exclusive right to fish in the waters fronting their seigniories, 
and as some of them were in the habit of farming out this right,^ 
it was customary for them to provide, in the deeds which they 
gave their habitants to concessions fronting on the river, 
that the grants should not include the beach between high 
and low water mark. The use of this the seignior reserved 
for himself and for those to whom he might sell the fishing 
"^ rights. In such cases the habitants were not to fish in the 
waters fronting their lands without the permission of the 
seignior.' 

Although this reservation was a common one, it seems in 
most cases to have had no legal basis. The seignior had the 
right to reserve for himself the beach between high and low 
water mark only when in his seigniorial deed this tract had been 
expressly given to him ; otherwise, as the Special Court held, 

1 It was held by the Special Court (see its Proceedings^ 82) that the terms 
''mines'* and *' mineral deposits "did not include stone and slate quarries, sand 
and gravel pits, and so on, which, after the conquest, some of the seigniors sought 
to include within them. 

' In 1723 the seignior of Portneuf, as we are told, leased his 6shing rights for the 
consideration of ** four hogsheads of eels {jjutUre barriqtus d^anguilU) per year '' 
(^Edits et OrdonnanceSy iii. 205). 

' The peculiar method of catching fish and eels on the tidal beaches by means of 
the " traps made of twisted oziers '* which were commonly used by the habitants, is 
described in Kalm's Travels into North America (1772}, iu 253-254. 



THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS, 139 

the rights of the seigniors extended " to high water mark only.'* * 
In only a very few cases had the crown expressly granted to 
the seigniors the wider right. .While many of the seigniors 
reserved to themselves exclusive rights in the beaches of their 
seigniories, most of them allowed their habitants to fish freely, 
subject to' the seigniorial droit de picked 

In many cases the seignior reserved the right to take from 
subgranted lands such locations as might be found suitable for 
the erection of a mill, manor-house, church, or presbytery. The 
plots reserved varied in size ; but, even when no stipulation had 
been made, custom seems to have sanctioned the taking of not 
more than six arpents of land for such a location. No monetary 
compensation was payable to the habitant, but the practice was 
to allow him his choice of an equal area in the unconceded 
lands of the seigniory. In one case the intendant, when called 
upon by a seignior, forced a habitant to accept such an exchange.' 

After the conquest the number of reservations which the 
seigniors attempted to make was greatly increased. Some 
tried to reserve the right to divert watercourses, some to make 
exclusive use of all waterways for the generation of power, 
some to take from the habitants any land which might be found 
necessary for a railroad right of way, some to change the place 
and time at which the seigniorial dues should be payable, and 
so on. The Special Seigniorial Court decided that all of these 
reservations were illegal.* 

Besides making these numerous reservations, it was custom-' 
ary for seigniors to insert in the deeds given to their habitants 
-various prohibitions, some of which were both legal and reason- 
able, others clearly illegal or unreasonable. A common prohi- 
T)ition was that which forbade trade with the redskins. Many 
seigniors had, by their own title-deeds, been forbidden to allow 
their seigniories to be made bases of trade with the Indians, 
and were therefore justified in placing a similar prohibition in 
the deeds of their dependents ; but others, although themselves 
not forbidden to trade, were very ready to deny their habit- 

1 Proceedings of the Special Seigniorial Court (1856), 68. 

' See below, p. 140. * Edits et Ordonnances, ii. 468. 

* Proceedings of the Special Seigniorial Courts 79-80. 



I40 THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 

ants the privilege. This prohibition found consistent support 
from the colonial authorities, whose aim it was to concen- 
trate the fur traffic at Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal : 
they did not desire to see a trading station at every outlying 
/ hamlet or cdte. It may well be doubted, however, whether the 
prohibition availed much in the long run; for, when the habit- 
ants were forbidden to do a little trading in their spare time, 
they not uncommonly abandoned their farms and took them- 
selves off to the wilderness to become coureurs-de-bois, beyond 
the reach of both the royal and the seigniorial authorities. 

Again, many seigniors inserted clauses in the deeds of their 
dependents forbidding them to sell marketable timber, to saw 
deals, to erect any mills, factories, or other works (usines) moved 
by water, wind, or steam, with various other interdictions of a like 
nature. Most of these prohibitions made their appearance during 
the period following the conquest ; and, although none of them 
rested upon any legal basis, they seem in many cases to have 
been respected by the habitants. In so far as they were en- 
forced, such prohibitions assisted in retarding the industrial 
development of the province. 

Finally, there were several minor rights which some seigniors 
\ ' stipulated for and some did not, and which some exacted at one 
time and not at another. Among these was the droii de piche^ 
or the right of the seignior to one fish in every eleven caught by 
his dependents J Some writers have mentioned this as a gen- 
eral and important exaction,^ whereas it appears to have been 
insisted upon quite infrequently and never to have been re- 
garded by the seigniors as of much account. ^When the habit- 
ants fished for their own use, the seignior usually exacted 
nothing; but when they made a business of fishing for the 
market, it was not uncommon for him to exact a hogshead 
{barrique) or so per season in commutation of his droit de 
picked 

1 On the origin, nature, and extent of this right in France, see Dufresnoy, His-- 
toire du Droit de Ptche dam PAncien Droit Fran^ais (1896). 

^ For example, Parkman, The Old Regime in Caneulay ii. 48. 

' Of certain habitants in one seigniory who were engaged in the porpoise-Bshing 
industry, the seignior exacted one-tenth of the oil produced. See Edits et Ordon- 
nances^ ii. 541. 



/ 



THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 141 

In the same category may be placed the droit de chasse, or V^ 
the right of the seignior to hunt over the lands of his depend- 
ents.^ )rhose who are familiar with the historical literature of 
the old regime in Fra%ce need not be reminded of the im- 
reasonable and often oftrageousway in which many French 
seigniors were accusto^d to take advantage of the hunting 
right, by riding with large parties of friends over the growing 
fields of the hapless censitaires, and destroying in an hour the 
fruits of a season's toil. In French Canada the habitant was 
never subjected to any odious exaction of the droit de chasse. 
Some seigniors claimed thq privilege as an honorary ught {droit 
honorifique) ; but no one s^ns to have availed himself of it in 
such a way as to give his Kbitants just ground for complaint 
The chase-loving Canadian^eig^ior could, of course, find abun- 
dant scope on the often tdo-extensive unconceded lands of his 
seigniory. Upon these he had full liberty, in which he was 
confirmed from time to time by decrees of the authorities I 
enjoining the habitants tfot to hunt on the unconceded lands 
without the seignior's ex{jr^ss permission.^ 

Some of the seigniors clsumed the right of establishing ferries } ' 
over rivers that ran through their seigniories, and of exacting 
toll from passengers; and occasionally a seignior leased this 
privilege to some one who would provide a scow and act as 
ferryman, y The seignior's right in this matter does not seem to 
have been called in question during the French period; and 
in connection with the abolition of the seigniorial system in 1854 
claims for indemnity were based upon the loss of this ferry 
privilege. The validity of such claims turned on the question 
as to what rights a seignior possessed in the waters of his seign- 
iory. In the case of navigable streams, he had no rights beyond 
high-water mark, unless such were expressly given him by deed 
from the crown ; but over the smaller, non-navigable streams, 
as well as over the ponds and lakes within his seigniory, his 
authority was complete. When a non-navigable stream divided 
two seigniories, the littoral seig^ors had jurisdiction to the 
middle of the waterway. On the foregoing points the authori- 

^ L. Moyat, Etude Historique^ Critique^ et ComparU sur U Droit de CAasse (^1900), 
* Edili et OrdoHHances, ii. 73, JS4, 428; iiu 160, 263. 



142 THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 

ties in both France and Canada seem to have agreed ; but as to 
the legal basis of the seignior's control of small streams and 
lakes there is some difference of opinion. Some believe that his 
right accrued to him as seignior, that it was an incident of 
seig^iorship ; others maintain that it belonged to him as a 
judicial officer, as a seignior with powers of haute Justice} In 
France the question was one of academic interest only; in 
Canada it had a tangible importance. After the conquest all 
the judicial rights of the seigniors were taken away without 
compensation; but in accordance with the pledge made in the 
Treaty of Paris (1763) that all rights of property should be 
respected by the new British suzerains,^ their ordinary pro- 
prietary rights were left intact. When, therefore, in 1854 the 
proprietary rights of seigniors were taken from them with 
compensation, the question was raised whether the seigniorial 
rights over rivers were among the judicial rights of the seign- 
iors, which had long since been abolished, or among the pro- 
prietary rights, which had been preserved. This was one of 
the most difficult points which the Special Seigniorial Court 
found itself called upon to decide ; but it was finally held by a 
majority of the justices that seigniorial rights over the smaller 
streams were proprietary and not judicial in their nature.* 

The foregoing list does not completely exhaust the rights 
occasionally claimed by the Canadian seignior; it comprises 
only those which were exacted with some degree of frequency. 
Here and there one finds a shred or two of evidence indicating 
that a seignior laid claim to some other right, but such in- 
stances are not numerous.f Some few seigniors, for example, 
appear to have claimed the right to offer their own grain and 
cattle for sale to buyers a certain number of days in advance 
of their habitants; the right to maintain banal slaughter-houses; 
the right to keep for exclusive service in the seigniory a 
banal bull, boar, or ram ; the right to keep a seigniorial dove- 
cote;* the droit de jambage^ or marital right; and various other 

^ See the authorities cited in Mondelet, Observations, 34 ff. ' See below, p. 191. 

■ Proceedings of the Special Seigniorial Court (1856), 68-73. 

* The droit de colombiervtdA, by the Custom of Paris (articles Ixix, Ixx), recognized 
as appertaining to all seigniors possessing more than fifty arpents of land. Cf. 
Viollet, Histoire du Droit Civil Franfais, 712. 



>. 



THE CORVEE AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 143 



privilegesA Although all these rights are mentioned in the 
data of the French period, it is almost certain that little or no 
serious attempt was made to enforce any of them, except per- 
haps in very rare instances.* It would be safe to hazard the 
opinion that most of them were never exacted at all. 

Taken as a whole, the burdens imposed upon the habitant , 
by the seignior of the old system in Canada were far from 
onerous. To declare that they were "more nominal than real*' * '^ 
seems scarcely justifiable in view of the general poverty of the 
class upon which they were imposed ; they certainly were not 
so regarded by the habitants themselves. Still, the Canadian 
habitant was, in this respect, much better off than his proto- 
type, the French censitaire. In all cases his obligations were 
fixed with at least some degree of definiteness, and the method 
of exaction was never harsh or cruel. From the most odious 
incidents of the seigniorial system in France he was almost 
entirely free. He was protected, moreover, not alone by the 
letter and the spirit of the law, but by the administrative juris- 
diction of the intendant, to whom he might appeal with little 
expense and with reasonable hope of success whenever a 
seigniorial exaction, though legal, seemed unjust or contrary 
to public policy. 
/ The Canadian habitant, though poor, seems never to have 
become degraded and hopelessly dispirited like the peasant in 
France. ^' Various writers of the time commented upon his bon- 
homie and his ability to make light of his troubles and difficulties. 
In 1737, Hocquart sent to the minister a very interesting pen 
portraiture of the Canadians, in the course of which he pointed 
out that the habitants of New France were not "coarse and 
boorish rustics " like the peasantry of the provinces at home, 
but that they were well-dressed and displayed good manners.* 
Their dwellings, built of timber or stone and whitewashed 
on the outside, though usually small, were comfortable and 

1 On the nature of these Tarious rights in France, cf. Tocqueville, The Old 
Regime and the Revolution, 326 ff. 

* See Sir J. M. Le Moine on ** Tidbits of Feudal Customs in Canada," in his 
Maple Leaves, 4th series, 99 ff. 

* Thwaites, France in America, 132. 

* Hocquait to Minister, November 8, 1737, Correspondance Generale,yo\, hcvii. 40 ff. 



144 THE CORVJ&E AND OTHER EXACTIONS. 

cleanly.^ Their daily fare, while plain, was nourishing and 
always adequate. Lahontan, during his stay in the colony, was 
impressed by the rude comfort in which the population of the 
seigniories lived, and recorded his surprise at finding that " the 
boors of these manours live with more ease and conveniency 
than an infinity of the gentlemen in France." * Whatever criti- 
cisms may be passed upon the seigniorial system as the em- 
bodiment of an economic policy, it can scarcely be said with 
truth that in New France it ever permitted the seigniors to op- 
press or degrade the peasantry. 

1 Kalm, Travels into North America (1772), it 241-242. Kalm yisited New 
France in 1749. 

' Lmhontan, New Voyages (ed. Thwaites), i. 35. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

SEIGNIORIAL JUSTICE. 

*'0f all the phenomena of feudalism," v^rites Professor F. 
W. Maitland, "none seems more essential tiian seigniorial jus- 
tice;"^ and yet, as that distinguished student of institutional 
history has pointed out, disproportionate stress has usually been 
laid upon the military aspect of the seigniorial system to the 
consequent neglect of the judicial. The exercise of jurisdic- 
tion seems to be, above all else, the distinguishing mark of a 
seigniorial system of land tenure.^ 

During the earliest period of French operations in Canada, — 
that is to say, from the first establishment of a permanent settle- 
ment at Quebec by Champlain in 1608 down to the formation 
of the Company 'of One Hundred Associates in 1627, — the 
administration of justice was vested by the French crown in the 
hands of whoever happened to hold the nominal post of " viceroy 
and lieutenant-general of New France " ; and by each viceroy, 
in turn, it was deputed to Champlain. Although the sparseness 
of the population during this period might have seemed to ren- 
der the establishment of any regular tribunal unnecessary, 
Champlain, as we learn from his writings, found it advisable 
to promulgate various ordinances for the governance of his 
somewhat unruly settlers, and to expel those who failed to give 
obedience. Moreover, a few years later he established the first 
regular court of the colony, later known as the court of the Pr6- ' 
vdt6 at Quebec,^ and modelled upon the court of similar name in 
France. As the early registers of this court have not come 

1 Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond (1897), 258. 

* On the administration of feudal justice in France, see Fustel de Conlanges on 
" La Justice dans la Soci£t6 F^odale," in Revue des Deux Mondes^ xciL 274-298 
(March, 1871). 

* On the composition and powers of this court, see Doutre and Lareau, Histoire 
GeneraU du Droit Civil Canadien, 15 ff; 

145 



146 SETGmORIAL JUSTICE. 

down to us, it is impossible to tell anything about the number 
or the character of the cases which came before it; but it is 

-^certain that down to 1627 there was no exercise of seigniorial 
jurisdiction, for only three grants of seigniories had been made 
prior to that year, and none of these contained any concession 
of judicial power.^ 

During the supremacy of the Company of One Hundred 
Associates, from 1627 to 1663, the court of the Pr^v6t6 con- 
^nued in existence ; but in 1647 a council, commonly known as 
the Old Council {Tancien conseit)^ was organized, consisting of 
the governor, the superior of the Jesuits in the colony, and 
some prominent colonists named by the former. From this 
time on, appeals might be carried from the court to the council ; 
but how far this appellate jurisdiction was exercised it is im- 
possible to tell, for, although the Old Council undoubtedly 

- kept records of its proceedings, these have never been found.* 
What is more important for our purpose, however, is the fact 

j^that during this period more than sixty seigniorial grants were 
made by the company, and in almost every instance judicial 
rights were given to the seigniors.' In no case was the extent 
of judicial authority precisely defined ; but in every grant pro- 
vision was made that appeals should lie from the seigniorial 
courts (whenever such should have been established) to the 

' court of the Pr6v6t6. - It was in this interval, therefore, that 
the colonial hierarchy of courts first took on a definite form.^^ 

It seems to have been intended that all cases should, in the 
first instance, come before the seigniorial courts, and that from 
them appeals should be carried to the court of the Priv6t6, 
from this to the Old Council, and from the council to the king. 

? As a matter of fact, however, there was apparently, before 1663, 
no serious attempt to establish courts in the seigniories; for 
many of those who received seigniorial grants never came out 
to the colony, and of the remamder only a few seem to have 
taken possession of their lands. 

1 Cf. Titres des Seigneuries, 89, 343, 412. 

' It is highly probable that these registers were destroyed by the fire which 
bamed the intendant's palace at Quebec in 17 13. See Chauveau, Notice sur la Pub- 
lication des Higistres du Conseil Souverain de Quebec (1885), 61. 

* See above, ch. ii. 



SEIGNIORIAL JUSTICE. 147 

r It is not till after 1663 that one encounters definite evidence 
that seigniorial jurisdiction was being exercised. Most of those X^ 
who received seigniories after that year were invested with 
judicial rights, and some began to exercise them. Not every 
colonial seignior, however, possessed the right of private juris- 
diction; indeed, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that in 
Canada the possession of a seigniory was not J^so/acto an evi- ^ 
dence of private judicial authority.^ Jin France, as various 
writers have pointed out, property and jdrisdiction were usually, 
during the feudal era, inseparable;^ although several of the 
coutumes explicitly declare that judicial powers were not nec- 
essary incidents of the possession of a fief.^ In Canada, on the > 
other hand, the possession of a seigniory did not in itself carry 
any jurisdiction : the latter could be obtained only by express 
grant. 

Judicial power, when given to the seignior, might be conveyed 
in one or more of three different degrees, — that is, the right \^ 
of high, of low, or of middle jurisdiction {haute^ moyenne^ ou'^ 
dasse justice) might be granted him. Usually all three degrees 
were given together; but grants of middle and low justice, 
or of low alone, were not uncommon.^ It should be made 
V ' clear that the degree of jurisdiction was not proportioned to v- 
the extent of the seigniory : in some of the smallest grants the 
widest degrees of judicial power were given, while in a few of 
the most extensive only the right of low jurisdiction was be- 

4^ A close examination of the seigniorial titles seems to confirm the statement of 
Gameau {Histoire du Canada, i. 166) that a grant of jurisdiction " almost invari- 
ably" accompanied the grant of a seigniory. This is certainly much nearer the 
truth than the assertion of a recent writer (Douglas, Old France in the New Worlds 
236) that ** in some few cases " judicial powers were possessed by the seigniors of 
Canada. Among seigniories sans justice may be mentioned those of GentiUy, Vieux- 
pont, Jacques Cartier, Isle St. Joseph, Pointe du Lac, Boucher (adjoining Labadie), 
St Michel, and St, Jean. See Titres des Seigneuries, 12, 85, 88, 103, 120, 344. 

* << The administration of justice both in the old and new fieft, was a right in- 
herent in the very fief itself, — a lucrative right which constituted a part of it '* (Mon- 
tesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, book xx. ch. 20). 

* ** Fief, ressort, et justice n'ont rien de commun ensemble." On this point, see 
Loisel, Institutes Coutumiires, ii. 271; and Viollet, Histoiredu Droit Civil Francois, 
646. 

* On the administration of seigniorial justice, cf. Doutre and Lareau, Histoire 
Gcnerale du Droit Civil Canadien, 133 ff. 



148 SEIGmORIAL JUSTICE. 

stowed. In some cases the seigniorial g^ant was first made 
j without any judicial rights whatever, these being given subse- 
Ni quently on augmentation of the original grant. In a few 
instances the right of low jurisdiction only was conferred with 
the original concession ; then later, when the holding had been 
increased either by purchase or by additional grants from the 
crown, the rights of middle and high jurisdiction were added. 
All these cases, however, ought to be regarded as exceptional ; 
for in the great majority of seigniorial title-deeds the gprants 
appear to have been made "in full property and seigniory, 
with the rights of high, middle, and low jurisdiction " {en touts 
propriiti et seigneurie^ avec les droits de haute^ moyenne^ et 
basse jt^tice). Seigniories appear to have been granted in 
these terms unless some special circumstance seemed to dictate 
a departure from the usual course; but it is not easy to say 
what prompted the making of exceptions in isolated cases. 
The grant of the right of high jurisdiction (Jtaute jttstice) 
X^gave the seignior power to deal with all criminal cases, includ- 
ing those punished by death, mutilation, or other corporal 
penalty, with the exception only of such crimes as were deemed 
.to be perpetrated directly against the royal person or proper ty. 
These were such crimes as Ihe majesty divine et humatne^ 
treason, counterfeiting the royal signature, seal, or coinage, 
unlawfully bearing arms, or taking part in seditious enterprises 
or assemblies. In civil cases the authority of the seignior 
possessing this degree of jurisdiction was without limit. He 
had power to fine or imprison, to award damages, to order 
amendes honorables to be made by his habitants to himself 
or to one another, to banish obnoxious persons from his seign- 
iory, to order the retention in stocks or even the branding of 
incorrigibles, and to publish all such regulations for the gover- 
nance of the habitants as were not inconsistent with the Custom 
of Paris and the laws of the colony. When his habitants were 
convicted of offences which legally entailed confiscation of 
property, whether real or personal, he had the right to seize 
and appropriate it ; but in the case of confiscations ordered by 
the royal courts for offences against the crown, the forfeited 
property went to the crown and not to the seignior within 



[ 



SEIGmORIAL JUSTICE. 149 

whose domain it lay. This rule was in full accord with the 
well-known feudal maxim that " he who condemns the person 
confiscates the property " (^qui confisque le corps confisque les 
biens). 

To the seignior with powers of high jurisdiction appertained ^^ 
also the possession of all stray cattle and other animals found 
within the limits of his seigniory. On finding such estray, 
a habitant was under obligation to deliver it to the seignior 
within twenty-four hours, on pain of fine; but the seignior, onp' 
his part, was obliged to make public proclamation at the door 
of the parish church for three consecutive Sundays, announcing - 
that he held such an estray. If, within the space of forty days 
from the date of the first publication, the rightful claimant did 
not appear and '' pay all lawful costs and expenses, " the ani- 
mal became the property of the seignior in his capacity of 
high justiciary of the seigniory, and this without any compen- 
sation to the finder. 

To the seignior with high judicial powers reverted also the 
ownership of all en censive lands and all lands en arrHre-fief 
left without lawful heirs, as well as of all such lands as did not 
continue to be held in strict accordance with the terms of the 
original grant He was likewise entitled to all flotsam and 
jetsam found in the waters of the seigniory or washed ashore, 
all treasure trove, and all bona vacantia. (In the case of treas- ^. 
ure trove, however, one-half went to the actual finder if the '^ 
treasure was discovered by him within the limits of his own 
grant ; if it was found by one habitant on the land of another, 
the finder received one-third, the owner of the land one-third, 
and the seignior the remaining third ; if it was found on the 
land of the seignior, the Rnder was rewarded with one-third of 
the value, and the seignior took the rest Furthermore, as 
has been pointed out, ^ the seignior, by virtue of his possession 
of high jurisdiction, claimed control over all unnavigable 
streams and waters within his seigniory, together with^the 
exclusive right of establishing ferries across the same.^^ In 
theory, at least, the g^ant of high jurisdiction conveyed^ very 
extensive judicial rights upon those seigniors who obtained it. 

^ Above, p. 142. 



I50 SEIGmORTAL JUSTICE. 

I The seignior whose jurisdiction was limited to a grant of moy- 
\enne justice had authority to take cognizance of all civil actions 
in which the amount in dispute did not exceed sixXy sols parisis^ 
and of all criminal causes in which the awardable penalty did 
not exceed the same sum. If the amount in dispute in a civil 
cause exceeded sixty sols, or if the offence were one demanding 
a punishment more severe than the imposition of a fine of this 
amount, the whole matter was handed over to the jurisdiction of 
the nearest royal court. The seignior with rights of middle juris- 
diction had authority to order the arrest of an offender ; but he 
was under obligation to give such person a hearing within twenty- 
four hours after his arrest, and at this hearing he was to decide 
whether or not he had jurisdiction. Since, however, there was no 
habeas corpus procedure in the colony, or anything correspond- 
ing to it, there was no security for the enforcement of this rule 
in behalf of a prisoner. It is, of course, true that the friends of 
an offender held in custody without a hearing might make appeal 
to the council at Quebec ; but from this body redress could be 
had only after an investigation of the case, and this took some 
time. If the seignior deemed an offence worthy of more severe 
punishment than he was empowered to inflict, and sent the case 
before a royal court, he was entitled to be reimbursed for the 
costs of the arrest and transport of the prisoner, and to be 
paid sixty sols parisis out of the fine imposed by the royal 
court. 

The seignior possessing the rights of middle jurisdiction had 
/ power to appoint tutors or curators for minors or persons nan 
compos mentis^ to determine the compensation to be paid them, 
and, in general, to supervise the property of all dependents in 
guardianship. He also had authority to decide disputed ques- 
tions of measurement and acreage {/aire mesurer et arpenter\ 
and to determine the boundaries {homage) of lands within his 
seigniory. 

The few seigniors who possessed the rights of low jurisdic- 
tion only could take cognizance of disputed matters in which 
the amount at issue did not exceed sixty sols, and in criminal 
i:ases could award a penalty not exceeding ten sols. The pos- 

^ That is, in monqr of France (see above, p. 92). 



SEIGNIORIAL JUSTICE. 1 5 1 

session of this degree of jurisdiction merely gave the seignior 
power to settle trivial disputes between the habitants, or between 
himself and his dependents, regarding the amount of seigniorial 
dues. He was bound by the rule regarding immediate hearings 
for prisoners; when he sent a case before a royal court he 
was reimbursed for his necessary costs, and, if a fine was im- 
posed, he received ten sols as his share.^ 

I These distinctions in degree of jurisdiction were of little or v*-" 
• no importance in Canada, for the reason that in the great maX 
jority of cases the seignior who had jurisdiction at all had it in 
all three degrees. Every seignior possessing judicial power was 
supposed, before beginning to exercise it, to provide a court- 
room {auditoire) in or adjoining his manor-house, together with 
a prison " on the ground flour and in a dry place." He was 
also under obligation to provide the necessary court officials 
(a bailiff, a court clerk, and a crier), and, when he did not pre- 
side in person, to appoint a seigniorial justice.* As a matter of 
fact, however, those Canadian seigniors who exercised their ju- / 
dicial rights did not provide any special court-room, but used the '-^ 
living room of the manor-house for the purpose ; and in a very 
few cases only did they provide prisons^ In some of the larger 
seigniories court officials were named by the seignior, and were ^- "' 
paid small compensations whenever there was work to be done ; 
and in a few seigniories regular seigniorial justices were ap- 
pointed, as may be seen from the wording of decrees ordering 
such officials to hold sessions at frequent intervals, not to take 
fees from claimants before them, and so on.^f After the conquest,^ 
(Governor Carleton declared that under tne French rule no 
seigniorial justice could be appointed without the approval of 
the royal authorities.* \In the records of the Superior Council 
will be found a few instances in which the appointment of a 
seigniorial justice was thus confirmed, but it does not appear 
that such confirmation was regarded as indispensable.* If the 
sanction of the council was given to all seigniorial judicial 

1 The precise limits of the three degrees of jurisdictioit are very clearly set forth in 
Doutre and Lareau, Histoin GeneraU du Droit Civil Canaditn^ 133-136. 
* IHd, 135. * Edits et Ordonnances, iii. 118. 

^ See below, p. 157. * Edits et Ordonnances^ ii. 23, 566. 



\ 



152 SEICmORIAL JUSTICE. 

appointments, some of these confirmations cannot have been 
recorded ; for the number of seigniorial justices was certainly 
more than the number of recorded confirmations.^ 

StUl, the total number of seigniors who appointed judges was 
comparatively small; in most cases in which jurisdiction was 
exercised the seignior appears to have performed the work 
himself. In such instances seigniorial justice was administered 
in rough-and-ready fashion, with little regard for the formalities 
of the law: the average Canadian seignior might as well 
have been asked to administer the Twelve Tables as to follow 
the Custom of Paris in his decisions. Ordinarily the disputants 
or offenders were called by the seignior to the manor-house, 
where, after a proceeding which partook more of the nature of 
a conference than a trial, some satisfactory settlement was usu- 
.ally effected. Most of the matters which came before the 
'seigniors in their judicial capacity were concerned with disputes 
about boundaries of lands or seigniorial dues, with petty squabbles 
between the habitants, or, freo^ently, with the division of per- 
sonal property among heirsN The seigniors very rarely under- 
took to exercise their powers of high jurisdiction: civil and 
criminal cases of any importance were almost invariably left 
to the royal tribunals to be dealt with by them ab initiJ. ^AV 
though scores of Canadian seigniors had legal power to impose 
even the death penalty, there is no record that such sentence 
was ever pronounced in a seigniorial court 

The reasons for the failure of most seigniors to exercise their 
judicial powers to any very important degree are not difficult 
to find. In France seigniorial jurisdiction was a source of 
substantial profit ; there, according to various writers, the profits 
of seigniorial jurisdiction amounted to from one-twentieth to 
one-tenth of the gfross revenue of the seigniory.^ In Canada, on 
the contrary, owing to the sparseness of the population very little 
profit could be hoped for by the seignior from fines, fees, and 
other incidents of jurisdiction./ If any seignior had undertaken 
to provide himself with the f ufl paraphernalia of jurisdiction, — 

^ Cugnet ( Traite de la Loi des Fiefs, 53) states that the judges of the royal courts 
had the right to inspect all seigniorial courts within their districts. 
> Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the Revolution^ 341. 



SEIGNIORIAL JUSTICE. 1 5 3 

a court-room, jail, officials, and so on, — he would certainly 
have found himself exercising jurisdiction at a loss. J It was not 
that the people were disinclined to litigation ; on "^e contrary, 
a chronic disposition toward litigiousness was one of the most 
marked characteristics of the Canadian habitant. The Norman 
colonist seems to have been naturally quarrelsome,^ and the long 
winters afforded him plenty of leisure to indulge in his com- 
bative proclivities,' Moreover, the loose way in which land 
l>pundaries were delimited, and the somewhat indefinite status 
of many seigniorial obligations, gave the habitant favorable 
opportunities for squabbling both with his neighbor and with 
his lord.^ Talon, in 1667, roundly rebuked the population of 
New France for their lack of harmony and their disposition to 
invoke the aid of the higher authorities in the settlement of 
trivial questions at issue, and strongly urged them to settle dif- 
ferences of opinion among themselves and in friendly fashion.^ 
As most of these difficulties were of such nature that their 
settlement cost the seigniors a good deal of time and patience 
without affording any tangible profit in return, it is no 
wonder that the seigniorial judicial powers were so seldom 
exercised. 

r Another reason for the infrequent use of the power may be 
found in the fact that the decision of a seigniorial court was 
in no case final/ When a grant of jurisdiction was made to a 
seignior, it was accompanied by the provision that in all cases 
appeal to the royal courts of the colony should be allowed. Be- 
fore the establishment of the royal courts, appeals went directly 
to the council at Quebec ; but when, in course of time, royal 
district courts were established at Quebec, Montreal, and Three 
Rivers, each in charge of a royal justice, appeals were first 
taken to these, then to the intendant and council, and Rnally to 
the king. From the time the colony was taken under the direct 

1 As one writer aptly expresses it, the Norman settler had " beaucoup de chaleur 
dans la discussion des int6r6ts priv6es, et de calme dans celle des interSts publics" 
(Bouchette, British Dominions in North America^ i. 414, note). 

* Gasp6 (^Lis Anciens Canadiens) gives some interesting portrayals of French- 
Canadian life in the eighteenth century. 

■ See above, p. 40. 

^ Edits et Ordonnan€es^ xl 30. 



\ 



154 SEICmORIAL JUSTICE. 

control of the crown, the royal intention seems to have been to 
create a hierarchy of courts, — the seigniorial courts to admin- 
ister justice in the first instance, and the royal courts to be 
primarily courts of appeal. ' " It is our will," declares a royal 
edict of 1667, " that an appeal shall lie from the seigniorial juris- 
dictions which are within the limits of our Priv6t^ at Quebec, to 
the said Pr^vdti, and from the said Privdti to our said council 
at Quebec, which we prohibit from receiving any immediate 
appeal from the said seigniorial jurisdictions . . . and with re- 
spect to the other seigniorial jurisdictions which are not within 
the limits of the said Pr^v6t^ of Quebec, the appeals from them 
shall be brought immediately before the said council until such 
time as we shall have established other royal jurisdictions." ^ 
In accordance with this policy, it was ordained in the decree 
which established a royal court at Three Rivers in 1680 that 
appeals should no longer be taken from the seigniorial courts in 
that district to the council at Quebec, but to the newly estab- 
lished royal court, from which, of course, the issue might be 
further carried to the council.' 
> The establishment of the royal courts gave many of the neigh- 
boring seigniors an excuse for discontinuing their own jurisdiction. 
When the royal court was first set up at Montreal, the seigniors 
of the island at once prayed to be relieved of the right of exercis- 
ing high and middle jurisdiction, but to be allowed the right of 
low jurisdiction in order that they might on occasion be able to 
enforce the payment of dues within their seigniories. An ordi- 
nance depriving them of the two higher degrees of jurisdiction 
and confirming tb^m in the enjoyment of the lowest one was ac- 
cordingly issued.^' Some time earlier the jurisdiction of the Jesu- 
its in their seigniories at Sillery and Three Rivers had, at their 
own request, been suppressed by a decree of the Superior Coun- 
cil, which ordered that cases arising in the first-named seigniory 
should be taken in the first instance before the royal court at 
Quebec and those in the latter seigniory before the royal court 
at Three Rivers.* « 

^ Edits et Ordonnaneis, i. 237, § viiL * Ihid, 242. 

• IHd. 342-346 (July, 1714). 

* Ibid, iii. 152-153 (October 24, 1707). 



SEIGNIORIAL JUSTICE, 1 5 5 

Feudal jurisdiction has generally been looked upon as a usur- 
pation by seigniors of a sovereign function, as the logical result 
of a weak central power. In France the origin of private justice 
was, in the earlier stages of feudal development, undoubtedly 
connected with the weakness of the monarchy ; but in Canada 
we see a strong central power — the strongest perhaps that ever 
exerted its strength in the New World — endeavoring to estab- 
lish a system of private jurisdiction, to decentralize the admin- 
istration of justice, and to force the seigniors to assume judicial 
functions which most of them wished to discard. Obviously 
the explanation is that, with the preservation of the right of 
. appeal in every case to the royal courts, the central authority 
had no reason to fear the development of undue power by those 
who exercised jurisdiction in the first instance. As Parkman 
has very aptly remarked, " Louis XIV liked the feudal system, 
but only with its teeth drawn." ^ 

Although the records of cases heard in the various seigniorial t 
courts have not been preserved, it would seem that the vast \ 
majority of cases were brought in the first instance either before ! 
the royal courts at Quebec, Three Rivers, or Montreal, or before 
the council at Quebec ; for one finds in the registers of these 
courts a formidable collection of judgments dealing with all 
sorts of cases, from the most important to tiie most trivial.^ 
The seigniorial courts seem to have limited their jurisdiction, for 
the most part, to cases concerning the seigniorial dues and 
obligations ; and it is remarkable how comparatively few were 
the appeals from these judgments of the seigniors to the 
royal courts. The seignior, it is true, knew very little about 
law or procedure ; but he knew his suitors, and his disposition 
of the cases which came before him was usually a satisfactory 
one. 

In some of the seigfniorial courts there were, naturally enough, 
just causes of complaint, and even abuses ; but these the authori- 
ties did not hesitate to correct when their attention was drawn 
to them. To this end, various decrees dealing with the seign- 

1 Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada^ Introdttction. 

> Some of these are printed in Perraolt, Extraiii ou Precedenti tires des Registres 
xie la Prevoste de Quebec, 



156 SEIGNIORIAL JUSTICE. 

iorial courts were issued from time to time. Thus, in 1664, on 
the representation of the attorney-general that certain abuses 
existed in the seigniorial courts,^ decrees were issued by the 
council prohibiting " all inferior judges from taking any pay- 
ment or fees from parties to a suit under pain of being treated 
as extortioners, saving, however, the right of these officials to 
receive salaries from those who have named them to their posi- 
tions," and prohibiting them also " from exercising any jurisdic- 
tion until they shall have taken the oath which is required to be 
taken by the royal judges in their jurisdiction." This ordinance 
provided further that persons complaining of excessive costs 
levied in a seigniorial court might appeal to the royal courts to 
have these reduced.* Again, in 1678 an edict was promulgated 
fixing definitely the amount of charges which might be exacted 
by judicial officials for any service.' Moreover, in several 
cases the intendant intervened to secure the more prompt and 
effective administration of justice in the seigniorial courts. In 
1705, for example, Raudot issued a decree in which, after 
declaring that according to his information the seigniorial 
justices of Batiscan and Champlain held hearings only once 
each month and compelled the habitants, when they wanted 
special hearings between times, to pay for the same, he ordered 
these judges to hold court at least once every week (in Batiscan 
on Wednesdays and in Champlain on Saturdays), and forbade 
the practice of exacting charges for special sessions.^ This is 
only one of the numerous similar interventions that might be 
instanced. 

.- On the whole, the administration of justice in both the seign- 
iorial and the royal courts seems to have been carried on with 
promptness, impartiality, and economy. \ The difference in this 
respect between conditions in Old and New France attracted the 
attention of Lahontan, who commented upon it in his usual 
facetious vein. " I will not say," he wrote, " that the Goddess 

1 The attorney-general had general supervision over the judicial administration of 
the colony. The position was at this time held by Jean Bourdon, who had been ap- 
pointed to the post on the recommendation of Bishop LavaL See Gosselin, Jean 
Bourdon (Quebec, 1904), ch. xiiL 

* Edits ei Ordonnances, ii. 22 £ 

• I^'d, i. 99 ff. * Hid, liL 118. 



SEIGNIORIAL JUSTICE. 1 57 

of Justice is more chaste and impartial here than in France, but ^ 
at any rate, if she is sold, she is sold more cheaply. In Canada 
we do not pass through the clutches of advocates, the talons of 
attorneys, and the claws of clerks. These vermin do not infest 
Canada yet Everybody pleads his own cause. Our Themis is 
prompt, and she does not bristle with fees, costs, and charges." ^ 
This is, in truth, very modest praise ; but such evidence as may 
be drawn from the comments of other contemporary writers 
seems to indicate that maladministration of justice was never an 
important ground of complaint by the people. No one can 
read the numerous judgments of the intendants without being 
impressed with the apparently earnest desire of these officials 
to be fair to all parties concerned; and the frequency with 
which their intervention seems to have been sought by seign- 
iors and habitants alike bespeaks a confidence in their 
impartiality. 

It is, of course, true that possibilities of injustice lay in the 
system of private jurisdiction ; but these do not appear to have 
been realized. This point was very well stated by Governor 
Guy Carleton in one of his despatches to the British authorities. 
** Some of the privileges contained in the seigniorial gfrants," 
he wrote, " appear to convey dangerous powers into the hands 
of the seigniors, but upon a more minute enquiry these are found 
to be really little less than ideal. The haute^ moyenne, et basse 
justice are terms of high import, but even under the French 
government were so corrected as to prove of little significance 
to the proprietors; for besides that they could appoint no judge 
without the approbation of the government, there lay an appeal 
from all the private to the royal jurisdictions in every matter 
exceeding half a crown. It could not therefore be productive of 
abuse, and as the keeping of their own judges became much too 
burthensome for the scanty incomes of the Canadian seigniors, it 
was grown into so general a disuse that there were hardly three 
of them in the whole province at the time of the conquest."^ 

1 Lahontan, Nouueaux Voyages (1705), L 21, cited by Parkman, The Old 
Regime in Canada^ ii. 68. 

• Carleton to Shelbume, April 12, 1768, in State Paper OfBce, America and JVesi 
JitdieSf vol. cccxxvi. No. 33. 



158 SEIGNIORIAL JUSTICE. 

Almost precisely the same view is expressed by Garneau. 
" All the seigniories with very few exceptions," he writes, " pos- 
sessed the redoubtable right of high, mean, and low jurisdiction 
which was acquired by express grant from the king. This was 
in America an anachronism at once of time and place. The 
seigniorial judges and the officers of their courts were obliged 
to obtain for themselves the sanction of the royal authorities, to 
whom, moreover, they were obliged to make oath that they would 
fulfil their duties faithfully and well. But in addition to this 
there were added other shackles, with the result that scarcely 
a seignior could be found desirous of exercising his privileges." ^ 

The policy of permitting private jurisdiction to be exercised 
in the colony did not commend itself to the new British authori- 
ties; hence, while they were not unwilling to perpetuate the 
French system of civil law, they gave no consideration to the 
advisability of permitting even the theory of seigniorial judicial 
authority to remain. During the period of military rule (1760- 
1764), all cases were brought in the first instance before the 
military courts which were established in different parts of the 
colony.* When military rule gave place to a system of civil 
government, one of the early acts of the new administration was 
to establish a new system of courts in which no provision for 
the exercise of any private jurisdiction was made.^ The judi- 
cial prerogatives of the seigniors were in this way quietly elimi- 
nated. No compensation seems to have been claimed by them, 
and none was granted.' The attempt of the French crown to 
establish a system of private justice in New France had failed 
signally / and the chief cause of failure seems to be found in 
the simple fact that private jurisdiction could not, except in a 
very few cases, be made to pay its way. 

1 Garneau, Histoire du Canada^ i. 173-174. Garneau declares (^Ibid, 174) that 
the king forbade the granting of seigniories avec justice after 17 14; but I have 
found no trace of any such prohibition. At any rate, seigniories continued to be 
granted with judicial powers after that date, and these grants were readily ratified by 
the crown. 

* Suite, Le Regime Militaire, jy(H>-jy64f in Royal Society of Canada, Proceedings^ 
1905, Appendix A. 

• Order in council of September 17, 1764, Ordinances made for the Province of 
Quebec by the Governor-in- Council of the said Province since the Establishment of 
the Civil Government (1767), 9-10. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 

The three foregoing chapters have been devoted to a descrip- 
tion of the various rights through the exercise of which the 
seigniors might hope to derive some emolument. Some of 
these rights, like the cens et rentes and the lods et ventes^ were 
substantial and lucrative; others, like the banalities and the 
judicial powers, afforded little profit except under the most 
favorable circumstances. In every case the amount of emolu- 
ment derived depended upon the stage of development which 
the seigniory had attained ; and this was gauged very accu- 
rately by the population within its limits. 

The Canadian seignior, however, like his prototype in France, 
possessed a number of privileges of a purely honorary nature, 
which gave him some prestige but no profit whatever. On the 
contrary, they were frequently a source of expense to him ; for 
they made it necessary that he should maintain a correspond- 
ing dignity, which was, unfortunately, quite often beyond his 
means. Some of these honorary privileges he had as seignior, 
others because he had either inherited rank in the noblesse or 
received it as the reward of a successful administration and 
development of his seigniory. 

Among the honorary privileges possessed by the seignior as 
seignior, was the right to receive the fealty and homage of each 
of his habitants upon the occasion of the latter's first entry 
upon his holding and at every subsequent mutation of owner- 
ship. The ceremony took place at the manor-house, and was 
similar to that performed by the seignior himself to the repre- 
sentative of the crown at Quebec.^ Again, on the first day of 

^ When the inhabitants failed to render their fealty and homage, the seignior 
could obtain an ordinance compelling them to perform this ceremony (see Edits et 
OrdonnanceSf ii. 595). An excellent description of the ceremony is given in William 
Kirby*s Chien d^Or, See also above, pp. 56-57. 

159 



l6o THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE 

May, the habitants were bound to appear before the seigniorial 
manor-house and plant a May-pole near the door. The occasion 
was made a gala day by them, and especially by the younger 
folks, who gathered in holiday attire and spent the day ia 
dancing and games, while the seignior showed his appreciation 
of the honor by a liberal dispensation of refreshments.^ It 
seems hardly possible that the habitants could have looked upon 
this exaction as a burden ; and yet on at least one occasion they 
petitioned the intendant for the discharge of the obligation, 

\/ and with the consent of the seignior were relieved from further 
performance of it.* 

In virtue of his position, moreover, the seignior was entitled 

to a certain precedence and honor in the religious services of the 

parish. As there seemed to be some difference of opinion be- 

\ tween the seigniors and the cur^s as to what honorary rights 

pertained to the former, a decree of the council, issued in 1709, 

/ endeavored to make the matter clear. This edict provided that 

'^' the only seignior entitled to honors in any parish church should 
be the one in whose territory the church was erected. For his 
use a special pew was to be prepared " in the most honorable 
place,*' that is to say, on the right side of the church and at a 
distance of four feet from the altar railing {balustre) ; this pew, 
as the decree went on to provide with an elaboration of detail, 
was to be of the same length as those used by the ordinary lay- 
men, and was not to be more than double the depth. The 
seignior was in all cases to be the first layman to approach the 
sacred bread at the Eucharist, and in his absence this honor 
was to be accorded to any of his children over the age of sixteen. 
At the special religious f 6tes he was to be the first to approach 
the altar to receive the tokens of the day, as, for example, the 
ashes on Ash Wednesday or the palms on Palm Sunday ; and in 
all religious processions he was to take place immediately after 
the cur^. On his decease his remains might be interred beneath 
the church, and even the determination of the exact spot of burial 
was provided for by the edict The honors and privileges to be 

^ An interesting description of the May-pole ceremony is given by Gasp6 in his 
Les Anciens Canadiens^ ch. xviL 
2 Edits et Ordonnances^ iii. 13a. 



THE SEIGmORIAL NOBLESSE. i6l 

accorded to the wife and children of a seignior were also mi- * 
nutely specified^ to the end that no future misunderstandings 
might arise.^ 

Finally, the seignior was entitled to the general deference and 
respect of his dependents, who were supposed to salute him re- > ^ 
spectfuUy on meeting him, to give his vehicle the right of way, y^ 
to remain standing when in his presence unless requested to sit, 
and in general to treat him with that polished deference which 
the men of the old regime were wont to yield to their social supe- 
riors. Naturally enough, matters of this sort were closely related 
to the wealth and personal dignity of the individual seignior ; 
and in Canada these qualities were frequently lacking. Too often 
the seignior was as poor as the average habitant ; not infrequently 
he was a man of toil, striving hard to make both ends meet, liv- 
ing a life little removed from that of his habitants, and attaching 
very little dignity to his office or position. 

Although it has been the custom of some writers to use the 
terms " seigniors " and " noblesse " interchangeably ,2 it should ^^ ' 
be emphasized at this point tha^ not all the Canadian seigniors ^ 
were members of the aristocracy/^ In speaking of France it is 
approximately correct to say that a seignipr was always a mem- 
ber of the noblesse, but in speaking of Canada this use of the 
terms is clearly misleading. The possession of a fief, or seign- 
iory, in New France gave no noble status whatever : the com- 
moner who received a colonial fief remained a commoner. 
Some seigniors, it is true, received rank in the noblesse, but in 
every case by special letters patent from the crown and never 
as an incident of their tenure. 

From the beginning, the French government apparently in- 
tended to establish in the colony some prototype of the no- 
blesse at home. La Roche, it will be remembered, was in 1 598 
authorized to create " chAtellenies, earldoms, viscountships, 
baronies, and other dignities," and the Company of One Hun- 
dred Associates numbered among its multitude of semi-sovereign 
privileges that of granting " such titles and honors ... as the 

^ Edits et OrdonnanctSf ii. 154-156. 

■ E.g., Coffin, The Province of Quebec and ike Early American Revolution^ ch. i; 
Thwaites, France in America^ 133. 



l62 THE SEIGmORIAL NOBLESSE. 

Associates may deem proper" ; ^ but neither La Roche nor the 
company seems to have exercised any of these rights. Patents 
conferring rank m the noblesse were issued directly by the 
crown, though most of them, it is true, came to the colony 
as the result of recommendations made to the king or the minis- 
ter by the colonial authorities. As such patents of nobiUty 
were never granted in Canada except to the owners of seignior- 
ies, it will be seen that, while the Canadian seignior was by 
no means always a noble, the Canadian noble was always a 
seig^ior.^ In France just the reverse was true. 

Although the noblesse of New France was never a very 
numerous body, it included representatives of almost every 
rank, foremost among whom were the two counts, Jean Talon, 
Comte d'Orsainville, and Francois Berthelot, Comte de St. 
Laurent Talon, the first active intendant of New France, 
came to the colony in September, 1665,^ at the beginning of a 
considerable movement of immigration to the domains of France 
in the New World. As he was under instructions to take 
special interest in the reception and settlement of the incoming 
colonists, he at once proceeded to act upon the suggestion of 
the minister that he should have a substantial area of land 
cleared each year in order that settlers might be set to the work 
of cultivation as soon as they arrived.* A few weeks after his 
arrival at Quebec, Talon decided to establish three villages, and 
chose as locations certain lands in the seigniory of Notre Dame 
des Anges, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence just below 
Quebec. This seigniory had some years previously (1626) been 
granted to the Jesuits, who now protested against the intendant's 
plan.^ Talon pointed out to them, however, that, in the forty 
years during which the seigniory had been in Jesuit hands, only 
a small part of it had been settled ; and he further called their 
attention to the decree of 1663, which provided for the retrench- 
ment to the crown of all seigniorial grants that had been left 

^ See above, ch. ii. 

' There were, of cottrse, several members of the French noblesse who served in 
Canada as officers of the forces, and who were not seigniors. 

* ChapaiSf/ran Tahn^ 62. ^ Ibid, 92. 

* Tiires des Setgneurus, 53. A copy of the Jesuit protest, together with the in- 
tendant's reply, is printed in Cht^paSs, /ean TaUn, Appendix. 



THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 163 

uncleared and uncultivated.^ The villages were therefore laid 
out, the lands cleared, and as settlers arrived locations were 
given to many of them, titles being issued in the name of the 
king. The three villages, to which Talon gave the names of 
Bourg-Royal, Bourg-la-Reine, and Bourg Talon, soon had small 
but thriving populations ; for these settlers were more fortunate 
than most of those who came to New France, in that they 
received lands already cleared and sometimes already placed 
under seed.^ 

Talon's work did not end with this project, however. During 
the years 1667-1668 he purchased for himself large tracts of 
land lying along the St Charles River, built a house and bams 
thereon, and proceeded to spend considerable sums from his 
own private means in improving his property. The example of 
the intendant was not lost upon the seigniors of the colony, 
many of whom seem to have been spurred to new effort in the 
improvement of their holdings.^ In 1668 Talon went home to 
France, where he remained until 1670; but during his absence 
the work of improving his property went on apace. Soon after 
his return to the colony, he wrote to the minister describing the 
progress made both in his villages and on the lands which he 
had purchased, and took occasion to suggest that the king 
might be pleased to grant him some title of honor, in order 
that such a recognition of his enterprise might '' fill the officers 
and richer seigniors with a new zeal for the settlement of their 
lands in the hope of being recompensed with titles as well." * 
This request was readily granted, and in 1671 Talon received 
letters patent consolidating his properties and the three royal 

1 Edits et Ordonnances^ L 33. 

' *' On [les] a formis aux environs de Quebec, tant pour le fortifier, en peuplant 
son voisinage, que poor y recevoir les families venues de France, et auxquelles on 
distribue des terres d6j2L mises en culture, et dont quelques-unes ont kX.k cette ann6e 
chargees de ble, pour faire le premier fonds de leur subsistance '' (Jielafion of 1667, 
in Thwaites, Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, L 244). 

* The census of 1667 gave the area of cultivated lands as 11,44s arpents ; that 
of 1668 placed it at 15,642 ( Censuses of Canada, 1665-1871, pp. 7-8). The Relation 
of 1668 speaks in a very hopeful strain of the new activity shown on all sides 
(Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, li. 170). 

* Talon to Colbert, November 10, 1670, Correspondance Generale, iiL 76. 



l64 THE SEIGmORIAL NOBLESSE. 

villages which he had founded into one fief, the whole to have 
the " title and dignity of a barony." To this new barony was 
given the name Des Islets.^ 

This patent gave Talon authority "to call, name, and style 
himself Baron des Islets in all acts whether judicial or other- 
wise, and in that quality to enjoy all the honors, armorial 
bearings, prerogatives, rank, and precedence, as well at war as 
at meetings of the nobility or otherwise, in the same manner as 
the barons of our kingdom"; and it commanded "that all ten- 
ants, men, and vassals of the said lands" should "acknowledge 
him as baron, and in such quality render him their fealty and 
homage." It gave him the right to "establish gaols, a four- 
post gibbet in such place as he may think fit within the said 
barony, and a post with an iron collar on which his arms shall be 
engraved " ; and as a special mark of the royal favor it expressly 
waived the right of the king to escheat the barony in default of 
legitimate male heirs. 

Less than two years after his elevation Talon went home to 
France, having asked for and received his demission from office;^ 
but in 1675 he was honored by the issue of a further patent 
"creating, erecting, and elevating" the barony Des Islets into 
" the title, name, quality, and dignity of a countship, which shall 
hereafter be called the countship of Orsainville." To the new 
Comte d'Orsainville was given, "for himself, his heirs, successors, 
and assigns, as well male as female," all the "honors, rights, 
rank, and precedence belonging to the dignity of a count, al- 
though not here specifically detailed"; and the people of the 
countship were assured that they should not, by reason of the 
new dignity conferred upon their seigniorial lord, be subjected 
to "any greater duties than those which they at present owe."* 

Although Talon never returned to Canada, his zeal for the in- 
terests of the colony in general, and for the improvement of his 
own countship in particular, did not flag. Down to the date of 
his death in 1694 his watchful care and interest continued; and 
on more than one occasion he was called by the minister into 

^ Titres des Seigneuries^ 348 ; see also JugemerUs et DeliberoHons du Comeil 
Souverain de la Nouvelle-France^ i. 692. 

* Chapais,/iraff Talon^ 454, • Titres des Seigneuries, 348. 



THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 165 

consultation concerning matters of policy in New France.^ By 
his last will and testament he bequeathed the countship of Or- 
sainville to his nephew Jean Francois Talon,* who in 1696 sold 
the estate to Mgr. de St. Vallier, bishop of Quebec. Bishop St. 
Vallier gave the property to the General Hospital (which he had 
founded at Quebec) as part of the endowment of that institu- 
tion, upon condition that it should never be alienated. Two 
years later, however, an arrangement was made between the 
authorities of the General Hospital and the Jesuits, whereby the 
bourgs Royal and La Reine were reunited to the Jesuit seign- 
iory of Notre Dame des Anges, after having been separated for 
thirty-two years.* The remaining lands, with the exception of a 
part which in 1896 was handed over to the city of Quebec and 
now forms Victoria Park, still remain the property of the Gen- 
eral Hospital. Throughout the old regime in Canada, France 
found herself served by no inconsiderable number of earnest and 
public-spirited sons, who gave unsparingly of their vigor and 
means to the carrying out of the royal projects, often with scant 
hope of ultimate reward ; but on this roll of gifted and energetic 
Frenchmen who gave some of the best years of their lives to the 
stupendous task of creating a Bourbon empire beyond the 
seas, there is no name more honored or more worthy of honor 
than that of Jean Talon, Comte d'Orsainville. 

The only other countship in Canada, that of St. Laurent, 
comprised the island of Orleans, just below Quebec. This 
island had originally been granted to the Jesuits ; but in 1675 
Laval exchanged it for Isle J6sus, at Montreal, the seigniory of 
Francois Berthelot, who is described in his title as " notre con- 
seiller et secretaire g6n6ral de Tartillerie, poudres, et salpestres 
de France." In the year following the exchange, and appar- 
ently in connection with it, the island of Orleans was made a 
countship and Berthelot became the Comte de St. Laurent.* 

1 Regis Roy, Les Intendants de la NouvelU' France^ in Royal Society of Canada, 
Proceedings, 1903, Memoir es, sec. i. 69-73. 

' Further details regarding the life and work of Talon are to be found in Chapais's 
Jean Talon, the appendices to which contain many interesting and hitherto unpub- 
lished documents. 

* Chapais, Jean Talon^ 494-500. 

* Dunkin, Address at the Bar of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, Appendix, 



l66 THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 

Of baronies, five in all seem to have been created, — four in 
Canada and one in Acadia. The first of these, that of Cap 
Tourmente near Quebec, was given to Guillaurae de Caen in 
1624 "in consideration of the great dangers, risks, and hard- 
ships " which he had incurred in beginning a settlement in New 
France.^ As Caen had important commercial interests in 
the colony, great things were expected of him ; but, when the 
Company of One Hundred Associates came into possession of 
the colony some half-dozen years later, it was found that a 
small clearing at the head of the cape marked the limits of the 
baron's agricultural achievements. This circumstance, with 
the fact that Caen was a Huguenot, led Richelieu's company 
to secure a revocation of his grant and title ; but some years 
later (1640) the French king recouped him by the grant of a 
barony in the West Indies. 

The second baronial grant in point of time was made in 
1653 to the Sieur Philippe Mius d'Entremont in Acadia. In 
165 1 Entremont, a French gentleman of Norman birth, came 
out to Acadia with Charles de Saint-Etienne de la Tour, and 
two years later was given the fief and barony of Pobomcoup. 
This grant was made by La Tour in his capacity of lieu- 
tenant-general of Acadia.* The third barony was that al- 
ready mentioned as having been created for Jean Talon in 
1671.^ The fourth barony, that of Portneuf, was erected by 
letters patent from the king in 168 1. The seigniory of Portneuf 
was originally the property of Jacques Leneuf de la Poterie, 
who received it from the Company of One Hundred* Associates 

No. 14S. Two yean before the exchange was made, Talon had brought to the notice 
of the king Berthelot's services in the development of Isle Jesus, and had forwarded 
therewith a request that the fief be made a barony (Talon to Minister, March 9, 
1673, Correspondance GeneraU^ iv. 94), The population of the countship of St. 
LAurent is given in the census of 1681 as 1,082 {Censuses of Canada, 1665-1871, 
p. II). ^ 

^ Moreau de St. M^, Lois et Constitutions des Colonies Franfaises de VAmeriquet 
i. 48 ff. 

' The barony of Pobomcoup lay north of Cape Sable, at the southern point of the 
Acadian peninsula. The name has now been corrupted to " Pubnico." A copy of 
the patent creating the barony is printed in Rameau de Saint-Pire, Um Colonie 
FeodaU en Amerique (1889), 412-413. 

* See above, p. 164. 



THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 167 

in 1636.^ In 1671 Jacques Leneuf gave the seigniory to his 
daughter, Marie-Anne, who had, in 1652, married Ren6 Robi- 
neau, sometime seignior of B6cancour.^ Rolnneau proved him- 
self a very progressive seignior. During the year9s|ollowing the 
establishment of royal government he was so prominent a figure 
in New France that in 168 1 the king recognized his services by 
elevating the seigniory to the " title and dignity of a barony, " 
and Robineau became Baron de Portneuf.* One of his sons, 
who had taken possession of his father's former seigniory of 
B6cancour, is sometimes referred to as Baron de B^cancour; 
but this appellation is entirely unwarranted, as B^cancour was 
never made a barony.* 

Perhaps the most interesting of all the baronial grants is the 
last in point of creation, that of LongueuiL About 1654 Charles 
Lemoyne, the son of a Dieppe innkeeper, arrived in Canada and 
took up his abode in Montreal, where on more than one occa- 
sion he rendered yeoman's service in the operations against the 
Indians. Some years later he received a seigniorial grant (which 
he called Longueuil) on the south shore of the St. Lawrence 
almost opposite the island of Montreal; and in 1668, in recog- 
nition of his services, he was rewarded by the king with rank in 
the noblesse of France. He died in 1685. 

Charles Lemoyne had eleven sturdy sons, ten of whom 
became prominent figures in the history of Canada during the 
French period. The eldest, Charles, after inheriting the seign- 
iory, took a prominent part in the repulse of Phipps at Quebec 
in 1690. Having purchased considerable land contiguous to his 
seigniory, he had by the close of the seventeenth century be- 
come one of the most extensive lay landholders in the colony ; 
and since his holdings yielded him substantial profits he soon 
became opulent for a colonial seignior, as was shown by his 
erection of a pretentious stone castle flanked by four imposing 
towers.* Lemoyne de Longueuil also erected a well-equipped 

^ See below, p. 17a The family of Leneuf de la Poterie must not be confused 
with that of Bacqueville de la Potherie, the historian. 
' Tanguay, Dietionnaire Genealogipu, L 523. 

* The patent is printed in Gatien, Histoire de la Paroisse du Cap^SatUe^ 367 ff. 
^ Suite, Histoire dei Canadiens-Fran^ais^ v. 106. 

* See above, p. 66. The original building was gutted by fire in 1782 ; but a part 



l68, THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE 

seigniorial mill, built good roads throughout his seigniory, and 
in general made it a model seigniorial property.^ As usual, 
such enterprise won the appreciation of the French monarch, 
who, in 1700, consolidated the seignior's extensive holdings into 
the barony of Longueuil, mentioning in the patent of creation 
the very notable services rendered by various members of the 
Lemoyne family in the colony.* 

Of all the titles of honor granted by the French crown in 
Canada, that of the Baron de Longueuil is the only one now 
included in the British peerage. After the conquest of Canada 
the descendants of Charles Lemo3me maintained that the cession 
of the colony to Great Britain did not invalidate titles pre- 
viously conferred; and they therefore assumed the title of 
Baron de Longueuil according as they were entitled to it in 
the order of succession under the old French rule.* In 1880 

of it, including the west tower, remained standing as late as 1885, when it was torn 
down to make room for the new parish church of Longueuil 

^ The population of Longueuil and Tremblay is placed by the census of 1698 at 
223. Cf. Censuses of Canada^ 1665- 187 1, p. 40. 

^ The honor was conferred by the king in response to a request made by the Sieur 
de Longueuilf through the governor and intendant, two years previously (see Fron- 
tenac and Champigny to Minister,October 15, 1698, Correspondance Generale, vol, xvi). 
The history of the seigniory and barony of Longueuil is traced in detail in Jodoin 
and Vincent's Histoire de Longueuil et de la Famille de Longueuil (Montreal, 1889) ; 
and there is an interesting little essay on the Baron de Longueuil in Sir J. M. Le 
Moine's Maple Leaves^ 1st series, 47-53. For the order to communicate to the 
attorney-general the letters patent creating the barony, see Jugemenis et Delibera" 
Horn du Conseil Souverain de la Nouvelle- France^ iv. 492. 

* The first Baron de Longueuil, bom in 1656, died governor of Montreal in 1729. 
His son Charles, second baron, bom in 1687, was for a time administrator of the 
colony, and died in January, 1755. The third baron was Charles Jacques Lemoyne 
( 1 724-1 755), who, after distinguishing himself on the Monongahela, was killed at 
Lake George a few months after his father's death. As the third baron bad no sons, 
the barony passed to his only daughter, Marie, who in 1 781 married Captain David 
Alexander Grant of the 94th Regiment Their son, Charles William Grant, as- 
sumed the title of fifth baron in 1 841, and died seven years later. The title 
then passed to his son, Charles James Irwin Grant, who held it till his death in 1879, 
when his son, Charles Colmore Grant, succeeded him as seventh baron. On the death 
of the last-named, in 1899, the barony passed to bis half-brother, Reginald Charles 
d*Iberville Grant, who holds the title of eighth Baron de Longueuil at the present 
time. The house of Longueuil is widely connected by marriage with many promi- 
nent families of contemporary French Canada, notably with those of Baby, 
Beaujeu, Lanaudiire, Gasp^ and Le Moine. 



THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 169 

Her Majesty Queen Victoria, on the advice of the law officers 
of the crown, accorded recognition to Charles Colmore Grant as 
seventh Baron of Longueuil.^ 

The barony of Longueuil at one time included an area of 
about one hundred and fifty square miles, within which were 
the important towns of St. Johns and Longueuil; but much 
of it has been sold and is now held in freehold by private 
owners. Such portions as had not been sold were in 1854 
entailed as far as the existing laws would allow ; and, as this 
entail has since been renewed, the eighth baron has at present 
a life interest only in the estate. In the annals of French 
Canada from first to last there is probably no family which 
has consistently maintained a more favorable prominence than 
that of the former Dieppe innkeeper. One can read but few 
pages in the history of colonial America without encountering 
the name of a Lemoyne; for from Hudson's Bay to the 
Mississippi some member of this virile family seems to have 
connected himself with almost every phase of French 
colonization.^ 

Among the noble holdings in New France only one chAtel- 
lenie is numbered, that of Coulonge, which was gfiven by the 
company to Louis d'Ailleboust in 1656. D'Ailleboust had 
come to Montreal shortly after the town was founded, and 
after filling important civil offices was in 1648 appointed gov- 
ernor of the colony. After the expiration of his gubernatorial 
term he remained in the country and devoted himself to the 
improvement of Coulonge, which the company later erected 

1 The royal recognition was officially promulgated as follows : " The Queen has been 
graciously pleased to recognize the right of Charles Colmore Grant, Esquire, to the title 
of Baron de Longueuil, of Longueuil in the Province of Quebec, Canada. This title 
was conferred on his ancestor, Charles Lemoyne, by letters patent of nobility signed 
by King Louis XIV in the year 1700" (^London GateUe^ December 7, 1880), The 
Baron de Longueuil is not, however, entiUed as such to a seat in the House of 
Lords. 

' Among the brothers of the first Baron de Longueuil were Jacques Lemoyne 
de Ste. H61^ne, who fell at the siege of Quebec in 1690 ; Pierre Lemoyne dTberville 
and Jean Baptiste Lemoyne de Bienville, founders of Louisiana, and the latter gov- 
ernor of that colony ; Joseph Lemoyne de S^rigny, naval officer and later governor of 
Rochefort ; and Louis Lemoyne de Chflteauguay, killed in action at Fort Bourbon 
on Hudson's Bay. 



I/O THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 

into a ch&tellenie as a mark of appreciation of his efficient 
services.^ 

There seem to have been two marquisates in the territory of 
New France, but very little is known about them. About 1645, 
Jacques Leneuf de la Poterie, who has already been men- 
tioned as having received the seigniory of Portneuf in 1636, 
removed from this latter place and settled at Three Rivers, 
where he received from the company a grant of certain lands.^ 
This grant passed later into the hands of his son, Michel 
Leneuf de la Valliires, who, in 1686, sold it to Charles Aubert 
de la Chesnaye through a deed of sale in which the territory 
is designated as the " marquisat de Sabl6." ^ No trace of any 
patent creating this marquisate has been found, however, nor 
does any Marquis de Sabl6 appear to be mentioned in any of 
the records of the time. All that can be learned of the other 
marquisate is that, in the closing years of the seventeenth cen- 
tury, the title of Marquis de Miscou was given to one Michel 
de Saint-Martin, a French adventurer.* The title presumably 
relates to the island of Miscou in the Gulf of St Lawrence, but 
there is no evidence that the marquis ever came to New France. 

In addition to the foregoing grants of higher dignities, many 
" letters of noblesse " were issued from time to time giving seign- 
iors rank among the lesser nobility. The term "noblesse" in its 
widest sense included all lay members of the privileged orders, 
no matter what their rank or their method of acquiring it ; for 
the attributes of nobility might be inherited, or obtained by letters 
patent from the king, or acquired through the tenure of certain 
designated offices in the royal service, either military or civil.* 
There were, therefore, in France a large number of untitled 
nobles, or " gentilshommes," who, despite their lack of titles, 

1 This patent is not printed in Titres dn Seigneuries^ but may be found in the 
Rapport du Ministre dts Travaux Publics de la Province de Quebec (1899), 91. A 
summary of its contents, taken from the manuscript, is given in Dunkin's Address, 
Appendix, No. 44 a. 

* Titres des Seigneuries, 392. 

* Suite, Histoire des Canadien-Fran^ais^ v. 102. 

* Ibid. 1 10. 

^ *< On distinguait plusieurs esp^ces de noblesse : la noblesse h6r6ditaire et la 
noblesse accordee par les rois, la noblesse d*6p^e et la noblesse de robe " (Ch6rnel, 
Dictionnaire Historique des Institutions de la France, ii. 858). 



THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 171 

possessed all the attributes and privileges of nobility, and trans- 
mitted their quality and status to their posterity.^ 

Some of the emigfrants to the colony, especially some of those 
who came out to take positions in the civil or the military service, 
were already members of the noblesse at home ; and these, of 
course, retained their rank in Canada. Others were commoners 
upon arrival, but received elevation as a royal reward for their 
interest in colonial development or for distinguished ability in 
the service of the crown.^ As early as 1667, Talon, in his 
" Mimoire sur TEtat Present du Canada," explained that "the 
noblesse of Canada '' was " composed of four old families [that 
is, members of the noblesse at home] and four others to whom 
rank has been given by the king." * The first four to whom 
the intendant referred were probably the families of Jacques 
Leneuf de la Poterie,* Charles Le Gardeur de Tilly, Jean Bap- 
tiste Le Gardeur de Repentigny, and Charles Joseph d' Ailleboust 
de Musseaux. The others cannot be definitely ascertained. It 
seems, however, that in 166 1 Pierre Boucher had, on the recom- 
mendation of Governor Lauzon, received rank in the noblesse 
in recognition of his services as governor of Three Rivers, but 
that for some reason this patent was revoked five years later and 
Boucher became once more a commoner.^ Some other grants 
of noble status had also been made to colonials during this 
period, and it is probably to the holders of these that Talon had 
reference when he spoke of the " four other families. " In the 

* Strictly speaking, the tenn " gentiUhommes " included only the hereditary 
noblesse (Ch6rael, Dictionnaire Historique^ i. 486) ; but in New France it seems 
to have been applied to all the untiUed noblesse, whether hereditary or not 

^ Robert Cavelier de la Salle, for example, received his patent in 1675 in appre- 
ciation of his zeal and success in exploration. See Gravier, Cavelier de la Salle 
de Rouen (1871), 360-361. 

* This " M^moire," which bears date of October 27, 1667, may be found in the 
Correspondance Generale, iL 493-524. It contains a description of the colonial 
population at the time, and may be profitably compared with Hocquart's some- 
what different characterization of seventy years later (see Hocquart to Minister, No- 
Tember 8, 1737, IHd, vol. Ixvii). 

* On the matter of LeneuTs claim to rank in the noblesse, see Jugemenls et Di' 
liberations du Conseil Souverain de la NouvelU-France^ i. 997. 

* This seems to have been an echo in the colony of the wholesale revocation of 
patents of noblesse which took place in France, under Colbert's auspices, in 1666. 
See Isambert, Rectuil General des Anciennes Lois Fran^aises, xviii. 73. 



172 THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 

same year (1667) the intendant asked that letters of noblesse 
should be given to five prominent colonists, — Godefroy, Le- 
moyne, Denys, Amiot, and Couillard ; ^ and at the same time 
Lieutenant-General Tracy, who commanded the troops in 
the colony, asked similar favors for Jean Bourdon, Ruette 
d'Auteuil, and Juchereau de la Fert^.^ Tracy furthermore urged 
that Boucher's patent should be restored to him. With all of 
these requests the king appears to have complied. 

The grant of these honors seems to have made such an im- 
pression in the colony that forthwith traders, artisans, and 
others were seized with a new desire to obtain seigniories in the 
hope that social elevation might follow. We are told, for in- 
stance, that Noel Langlois was a good carpenter until he se- 
cured a seigniory and aspired to be a gentilhomme, when he 
became proud and indolent;^ and that Jacques Le Ber, a Mont- 
real shopkeeper, who had by years of work and thrift amassed 
a considerable fortune, readily paid out six thousand livres to 
become a gentleman.^ Seigniors, merchants, artisans, and 
habitants sought patents of noblesse with almost equal vigor ; 
the whole colony became infatuated with aristocratic ideas, and 
men who failed to get formal recognition made a pretence of 
having received it. Habitants who had by years of hard labor 
amassed sufficient to purchase half-developed seigniories strutted 
about with the airs of born aristocrats, while their wives, in 
the words of Governor Denonville, "essayed to play the fine 
lady." * The intendant MeuUes was disgusted with the spirit : 
" Every one in the colony," he wrote, " begins by calling himself 
an icuyer, and ends by thinking himself a gentilhomme." * 

Many of this class of gentilshommes, genuine and bogus, be* 

1 See Talon's ** M^moire" of October 27, 1667, cited above. 
' See Tracy's " Memoire sur le Canada/' 1667, a copy of which may be found in 
the Parkman Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society. 

• Duchesneau to Minister, November 10, 1679, Correspondance GeneraU, ▼. 62. 

* Faillon, Vie de la Mademoiselle Le Ber, 325. Le" Ber, who became Monsieur 
de Senneville and seignior of the fief of St. Paul's Island, was reputed to be the 
richest man in Montreal. Langlois became seignior of the fief of Port-Joly ( Tilres 
des SeigneurieSf 130). 

^ Denonville to Minister, November 10, 1686, Correspondance GeneraU^ viii. 210.. 
^ Meulles to Minister, November 4, 1683, Ibid vi. 323. 



THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE 173 

came so conspicuous by their " pride, sloth, and poverty," ^ that 
as early as 1679 the colonial authorities began to call the atten- 
tion of the minister to the danger of granting too many patents 
of nobility in the colony. " Many of our aristocratic officers," 
wrote Duchesneau in that year, " lead what in France would be 
called the life of a country gentleman, spending most of their 
time in fishing and hunting. As they require more expensive 
food and better clothes than do the ordinary habitants, arid as 
they do not devote themselves to the cultivation of their lands, 
but only engage at intervals in illicit trade, they get into debt 
on all sides and throw out the temptation to their children to be- 
come coureurs-de-bois in spite of the interdictions of His Majesty 
. . . ; and notwithstanding their spasmodic trading operations 
they are in miserable poverty." * 

In 1685 Governor Denonville expressed himself in a simi- 
lar way. "Above all things," he wrote to the minister, 
" let me inform you. Sir, that the noblesse of this colony are a 
beggarly lot, and that to increase their number is but to increase 
the number of drones. A new country needs sturdy workmen 
to wield the axe and to handle the hoe. The only resource of 
the noblesse is to take to the forest, there to trade a little with 
the Indians and for the most part to contract their vices."* 
These are strong aspersions, but they were very probably 
warranted by the condition of many of those who claimed to be 
noblesse at the time.* 

In one of his lengthy despatches of the following year, De- 
nonville again drew the royal attention to the condition of the 
noblesse. This time he mentioned specifically the poverty of 
several families, notably that of St. Ours, who had been at 
one time an officer in the Carignan-Saliires regiment ; and he 
requested the king to afford some monetary assistance to them.^ 

^ Giampigny to Minister, August 26, 1687, Correspondance GmeraU^ iz. 144. 
' Duchesneau to Minister, November 10, 1679, IHd. v. 62. 

* Denonville to Minister, November 13, 1685, Ibid, vii. 55. 

* It must not be forgotten, however, that many of the colonial noblesse were 
quite well-to-do. Such, for example, were the families of Lemoyne, Leneuf, Boucher, 
Robineau, Villeray, Lotbini^re, Saurel, and several others. 

* An interesting sidelight on the abject poverty of the noblesse is thrown by the 
correspondence which passed between Governor Frontenac and the minister daring 



174 THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 

"Otherwise," he continued, "there is grave danger that their 
sons will turn bandits or go over to the English, since they 
have no other means of gaining a livelihood.*' The governor 
went on to impress upon the minister his belief that the colony 
would do very well without an aristocracy. " I had much rather," 
he wrote, "see good habitants in this colony; for a habitant 
who can and will work can get along very well in this country, 
while gentlemen who do not work can never be anything but 
paupers." ^ 

As usual, the generous king came to the relief of St Ours 
and the rest by sending the governor sums of money to be 
distributed among the struggling noblesse. This temporary 
succor did not avail much, however ; for before the year was 
over we find the intendant, Champigny, asking similar assistance 
for Repentigny, Tilly, and D'Ailleboust, who, it will be re- 
membered, were three of the "old families" to whom Talon 
had made reference some years before as having brought their 
"quality" with them from France. All of them had large 
households, and seem to have found it very difficult to live 
comfortably on the scanty seigfniorial payments. Their younger 
children, the intendant declares, often went about half clad, 
while their wives and grown-up daughters found themselves 
compelled to pocket their pride and labor in the fields.^ 

the years 1690-1698, regarding various recommendatioDS made by the governor in 
favor of certain seigniors. In 1690 Frontenac asked that letters of noblesse be given 
to Fran9ois Hertel, seignior of Rouville, in recognition of his services. The request 
was promptly granted, but when the documents arrived Hertel did not have funds 
wherewith to pay the small fee required ; whereupon the governor asked the minis- 
ter to remit the amount on account of Hertel's poverty. This request the minister 
refused rather testily in a despatch to the governor and intendant, part of which 
reads as follows : " Sa Majeste n'a pas voulu entrer dans la demande du Sieur de 
Hertel, et sy cet homme n'est pas en estat de payer le sceau des lettres de noblesse 
qu* elle luy a accorde, il le sera encore moins d'en soustenir la quality. Sa Majesty 
ne les auroit pas accorde sy elle avoit este informe de sa pauvr6te, estant certain que 
cela ne serviroit qu' ^ jeter ses enfans dans le desordre qui auroient pu s'addonner iL 
des travaux qui ne conviennent point k des gentilshommes " (*' M6moire du Roy aux 
Sieurs Comte de Frontenac et de Champigny/' May 21, 1698, Collection de Manu- 
serits relatifs a la Nowuelle-France^ ii. 301). The language and expression are 
somewhat peculiar, but the point intended to be made is clear enough. 

^ Denonville to Minister, November 10,1686, Correspondance GeneraUfy'vL 192-266. 

'"Cest une chose digne de compassion de voir un grand nombre d'enfans 



THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 175 

Other measures of relief than direct grants of alms were soon 
forthcoming. For one thing, the king arranged that male 
children of the noblesse should receive a limited number of mid- 
shipmen's commissions in the royal navy. Others were to be 
enrolled into cadet companies and regularly drilled in arms, and 
for this service were to have a small daily compensation. For 
the benefit of the adults a general cong6 was given, allowing 
them to engage in trade without prejudice to their rank ; but 
this permission was of little use to them, for in New France, as 
elsewhere, trade required both capital and experience, and the 
gentilhomme lacked both. The authorities also seem to have 
endeavored, when possible, to give members of the noblesse 
such civil posts as might fall vacant from time to time; but 
the number of available offices was never large. In the long 
run, most of the nobility were forced to eke out a precarious 
existence from the dues which as seigniors they received from 
their dependents, supplemented by what they could raise on their 
ungranted domains. Very often they lived and worked like 
habitants, making the fruits of a hard season's toil and little more. 

One would naturally think that, when the complaints of the 
authorities as to the poverty of the noblesse first reached the 
king, the latter would have made an end to the practice of 
ennobling colonials. Not so, however. The letters patent con- 
tinued to come, until the intendant fairly implored the king to 
grant no more patents unless he simply wished " to increase the 
number of beggars." ^ Then the minister announced that the 
practice would cease ; but the promise was not kept, and before 
many years had passed rank in the noblesse was again being 
granted as freely as before. Down to the close of the period of 
French rule, indeed, the design of creating a colonial noblesse 
seems never to have been wholly abandoned. 

It was, however, in a calling widely different from industry, 
or agriculture that the Canadian gentilhomme found his favorite 
vocation. Many of the noblesse had military training, and 

qn'Us ont, pASser tout I'est^ avec la simple chemise et lean femmes et lean filles tra- 
vailler & la terre" (Champigny to Minister, August 26, 1687, Correspondana Gen-' 
eraU, ix. 144-147). 

^ Champigny to Minbter, May 10, 169 1, /Md, zi. 351, 



1/6 THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 

most of them, perhaps, had military ancestry; at any rate, 
all seem to have had strongly warlike tastes. The gentil- 
homme, therefore, betook himself readily to the military service 
of the colony, and in the almost continual broils that took place 
either with the Indians or with the English found ample scope 
for the exercise of his belligerent propensities. He learned the 
science of forest warfare very quickly, and soon combined the 
sagacity of the redskin with the intelligence of the European. 
In all the incursions which wrought untold misery in the out* 
lying hamlets of English America, the gentilhomme took 
a leading if not always a creditable part The descent on 
Schenectady in 1689- 1690 was due largely to the initiative of 
the young Lemoynes, sons of Lemoyne de Longueuil. Le- 
moyne dlberville was in command, and with him were his two 
adventurous brothers, Lemoyne de St. H^lfene and Lemoyne 
de Bienville ; while on the roster of marauders accompanying 
them one finds the names of Repentigny, D'Ailleboust, and 
several other young members of the colonial noblesse. The 
Deerfield raid of 1704 was organized by the Hertels of the 
Richelieu district ; and the expedition which pounced on Haver- 
hill some four years later had among its leaders Hertel de 
Rouville, Boucher de la Perrifere, St. Ours Deschaillons, and 
various other colonial aristocrats. On the occasion of every 
butchering raid across the borders of New England, the gentil- 
homme was readily to the front. Last in peace, he was first in 
war. " He was," says Parkman, " at home among his tenants, 
at home among the Indians, and never more at home than when, 
a gun in his hand and a crucifix on his breast, he took the war- 
path with a crew of painted savages and Frenchmen nearly as 
wild, to pounce like a lynx from the forest upon some lonely 
farm or outlying hamlet of New England. How New England 
hated him, let her records tell. The reddest blood-streaks on 
her old annals mark the track of the Canadian gentilhomme." ^ 
When the colony passed into British hands, many of the 
gentilshommes sold their seigniories and went to France. 
Naturally the percentage of exodus was higher among them 
than among the habitants. Mas^res estimated that after the 

^ Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada, ii. 61. 



THE SEIGNIORIAL NOBLESSE. 1 77 

treaty was signed in 1763 only twenty-two noble families re- 
mained in Canada;^ and four years later a table submitted 
to the home authorities by Governor Carleton showed how 
badly the hegira had depleted their ranks.* The new suzerains 
respected the rank and privileges of all those who remained ; 
and Carleton suggested that, in view of the influence which they 
possessed over the habitants, the noblesse should be welded into 
sympathy with the new administration in every possible way. 

The institution of the noblesse was not an indispensable 
, part of the seigniorial system, but in some ways served to 
strengthen it. Many seigniors were unquestionably spurred 
on to greater eflforts in the development of their fiefs by the 
hope of receiving elevation to rank in the noblesse as a 
reward of their zeal ; for, although those who were so favored 
' did not appear much the better for it, the royal reward was 
> highly prized and zealously sought from first to last Neither 
the seigniors nor the noblesse of Canada can properly be 
said to have formed a privileged order. / Since no direct taxes 
were ever levied in the colony, there were no exemptions 
in favor of any class of the people. The seigniors and the 
nobility paid tithes, and if they engaged in trade they paid 
the regular import and export duties. Before the law they 
were but the peers of the habitant, and the intendant saw to 
it that this equality was no mere fiction of judicial adminis- 
tration. Nevertheless, like the attempt to foster a system 
of private justice, the endeavor to nurture a seigniorial aris- 
tocracy and to reproduce beyond the seas a prototype of the 
French nobility proved a rather discouraging failure. The little 
band of colonial 61ite was nursed liberally with royal favor and 
encouragement, but the gaunt, lean body would not thrive ; its 
debility was chronic from first to last. 

1 Masires, AddiHonal Papers concerning the Province of Quebec^ 164-168, 171. 
* This table is printed in the Report on Canadian Archives for 1888, p. 41 £ 



i 



CHAPTER X. 

THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH. 

From beginning to end, one of the bulwarks of Canadian 
feudalism was the Catholic church, which, with its various 
subordinate institutions and orders, entered heartily into the 
spirit of the system, gave it unvarying support, and was a 
strong factor in securing its development and extension. 

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, French 
• colonial policy in America grounded itself upon a curious 
/ mixture of religious and economic motives. " That the people 
who inhabit these lands may be brought to a knowledge of 
the only God . . . and that there may be created in these 
newly discovered regions some trade which may become advan- 
tageous to His Majesty's subjects," were these motives as set 
forth in official language at an early date in the history of 
New France ; ^ and from that time to the day when the fleur- 
de-lys of the Bourbons fluttered down from the ramparts of 
Quebec, the royal authorities of France never lost sight of 
the religious motive in colonization. The priest and the 
trader, the two most prominent as well as most picturesque 
figures in the daily life of New France throughout its event- 
ful history, were the living embodiments of Bourbon colonial 
ideals. But religion and trade were alike militant, and their 
conflicting interests were often difficult to harmonize. Succes- 
sive functionaries — governors, intendants, commissioners — 
wore out their health and their patience in a futile endeavor 
to reconcile what seemed to be the clashing interests of God 
and mammon as typified in the respective aspirations of the 
Jesuit and the coureur-de-bois. 

I With agriculture, however, religion was on much better terms. 
Men who remained on the land and tilled the soil were well 

1 " Acte poor l'6tablissemeiit de U Compagnie des Cent Associ^s," April 29, 1627, 
£i/i^ et OrdonnanceSf L 5. 

178 



THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH. 179 

-within the reach of both church and state, while the lawless 
huckster of the wilderness was within arm's length of neither. 
The seigniors and their habitants could be used by the emis- 
saries of the church to set before the eyes of the savages an 
example of French civilization ; they could be utilized as exempli- 
fying the thrifty, industrious, sober, and godly life. The trad- 
ers, on the other hand, could never be used to this end ; on the 
contrary, if we may believe the clerical writers of the time, their 
^ influence upon the work of the church among the savages was 
wholly demoralizing, engendering among the redskins a general 
contempt for the ethics of French conduct. The writings 
of the Jesuits especially abound in blistering arraignments of 
these coureurs-de-bois, who, it is claimed, taught the savages all 
the vices of French civilization in its most degenerate days. 
Indeed, the dishonest and licentious conduct of the trading 
population was consistently regarded by the church as the 
greatest obstacle to the propagation of the faith in the north- 
em regions of the New World. 

It therefore became the natural aim and policy of the church 
to support in every way any efforts which the civil authorities 
might make from time to time toward keeping the people on 
the land. This support the hierarchy gave, not simply by lend- 
ing the aid of ecclesiastical discipline against all who disobeyed 
the laws that forbade men to leave their lands without permis- 
sion, but, more particularly, by its work and example in de- 
veloping and cultivating lands gfiven by the crown to the church 
and its subsidiary organizations. 

Foremost ^mong these dependent organizations was that 
known as tho^ Reverend Fathers of the Society and Company \\ 
of Jesus, more commonly called the Jesuit order.] As early as 
1626 this order had obtained from the Due de^Montmorenci, 
then viceroy of New France, its first grant of lands, the 
concession of Notre Dame des Anges, near Quebec ; and from 
this time on it received grants in all parts of the colony at 
frequent intervals, f Before the close of the French period it had 
become by far the ikrgest landholder in the countr)^.; on the eve 
of the conquest it owned not less than a dozen estates, com- 
prising almost a million arpents of land. Nearly a century 



I So THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH. 

before the cession of Canada to Great Britain, a governor 
whose opinion of the Jesuits was not of the highest had ven- 
tured to prophesy that in the course of time the Jesuits would 
monopolize all the best lands of the colony, a prediction which 
was on the high road to fulfilment by the middle of the eigh* 
teenth century ; for the Jesuits then held about one-eighth of 
all the granted lands. Nor were their lands greater in extent 
than in value; for comprised within the Jesuit estates were 
hundreds of thousands of arpents of the very choicest lands 
of the St. Lawrence valley, the most fertile and the most 
favorably located for purposes of settlement.^ 

Although the Jesuits were the most favored of the various 
orders and institutions of the church, they were not by any 
means the only ones to share largely in the royal bounty. The 
kings of France, especially Louis XIV, sincerely desired the 
advancement of all the church interests in the colony, and 
would gladly have contributed heavily from the royal funds 
toward the work of the various religious orders ; on many occa- 
sions, in fact, Louis XIV assisted the church in New France by 
liberal donations of money. The treasury of the Bourbons, 
however, in the latter part of the seventeenth and the early 

1 The following lands were held by the Jesuit order : — 

Cbarlesbourg 119,720 arpents 

Lorette 23,944 arpents 

Sillery 8,979 arpents 

Isle aux Ruaux . 360 arpents 

Cap de la Magdelaine 282,240 arpents 

Batiscan 282,240 arpents 

La Prairie de la Magdelaine 56,448 arpents 

St. Gabriel 104,850 arpents 

Isle St. Christophe 80 arpents 

Pachiriny 585 arpents 

La Vacherie 73 arpents 

St. Nicholas 1,180 arpents 

Tadoussac 6_arpents 

Total 880,705 arpents 

For these data, see Tache, Plan for the Commutation of the Seigniorial Tenure, 
This table may be profitably compared with the ** Acknowledgment and Enumera- 
tion of the Estates of the Jesuit Fathers in Canada, 1 781- 1788," printed in Thwaites, 
Jesuit /delations and Allied Documents, Ixxi. 65-95. See also Smith, History of Can^ 
ada, i, Appendix. 



THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH. i8l 

part of the eighteenth century, was not full to overflowing, and 
hence for the most part the royal interest and appreciation had 
to show itself in grants of land instead of money. As land in 
the colony was plentiful, donations were lavish, — frequently 
tens of thousands of arpents at a time. 

Next to the Jesuits as extensive recipients of this form of \^/ 
royal generosity came the Bishop and Seminary of Quebec, ' 
with a patrimony of nearly seven hundred thousand arpents of 
land, an enormous accumulation which was largely the work 
of Laval, first bishop of Quebec and founder of the Seminary. 
The Sulpitians had at the time of the conquest succeeded m 
amassing about a quarter of a million arpents, while the Ursu- 
lines of Quebec had acquired a little more than one hundred 
and sixty thousand. The R^coUets, who came to the colony at 
an early date and for a time bade fair to rival the Jesuits in 
influence and power, had failed to extend their influence to any 
appreciable degree, and had enjoyed almost no share in the 
royal liberality, their land holdings amounting to less than a 
thousand arpents. The superior power of the Jesuits had all 
but smothered the budding ambitions of the R^collets. Various 
other orders and institutions — as, for instance, the Ursulines of 
Three Rivers, the General Hospitals at Quebec and Montreal, 
the Hdtel Dieu at Quebec — had also acquired holdings of 
varying amounts, which, with those of the organizations just 
mentioned, comprised somewhat less than a million and a 
quarter arpents, more land than was held by the JesuitSv* As 
all of these orders (including the Jesuits) were either directly 

1 The areas of the holdings were as foUows : — 

Bishop and Seminary of Quebec ^3«324 arpents 

Sulpitians 250,191 arpents 

Ursulines of Quebec 164,616 arpents 

Les Soeurs Crises 42>336 arpents 

General Hospital at Quebec ^497 arpents 

Ursulines of Three Rivers 30,909 arpents 

Hdtel Dieu at Quebec 14,112 arpents 

R6collets 945 arpents 

General Hospital at Montreal • 404 arpents 

i»225,354 arpents 
Jesuits 880,705 arpents 

Grand Total 2,106^039 arpents 



1 82 THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH. 

or indirectly under ecclesiastical control, the church had thus 

acquired in perpetuity the ownership of no less than 2,106,039 

arpents of land in the colony, while the laymen had received 

^ much less than six million arpents. The church, then, controlled 

' nearly two-sevenths of the granted lands of New France ; hence 

• its position there was relatively stronger than at home. 

The possession and control by the church, through its various 
institutions and orders, of such enormous territorial interests 
naturally gave it a favorable predilection toward that system 
under which the lands had been acquired and through the 
maintenance of which they could be firmly held. The seigOp- 
iorial tenure, therefore, permitting as it did the exaction of 
important revenues from these extensive holdings, and at the 
same time placing the holders under no important financial obli- 
gations to the state, was looked upon with high favor by those 
who for nearly a century held in their hands the destinies of 
Catholicism in North America, — Laval, St. Vallier, and Pont- 
briand.* 

Both the seigniorial system and the parochial were strength- 
' ened by the fact that the boundaries of the seigniories were ih 
most cases coterminous with those of the parishes. The reason 
for this is to be found largely in the very late creation of the 
parishes ; for it was not until 1722 that, on the urgent counsel of 
the intendant Begon, the church authorities consented to a 
delimitation of parochial divisions. Up to that time it had been 
the policy of the bishop to keep all the priests on a missionary 
basis, sending them out from Quebec or Montreal to the various 
seigniories,^ and not permitting any priest to remain very long 
in one place ; for it seemed to the bishops that by this means 
the priests could be kept more completely under episcopal con- 
trol than would be possible if they were permanently settled in 
the various parishes. In this matter the experience of the church 
in France was not lost upon the heads of the ecclesiastical 
organization in the colony. 

^ The church lands had, for the most part, been freed from the usual obligations 
to the crown. See above, p. 52. 

^ Caialogne, in his report (see above, p. 45), makes frequent reference to this 
j>ractice. 



THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH. 183 

In the division of 1722, forty-one parishes were created in the 
district of Quebec, twenty-eight in the district of Montreal, and 
thirteen in the district of Three Rivers. In most cases the new 
parishes were coterminous with old seigniories; in a few in- 
stances, however, larger seigniories were divided into two or 
more parishes, and in others a number of smaller or sparsely 
settled seigniories were grouped into a single parish. The 
seigniorial church, where there was such, now became the 
parish church ; but very often there was no place of worship 
other than a room in the seignior's house. The parish cur^ now 
resided in the seigniory ; and, as he was seldom provided with 
a presbytery, he not infrequently made his home with the seign- 
ior, with whom he often came to be a fast friend, aiding him 
with his assistance, counsel, and moral support. The mknor- 
house thus became in a great many cases the centre of the 
religious as well as of the social relations of the seigniory. As 
the Abb^ Casgrain has remarked: "The system rested upon 
two men, the cur6 and the seignior, who walked side by side 
and extended mutual help to each other. The censitaire, who 
was at the same time parishioner, had his two rallying points, 
— the church and the manor*house. The interests of the two 
were usually identical, especially as the limits of the seigniory 
were, with few exceptions, identical with those of the parish." * 

It was not, however, obligatory upon the seignior to provide 
ior the sustenance of the cur^, since the priests were supported 
out of the tithes, supplemented by gifts from the king or from 
philanthropic individuals in France. As early as 1663, Bishop 
Laval ordered an annual tithe of one-thirteenth of the produce 
of farms to be collected throughout the colony ; and in the same 
year the Sovereign Council gave this order the force of a secu- 
lar law.* At once there was a general outcry from the habitants 
that the tax was too heavy, and after a good deal of hesitation 
Laval agreed to reduce it to one twenty-sixth. In 1679 the 
king confirmed this action, and endowed the church with the 

^ H. R. Casgrain, Une Paroisse Canadienne au xvii* SiicU, 40-41. 

* Mandements des Eviques de Quebec^ L 44-46 (March 26, 1663); Jygtments et 
DeliberoHom du ConseU Souvtrain de la NouuelU-France, i. 18-19 (October 10, 
1663). 



l84 THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 

perpetual right to exact one twenty-sixth.^ The returns from 
this source were not large, however ; as late as 1700 the revenue 
did not amount to more than four or five thousand livres per 
year, and this sufficed to maintain only ten cur^s even at the 
low stipends paid in the colony. 

The tithe could be collected by the cur^ or by persons ap- 
pointed by the parishioners for the purpose, the proceeds being 
delivered at the parish presbytery.* The cur^ had authority to 
have the crops of the parishioners estimated two weeks before 
the harvest, in order to satisfy himself as to the amount of tithes 
accruing to him. At first the tithe was exacted on grain only ; 
but when the habitants began to devote attention to the raising 
of flax, tobacco, vegetables, roots, and the like, the cur6s in 
some cases attempted to extend the obligation to these products 
as well. Against this the people protested, and in the early- 
years of the eighteenth century the matter was taken before 
the Superior Coimcil. That body promptly decided against the 
clerical pretensions,' and from this decision an appeal was taken 
to the king, who two years later confirmed the action of the 
council.* 

Churches were erected in the various parishes by one of three 
means, — by funds provided by friends of the church in France, 
or by the subscriptions and labor of the people of the parish, or, 
occasionally, by the seigniors themselves. On application of the 
cure to the authorities at Quebec, a decree could be had ordering 
the habitants to furnish either materials or labor in the construc- 
tion or the repair of the parish church or presbytery. Thus, on 
the request of the cur6 of St. Laurent, the inhabitants of that 
parish were, in 1732, ordered by the intendant to " assemble and 
estimate the expense of constructing a new church, and to pre- 
pare a statement of apportionment among all the said habitants 
that it may be known how much each must furnish toward the 
building of the said church." ^ Having done this, they were, by 

^ Edits ei Ordonnancest i. 231. It is of interest to note that the parish priests of 
the province of Quebec still collect a tithe of one twenty-sixth of all grain grown 
by their parishioners, — a right which has had legal sanction continuously from 
1679 to the present time. 

* Ibid, ii. 454. s November 18, 1705, Ibid, 133. 

* July 12, 1707, Ibid i. 305, » Ibid iii. 2&\» 



THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH, 185 

a further ordinance issued later in the same year, ordered to 
contribute their allotted shares of material and labor ; and the 
royal officials were instructed to see that they did so. By the 
provisions of this ordinance the cur^ could, at his discretion, 
exempt from contribution any habitants whose poverty would 
render the exaction a hardship. A number of quite similar ordi- 
nances relating to the construction of ecclesiastical edifices in 
other parishes were issued from time to time.* 

When the church was erected with funds provided from 
France or by the contributions of the people, the right of ap- 
pointment to the parish vested in the bishop; but when the 
seignior built the church at his own expense it was necessary, 
down to the closing years of the seventeenth century, to allow 
him the patronage or advowson.* This requirement was not 
viewed with favor either by Laval or by St. Vallier, who sought 
to restrict its application by refusing to allow the consecration 
of any seignior's church unless it were built of stone ; and this 
measure seemed likely to prove effectual from the fact that, 
without the ceremony of consecration, a church edifice could at 
best have a missionary and not a fixed cur6. Down to 1681 
only two stone churches were built by lay seigniors.' 

Those of the seigniors who had erected wooden churches 
objected strongly to the episcopal policy, and some went so far 
as to prevent the bishop from undertaking the erection of stone 
churches within their seigniories. In 1699 the bishop brought 
the whole matter to the notice of the king, who issued an arr^t 
giving him power to proceed with the erection of stone churches 
in any seigniories in which such had not already been erected, 

1 Cf. EdiU et Ordonnances^ iii 205, 216^ 217, 303, etc 

• IHeL i. 232, §§ vi-vii. 

* '< Everj one here is pufTed up with the greatest vanity; there is not one bat pre- 
tends to be a patron, and wants a CQr6 on his land, yet all are heavily in debt and in 
the most extreme poverty. Exclusive of that at Quebec, there are, throughout the 
entire colony, only seven stone parochial churches. These are in the seigniories of 
the Buhop, of the Jesuits, of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, and in two private seign- 
iories. The rest are constructed of timber and plank at the expense of the proprie- 
tors of the fiefs, and of the settlers; the bishop, however, refuses to consecrate them, 
because, as he says, it is his duty and obligation not to consecrate any buildings ex- 
cept such as are solid and durable " (Duchesneau to Seignelay, November 13, 1681, 
Ccrrespandance Generaii, v. 275). 



l86 THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 

and to assume the right of patronage in regard to tbese.^ It 
seems, however, that in actual practice the seigniors were often 
consulted before appointments were made; for the episcopal 
authorities recognized that amicable relations between cur^ and 
seignior were highly desirable, and it was always the policy of 
St. Vallier and Pontbriand to secure this concord. 

In no way, however, did the church in Canada contribute so 
materially to the development and strengthening of the feudal 
system in the colony as through its example in successfully 
clearing, improving, and settling the individual seigniories 
owned by it and by its subsidiary organizations. From bishop 
to poorest cur^, the hierarchy lent its superior intelligence zeal- 
ously to the work of developing the material as well as the 
spiritual interests of the church in New France, and with very 
marked success. Settlers were brought out under clerical aus- 
pices and placed upon the ecclesiastical seigniories, and once 
on the land they were counselled, assisted, and encouraged.^ 
As early as 1667, Laval was able to point with pride to the fact 
that his seigniories of Beaupr^ and Isle d'Orleans contained 
more than one-fourth of the colony's total population;^ and 
from this time down to the close of the French dominion the 
fiefs of the church never ceased to comprise within their bounds 
a very substantial percentage of the people of New France. 

Not only were the ecclesiastical seigniories among the most 
thickly populated, but they were, as Catalogne and others noted, 
among the best cultivated and the best managed.* The provisions 
made for the welfare and convenience of the habitants in the 
way of banal mills, roads, and so on, were on the whole much 
better than in the lay seigniories ; and there were fewer trivial 
disputes regarding seigniorial exactions. As one examines the 
host of petty difficulties which year by year came before the 

^ Editi et Ordonnances^ i. 279. 

^ On the services of the Jesuits in the agricaltural development of the colony, see 
Faillon, ^ij/0i>^ de la Colonie Franfaise en Canada, i. 161-164 ; and Rochemon- 
teix, Lfs/esuiies, L 154--157. 

' In the census of 1667, the total population of the colony was found to be 3,918. 
Of this number the seigniory of Beaupr6 contained 667, and that of the Isle d'Orleans 
426. Cf. Censuses of Canada, 1665-1871, p. ^ 

* See above, p. 45. 



THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH, 187 

authorities at Quebec for settlement, one cannot but notice that 
by far the most of them came from the lay seigniories. The 
ecclesiastical seigniors and their habitants seem to have settled 
their troubles at home. 

The grants of seigniories to church institutions and orders 
were usually accompanied by the right to administer seigniorial 
justice. The ecclesiastical seigniors, like the laymen, usually 
received powers of high, middle, and low justice ; ^ but it does 
not appear that they ever attempted to use these powers in any 
considerable degree. By virtue of the right of low jurisdiction 
they frequently enforced the payment of seigniorial dues from 
recalcitrant habitants, but they seem to have made no serious ] 
attempt to exercise the two higher grades of jurisdiction. 

In the earlier days of feudalism in Europe, the clerical seign^ 
iors, bishops, and abbots administered feudal justice within 
their fiefs, and succeeded in tincturing the customary law of 
these domains with those principles of the canon law with which 
the administrators of justice were naturally the most familiar. 
Ostensibly administering the customary law of the feudal unit, 
they in many cases applied the much more highly developed 
canonical jurisprudence. Had the hierarchy of New France 
assumed its feudal judicial power, it would have been interesting 
to note Jiow far it would have departed from the Custom of 
Paris in favor of that system of jurisprudence with which it was 
more familiar; but the various clerical officials and orders 
manifested no desire to exercise judicial authority. Indeed, 
when the royal court was established at Montreal, the Sulpitians 
petitioned that their seigniorial judicial powers might be revoked, 
and secured an ordinance effecting this revocation.^ 

The church in the colony never lost, as in France, the con- 
fidence of the masses of the people ; the higher ranks in the 
ecclesiastical hierarchy never lost touch with the lower, /Cf Ihe 
lower with the people. The Canadian clergy were never re- 
garded as a privileged order ; on the contrary, they gave to^the 
colony much more than they took from it. If ever there were 
laborers worthy of their hire, these were the spiritual pioneers 

1 See the grant of the fief of Sillery to the Jesniti in 1697, Titres des Seigneuries, 51. 
' Edits et Ordonnances, L 276. 



"+.. 



l88 THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 

of France in the New World. Their influence with the habit- 
ants was deservedly powerful, and, in so far as this influence 
was g^ven in support of feudalism, it formed a factor in the de- 
velopment of the system which is not readily overestimated. 
The church in New France was the firm friend of both abso- 
lutism and feudalism, for a stage in history had been reached 
wherein these were no longer antagonistic, but mutually helpfuL 
The church owed much to both, and to each it made repay- 
ment in stanch loyalty. 

But despite the support which the seigniorial system in Can- 
ada received from both state and church, there were circum- 
stances which, during the closing years of the French era, served 
greatly to weaken it. The long English wars, which continued 
with but little interruption from 1745 to 1760, so hampered 
immigration from France that during this period the number of 
settlers who came into the seigniories was very small. The wars 
also laid a heavy strain upon agricultural conditions, for the 
authorities found it necessary to put into the field practically the 
entire adult male population. Whenever it was possible, however, 
these militiamen were allowed to return to their farms during the 
seeding and harvest seasons, j Even in the late summer of 1759, 
when Montcalm was bending his utmost energies to the task of 
repelling Wolfe from the fortifications of Quebec, he found it 
necessary to allow large numbers of his sorely needed defend- 
ers to go home to gather in the harvests ; otherwise, a success- 
ful defence would have been followed by a winter of famine, for 
the English control of the seas rendered the importation of food 
supplies from France all but impossible. 

Under these circumstances lands went out of cultivation, 
or were for years left without proper care; many holdings 
and even whole seigniories were abandoned ; seigniorial dues 
remained unpaid; mills and churches went into decay; in 
short, the whole agricultural system became disorganized. The 
reorganization of economic conditions, more particularly the 
rearrangement of those which had become entirely deranged by 
the enormous depreciation of the paper currency during the 
years preceding the conquest, was the task which first confronted 
the new British authorities. 



CHAPTER XL 

THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM UNDER BRITISH ADMINIS- 
TRATION. 

The long struggle between France and Great Britain in 
North America was virtually brought to a close when, on the 
eighth day of September, 1760, the Marquis de Vaudreuil and 
General Jeffrey Amherst, on behalf of their respective sover- 
eigns, signed the Articles of Capitulation at Montreal.^ In this 
document, which embodied the agreement on the part of the 
French to withdraw their remaining military forces from the 
colony of New France, there were several articles which related 
either directly or indirectly to the existing system of land ten- 
ure, and which served in some measure to secure the perpetua- 
tion of it under the administration of the new suzerain. 

The terms of capitulation stipulated that all religious com- 
munities and all officers of the church should be preserved in 
the enjoyment of their property and "in the profits of their 
seigniories," as well as in all their " privileges, rights, honors, 
and exemptions." * ( Furthermore, by express provision, " all .- 
seigniors of lands, officers of the militia and of justice, all Cana- 
dians whether in the towns or in the rural districts, all French- 
men whether settled in or trading to the colony, and all other 
persons " were guaranteed in the " entire and peaceable posses- 
sion of their property whether en seignetme or en roture \en 
^ensive']'^ They were not to be molested under any pretext 

1 ** Articles de Capitulation," in State Paper Office, America and West Indies^ 
3tciii. 561-592. 

' Article xxxiv : ** Toutea les Communaat^, Et tons les Prestres Conserveront 
Leurs Meubles, La Propri6t6, Et L'Usufruit des Seigneuries, Et autres biens que les 
uns et les autres poasMent dans la Colonic, de quelque Nature qu'ils soient Et Les 
4. biens seront Conserv6s dans leurs Privileges, droits, honneurs, et Exemptions." 

189 



190 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 

whatever.* By these articles in the capitulation the British 
authorities virtually bound themselves to maintain the existing 
system of land tenure; for, by guaranteeing that the holders 
should suffer no loss through any detrimental action on the 
part of the new government, they assured all seigniors of a 
continuance of their privilegey 

Acting under instructions from England, General Amherst at 
once organized a military government for the colony, dividing 
it for this purpose into three military districts with headquarters 
at Quebec, Montreal, and Three Rivers respectively. Each 
district was placed in charge of a military officer, and military 
courts were established for the hearing of causes both civil and 
criminal. For the time being the French law, in so far as it 
could be discovered by the courts, was followed ; but from time 
to time each of the three district officers issued ordinances 
within his own jurisdiction, modifying the old laws in such 
respects as seemed necessary. The seigniors were supported 
in the exaction of their dues as soon as they had taken the 
oath of fealty and homage to the representatives of their new 
sovereign; but they were deprived of their judicial authority, 
all cases now coming in the first instance before the military 
courts.* 

Even before the Peace of Paris was signed. Lord Egremont, 
secretary of state for the Southern Department, asked the 
officers in charge of the three districts to send him reports oa 

^ Article xxxvii : " Les Seigneurs de Terres, Les Officiers militaires Et de Justice,. 
Les Canadiens, Tant des Villes que des Campagnes Les fran^ois Etablis ou Commer- 
9ant dans toute L'Etendue de la Colonic du Canada £t Toutes Autres Personnes que 
ce puisse Estre, Conserveront L'Entir6 paisible proprift£ et possession de leurs biens 
Seigneuriaux et Roturiers. ... II n'y sera point touch6 ni fait le moindre domage, 
sous quelque pretexte que ce soit.*' 

It has sometimes been said (e.g.» by Bourinot» Constitution of Canada^ 7) that 
the Jesuits, R^collets, and Snlpitians were expressly excepted from the guarantee 
of proprietary rights until the royal pleasure could be known; but an examination of 
the articles will show that this exception was made in reference to the operation of 
Article xxxiii, which pledged a general continuance of ecclesiastical privileges, and 
not in reference to Article xxxvii, which dealt with rights of property. 

^ Regne Miliiaire en Canada^ ou Administration Judiciaire de ce Pays par les 
Anglais du 8 Septembre lybo au 10 AoAt 1764 (published by the Montreal Historical 
Society, 1872). Cf. also Suite, Le Regime Miliiaire^ 1760^1764^ in Royal Society of 
Canada, Proceedings^ 1905, Appendix A« 



^'""- BRITISH ADMINISTRATION'. 191 

the state of their respective jurisdictions, and to make recom- 
mendations regarding the future government of the colony. 
This they did, each giving an estimate of the total population 
in his district and expressing his opinion on existing conditions 
and institutions. General Murray's report shows that his short 
sojourn in the colony had not given him a very favorable opin- 
ion of the Canadian seigniors. "They are extremely vain," 
he wrote, " and have an utter contempt for the trading part of 
the colony. They were usually provided for in the colonial 
troops, which consisted of thirty companies. They are in gen- 
eral poor, except such as have had command of distant posts, 
when they usually made a fortune in three or four years. . . . 
They are great tyrants to their vassals, who seldom meet with 
redress, let their grievances be ever so just." ^ 

Before the British authorities could make any permanent 
disposition of affairs in Canada, however, a formal relinquish- 
ment of French claims on the colony had to be secured; and 
this was not forthcoming until March 10, 1763, when the 
Treaty of Paris was ratified by the high contracting parties con- 
cerned. Among other things, this treaty confirmed the inhabit- 
ants of Canada in the concessions and privileges guaranteed 
them by the Articles of Capitulation three years previously, and 
in addition provided : " The French inhabitants and others who 
have been subjects of the Most Christian King in Canada may 
retire in all safety and freedom wherever they may think proper, 
and may sell their estates, provided it be to subjects of His 
Britannic Majesty."^ 

A good many landholders in the eastern part of the colony 
had taken .their departure to France immediately after the 
Articles of Capitulation were signed. Some of these had merely 
abandoned their lands, others had left them in charge of friends, 

^This report of June 5, 1762, though in many ways very interesting, shows 
rather scant knowledge of the real condition of afiairs in Canada. It is the work of 
a man who seems to have made very little study of the questions with which he 
dealt. It is reprinted in full in Doutre and Lareau, HUtoire GeneraU du Droit 
Civil Canadien^ 520 ff. 

' * Treaty of Paris, article iv. The full text of this treaty may be found in George 
Chalmers, A ColUcHon of Treaties between Great Britain and other Powers (London, 
1790), i. 467-483. 



192 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 

and some had sold them in the expectation that such sales would 
be held valid. Now, when announcement of the formal and 
final cession of the colony to Great Britain was made, a much 
larger number took advantage of the privilege extended them 
of selling their lands and leaving for France. Just how great 
this hegira was it is not easy to ascertain, for the census enu- 
merations during the long conflict-period preceding the conquest 
were very faulty, and the estimates of those who have made 
special study of the subject vary greatly. The exodus was, 
however, in all probability not so great as historians have usually 
supposed. Similarly, there are grave differences of opinion as 
to the nature of the outflow ; ^ but it is unquestionable that among 
those who left the colony during the years 1760-1765 were 
most of the former administrative officials, many notaries, and 
perhaps the majority of the noblesse. In a word, the colony 
lost many of its natural leaders. On the other hand, English 
settlers flocked into the country in considerable numbers, and 
bought the seigniories of those who wished to leave. Many 
of these English settlers were wise enough to see that the 
purchase of seigniories at sacrifice prices was an excellent 
investment; for most of the estates included extensive tracts 
of ungranted lands, which with the increase of the colony in 
population would gradually rise in value. They saw, too^ 
that with the settlement of the seigniories the dues payable by 
the habitants would be a source of considerable profit; and, 
finally, to many of the new arrivals the position and title of 
seignior seem to have appealed strongly. To the habitants 
this change was far from acceptable. They had no native re- 
spect for the new English seigniors, who were to them the repre- 
sentatives of an alien race and a heretical creed, and who 
were, besides, prone to insist rigidly upon the letter of their 
rights, and were too often, it would appear, somewhat over- 
bearing in their attitude toward their dependents. 

During the period intervening between the capitulation and 
the signing of the treaty, two seigniorial grants to Englishmen 

^ On the extent and nature of the exodus, compare the widely divergent views of 
Garneau i^HUtoire du Canada^ ii. 393 ff.) and Suite {JU Regime Militaire^ 85-89). 
See also below, p. 204, note 2. 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION'. 193 

were made by General Murray. These were the seigniories 
of Malbaie (Murray Bay) and Mount Murray, given in 1762, 
"for faithful services," to Captain John Nairn and Captain 
Fraser respectively, both of them officers in the regular forces. 
In the title-deeds or patents conveying these grants the term 
"seigniory" does not appear; but in defining the conditions 
upon which the grants were to be held Murray seems to have 
made some attempt to follow the general tenor of seigniorial 
grants made during the old regime. He evidently took for his 
model the title of some earlier grant made under the custom of 
the French Vexin and not under the Custom of Paris ; for he 
provided for the payment of a relief and not of a quint upon 
mutations of ownership.^ 

Shortly after the ratification of the Treaty of Paris, a royal 
proclamation was issued (October 7, 1763), making provision for 
the establishment of a civil administration to replace the military 
rule which had been maintained since 1760.^ By the terms of 
this proclamation the government of the colony was vested in 
the hands of a governor to be appointed by the crown and to be 
assisted by a council similarly appointed. Provision was made 
for supplanting the existing legal system by "the law and 
equity of England in all cases both civil and criminal." The 
governor in council was empowered to make grants of land, 
especially as a means of rewarding those who had rendered ser- 
vice in the army or the navy during the war ; but, since the laws 
of England were prescribed as the legal system of the colony, 

^ " I do hereby give, grant, and concede unto the said Captain John Nairn, his 
heirs, executors and administrators forerer, all that extent of land lying ... to be 
known hereafter by the name of Murray Bay ... for and in consideration of the 
possessor paying liege and homage to His Majesty, his heirs and successors, at his 
Castle of St. Lewis in Quebec, on each mutation of property, and by way of acknowl- 
edgment a piece of gold of the value of ten shillings with one year's rent of the 
dumain reserved, as customary in this country, together with the woods and rivers, 
or other appurtenances within the said extent; the right of fishing or fowling on the 
same therein included, without hindrance or molestation ; all kinds of traffic with 
the Indians of the back country hereby specially excepted." This title-deed is not 
printed in Titres des Stigneuries^ but a copy of it will be found in Troisieme 
Rapport et Deliberations du Comitk Special de PAssenU^lee legislative (185 1 ), 95-96. 

* This proclamation will be found at full length in Doutre and Lareau, Histoire 
CeneraU du Droit Civil Canadien, 3J0 tL 



194 BRITISH ADMimSTRATIOI^. 

he was, presumably, to make such grants in free and common 
socage and not en seigneurie or en cejisive. 

Two months after the issue of the proclamation a lengthy 
code of instructions was sent to Governor Murray by the home 
authorities, laying down definite regulations both in regard to 
the attitude to be taken with respect to existing holdings of 
land and as to the policy to be followed in future.^ In the first 
place, the governor was instructed to require all those who 
claimed to hold grants made to them before the conclusion of 
peace to present the same for registration and examination to 
the secretary of the governor's council at Quebec. Such titles, 
when found valid, were to be respected ; but, for the future, 
grants were to be made only in strict accordance with detailed 
regulations given in the instructions. These provided, in gen- 
eral, that, since great inconveniences had " arisen in many of 
our colonies in America, from the granting of excessive quan- 
tities of land to particular persons," who had " never cultivated 
or settled them," and had " thereby prevented others more in- 
dustrious from improving them," particular care was to be taken 
to avoid the practice of making to settlers larger grants than 
they could handle properly. The governor was instructed to 
observe the general rule of granting one hundred acres of land 
to the head of a family, with an additional fifty acres " for every 
white or black man, woman, or child, of which such person's 
family shall consist at the actual time of making the grant" If 
it appeared that the grantee possessed the means and the inten- 
tion of cultivating a larger area, the governor was authorized 
to depart from the foregoing rules ; but in no case was a single 
family to receive more than one thousand acres. The terms 
under which the grants were to be made were very simple: 
after two years from the date of the grant an annual quit-rent 
of two shillings for every hundred acres was to become due 
and payable to the crown forever ; and within three years the 
grantee was to clear three acres for every fifty held by him. 

^ '< Instructions to Our trusty and well-beloved James Murray, Esquire, Our Cap- 
tain-General and Govemor-in-Chief, in and over Our Province of Quebec in America,*' 
December 7, 1763, in State Paper Office, Board of Trade, Canada^ voL i. These 
instructions are printed in Doutre and Lareau, Histoire GeniraUf eta, 55^73, and 
in the Report on Canadian Archives for 1904, pp. I93-2IO. 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION-. 195 

Failure to fulfil either obligation was to entail forfeiture of the 
whole grant. 

In the instructions a desire was expressed that the colony 
should furnish mast timber for use in the royal navy, and toN 
this end the governor was instructed to reserve all such timber 
land. The policy pursued under French domination had 
been to grant lands with a specific reservation in the title-deeds 
that all oak and pine timber should be kept for the king's use.^ 
The new policy proposed the adoption of a somewhat different 
course; for the governor was instructed not to grant the best 
timber lands at all, but to see that these were held as royal 
reservations. 

It was apparently the intention of the British authorities, as 
evidenced by these instructions, that all future grants should be i 
made in free and common socage, subject to the payment of a 
perpetual but merely nominal quit-rent to the crown ; and since, 
by the proclamation of 1763, the English law of real property 
had become the land law of the colony, this new policy seemed 
the only logical one.* It was not long, however, before the at- 
tempt to administer English land law encountered difficulties. 
A system of courts was established ; but the judges and officials 
were Englishmen, who knew little and cared less about existing 
conditions in the colony. The new courts, therefore, in their 
attempt to apply the principles of English law to the cases 
which came before them, soon found themselves floundering in 
a maze of complications, inconsistencies, and contradictions, a 
situation which convinced both judges and suitors that the task 
of deciding disputes between seigniors and habitants by the 
rules of English law and procedure was an impossible one. 

* Sec above, p. 74. 

* I do not discuss here the vexed question whether the English law was validly 
introduced by the proclamation of 1763. It is maintained by some legal writers that 
the proclamation did not actually introduce the English law, but merely gave Murray 
the power to do so with the advice and consent of his council and the approval 
of a representative assembly. This power, it is claimed, was never exercised, be- 
cause no representative assembly was called into existence. It does not seem 
necessary, for the purposes of the present study, to examine the merits of this con- 
tention; but reference may be made to two leading cases in which the point is dis- 
cussed, — Stuart vs. Bowman, 1851, 2 Lower Canada Reports^ 369, and Wilcox vs. 
Wilcox, 1857, 8 Lower Canada Reports^ 34. 



ig6 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION^, 

Accordingly, Governor Murray, with the consent of his council, 
allowed the courts, for the time being, to apply the old French 
law to such civil cases as could not otherwise be satisfactorily 
settled. This action was communicated to the home authorities, 
and apparently met with their approval; for in 1766 they issued 
instructions " that in all suits and actions relating to the titles 
of land, and the descent, alienation, settlement, and encum- 
brances of real property, and also in the distribution of personal 
property in cases of intestacy, and the mode of assigning and 
conveying it, they [the courts] do govern themselves in their 
proceedings, judgment, and decision, by the local customs and 
usages which have hitherto prevailed and governed within the 
province, using and applying the said usages and customs to 
the cases coming before them in like manner as the customs 
and usages of Normandy are applied in cases from Jersey before 
the lords of our privy council." ^ 

For the time being, then, the courts applied English law in 
all cases save those specifically excepted as above. In this way 
the legal chaos was somewhat relieved, but by no means entirely 
so ; for not only were there inherent difficulties connected with 
the attempt to administer a system of law which was entirely 
strange to those who came within its operation, but the judges 
and officials seem to have been exceedingly incapable and 
untactful. Most of them, having no knowledge of French, 
could carry on their proceedings only with the aid of an inter- 
preter ; and as practically all of them were paid by fees, they 
had ample opportunities for extortion, which the covetous were 
apparently not slow to seize. Governor Murray branded the 
new English arrivals in the colony, more particularly the traders, 
as the most immoral collection of men he had ever known. 

This was the condition of affairs when Murray, in 1766, 
returned to England, giving over his post of governor to Gen- 
eral Guy Carleton (afterwards Lord Dorchester). On his ar- 
rival in England, Murray prepared and presented to the Earl of 
Shelbume, who as secretary of state for the Southern Depart- 
ment had charge of colonial affairs, a comprehensive report 

1 " Instructions to the Hon^e- James Murray, governor of Canada," June 24, 
J 766, in Stale Paper Office, Board of Trade^ Canada^ vol. xv. 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION', 197 

on the condition of the colony. This report is an interesting 
one, couched in vigorous language. It begins by giving an 
estimate of the population and wealth of the colony as re- 
capitulated from the census of 1765, It then proceeds, in 
marked contrast to his report of 1762, to comment rather 
favorably upon the seigniorial system of land tenure. "The 
seigniors," writes Murray, " though not rich, are in a situation 
to support their dignity. The inhabitants, their tenanciers^ 
who pay only an annual quit-rent of about a dollar for one hun- 
dred acres, are at their ease and comfortable. They have 
been accustomed to respect and obey their noblesse, their ten- 
ures being military in the feudal manner. They have shared 
with them the dangers of the field, and natural affection has 
been increased in proportion to the calamities which have been 
common to both from the conquest of their country. As they 
have been taught to respect their superiors, and are not yet 
intoxicated with the abuse of liberty, they are shocked at the 
abuse which their noblesse have received from the English 
traders and lawyers since the civil government took place." 
He goes on to speak in the most scathing terms of the char- 
acter and conduct of the new English settlers : " The Canadian 
noblesse were hated by them because their birth and behavior 
entitled them to respect ; the peasants were abhorred because 
they were saved from the oppression they were threatened 
with." It was from this class, he says, that the judges and 
officials of the colony had been chosen during the years 
1 763-1 766. "Magistrates were made and juries composed 
from four hundred and fifty contemptible sutlers and trad- 
ers. . . . The judge pitched upon to conciliate the minds of sev- 
enty-five thousand foreigners to the laws and government of 
Great Britain was taken from a jail, entirely ignorant of law 
and of the language of the people." Not one of the officials 
of administration, he declares, understood the language of the 
people. * 

Even before Murray's report was made the colonial office 
had undertaken an investigation of the causes of legal dis- 

^ Marray to Shelbume, Aogust 20, 1 766, Canadian Archives^ Hatdimand CoUec- 
Hon, 6. 8, pp. 1-128. 



198 BRITISH ADMimSTRATION. 

order in the colony, and had commissioned the law officers 
of the crown to report some means of remedying the con- 
dition of affairs. During the early summer of 1766 these 
officials presented a list of recommendations which, on the 
whole, looked toward a further compromise between the two 
systems of law. In cases affecting land tenure and inheritance 
and the distribution of personal property in the event of in- 
testacy, they proposed that the French law should be retained ; 
but "in all personal actions grounded upon debts, promises, 
contracts, and agreements, and upon wrongs proper to be 
compensated," they suggested that the courts apply "those 
substantial maxims of law and justice which are everywhere 
the same."^ 

As the home authorities took no action on either of these 
reports except to confirm the existing arrangements. Governor 
Carleton turned his attention to a personal investigation of the 
matter. Carleton had already spent some time in the colony 
as an officer of the regular forces, and was therefore fully 
conversant with the unsatisfactory condition of things. His 
personal inclination was toward the restoration of French law 
for the decision of all civil cases. One difficulty, however, lay 
in the fact that the so-called civil law was not accessible in 
written form ; it consisted not only of the Custom of Paris, but 
of the whole mass of edicts, ordinances, declarations, and 
decrees which had been issued either to supplement or to 
modify the custom. As a first step, therefore, the governor 
requested a number of " Canadian gentlemen well skilled in the 
laws of France " to make a compilation of the civil laws of the 
French period, in order that at least the most important of them 
might be rendered accessible. This work was done during the 
next half-dozen years.^ 

1 Report of Attorney-General Yorke and Solicitor-General de Grey, April 14, 
1766, in Smith, History of Canada^ ii. 35 f!. 

^ The compilation, when finished, was issued in four parts, three of them " drawn 
up by a Select Committee of Canadian Gentlemen well skiUedin the Laws of France 
and of that Province." The titles were : {i) An Abstract of those Parts of the Custom 
of the Viscounty and Provostship of Paris, which were received and practised in the 
Province of Quebec in the time of the French Government; (2) The Sequel of the 
Abstract . . . containing the thirteen latter Titles of the said Abstract; (3} An 



BRITISH ADMimSTRATIOir. 199 

It was Carleton's earnest wish that the home authorities might 
be brought to see the desirability of reestablishing the old juris- 
prudence (especially now that it was being compiled) as the 
civil law of the colony ; and it was with this end in view that on 
Christmas Eve, 1767, he despatched to the Earl of Shelbume a 
long communication setting forth his views on the subject. 
Carleton first reminded the British authorities that they were 
not now dealing " with a migration of Britons who brought with 
them the laws of England, but with a populous and long-estab- 
lished colony reduced by the king's arms to submit to his 
dominion on certain conditions;" that their laws and customs, 
though widely different from those of England, were " founded 
on natural justice and equity," and ''their honors, profits, 
and property depended on these laws and customs; • . . 
and that this system of laws established subordination from the 
highest to the lowest and preserved the harmony of the colony 
until our arrival" After reminding the minister of these facts, 
the governor proceeded to express the opinion that the action of 
the home authorities in overturning in an hour this complex 
system and in supplanting it by a system of '' laws ill-adapted 
to the genius of the Canadians, to the situation of the province, 
and to the interest of Great Britain, unknown and unpublished," 
had been not only an error " but a sort of severity which had 
never before been practised by any conqueror, even where the 
people had, without capitulation, submitted to his will and dis- 
cretion." 

He then pointed out that, notwithstanding the action of the 
home government in introducing English civil law into the 
colony, the people continued to " regulate all their transactions 
by their ancient laws, though unknown and unauthorised in the 

Abstract of ihe Criminal Laws thai were in force in the Province of Quebec in the 
time of the French Government; (4) An Abstract of the several Royal Edicts^ and 
Declarations^ and Provincial Regulations and Ordinances, that were in force in 
the Province of Quebec in the time of the French Government ^ and of the Com- 
missions of the several Governours-genereU and Intendants of the said Province^ 
during the same Period. The last part was prepared by " Francis Joseph Cugnet, 
Esquire, Secretary to the Goremour and Coancil of the said Province, for the French 
Language." All four parts were published in London in 1772-1773. After the 
reSstablishment of French civil law in the colony in 1774, this compilation became a 
standard for the courts. 



200 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 

courts, where most of these transactions would be declared 
invalid." He attributed the absence of much more violent 
manifestations of discontent among the people to the fact that 
the enormity of the change was not fully recognized by them, 
but declared that the recognition of it would in time cause conster- 
nation amongst them. The new English courts, he affirmed, had 
done little or nothing to alleviate the legal chaos. "They 
have," said he, "introduced air the chicanery of Westminster 
Hall into this impoverished province, where few fortunes can 
bear the expense and delay of a law suit." Carleton, therefore, 
strongly urged the home authorities to repeal entirely the 
ordinance establishing English civil law in the colony, and, " fol- 
lowing the precedent established by Edward the First after the 
conquest of Wales," ^ to decree the reestablishment of the old 
French law duly codified, with such alterations as might seem 
necessary. 

With his despatch Carleton enclosed the draft of an ordi- 
nance which he had at iirst intended to issue himself with the 
assent of his council, but which on reflection he had deemed of 
sufficient importance to submit to the home government.^ This 
ordinance proposed to enact, among other provisions, " that all 
laws and customs which prevailed in this province • . . concern- 
ing the rights, privileges, and pre-eminences of tenures, both 
such as were held immediately of the crown and such as were 
held of subjects; and concerning the inheritances of the said 
lands upon the death of any of the proprietors thereof, and 
concerning the forfeiture, confiscating, re-annexing or re-uniting 
to the domain of the lord, escheat, reversion, or other devolution 
whatsoever of the said lands, either to the King's Majesty or to 
any of His Majesty's subjects of whom they are held; and 
concerning the power of devising or bequeathing any of the 
said lands by a last will or testament, and concerning the power 
of alienating the same by the proprietors thereof in their life- 
time; and concerning the power of limiting, hypothecating, 
charging, and in any way encumbering or affecting any lands in 

^ Carleton to Shelburne, December 24, 1767, in State Paper Office, Board of 
Trade^ Canada^ vol. vi, No. 23. 

> This draft accompanies Carleton's despatch in the State Paper Office. 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 20I 

the province, shall continue in full force and vigor until they are 
changed in some of these particulars by ordinances made for 
that purpose." 

The ordinance proposed to extend its terms " not only to all 
lands in this province held immediately of the crown by grants 
made by the French king before the conquest of the country, 
and to all lands held under the immediate tenants of the crown 
who are commonly called seigniors, by grants made by the said 
seigniors to inferior tenants or vassals before the conquest, but 
likewise to such lands as have been granted by the said seign- 
iors to the said inferior tenants since the conquest, and likewise 
to all such lands as shall be hereafter granted by the said seign- 
iors to the said inferior tenants or vassals ; both those that shall 
hereafter be made, and those that have been made already, shall 
be subject to the same rules, restrictions, and conditions as were 
lawfully in force concerning them in the time of the French 
government, at or immediately before the said conquest of the 
country by the British arms." A final clause in the proposed 
ordinance made provision that lands granted by His Majesty 
since the conquest in free and common socage should continue 
to be so held. 

As the home authorities were awaiting the compilation of the 
French civil law before coming to a decision, no immediate 
acceptance of Carleton's recommendation took place. The 
work on the laws was hurried on during the spring of 1768; 
and in April the governor was able to send to England the first 
part of the compilation, containing an abstract of those parts of 
the Custom of Paris that had been recognized in the colony. 
Meanwhile his secretary, Cugnet, busied himself with the ab- 
stract of the edicts and ordinances. In transmitting the first 
part of the compilation to the Earl of Shelburne, Carleton again 
argued at some length in favor of retaining intact the old sys- 
tem of land tenure. " The Canadian tenures differ, it is true," 
he wrote, "from those in the other parts of His Majesty's 
American dominions, but if confirmed (and I cannot see how 
it can be well avoided without entirely oversetting the proper- 
ties of the people), will ever secure a proper subordination from 
this province to Great Britain." Governor Carleton likewise 



202 BRITISH ADMimSTRATION. 

expressed a desire that he might be authorized to make grants 
en seigneurie and en censive under the provisions of the old law 
as well as in free and common socage.^ 

But not all the officials in the colony were of the same mind 
as the governor. One of those who differed very decidedly 
from the royal representative was Francois Mas^res, the attor- 
ney-general. Mas^res was of French descent, his ancestors 
having gone over to England with many other Huguenots when 
the Edict of Nantes was revoked, toward the close of the seven- 
teenth century. In his sympathies, however, the attorney-gen- 
eral was thoroughly English, and his schooling in English law 
had given him a veritably Blackstonian love of his profession. 
Now, as Carleton desired to get the fullest possible information 
regarding the legal conditions and necessities of the colony, he 
had asked Mas^res, among others, for a report elaborating his 
views and opinions. This request the attorney-general complied 
with early in 1769. 

As might have been anticipated, Mas^res's report set forth 
opinions which ran directly counter to the personal views of the 
governor ; for in general the writer insisted that the restoration 
of the entire fabric of French civil law would be a misfortune 
both for the colony and for Great Britain. The retention of 
that part of the old jurisprudence which dealt with real property 
seemed to Mas^res justifiable enough ; but farther than this he 
was not prepared to go. He was of the opinion that the people 
in general were satisfied with the law as it stood, and that their 
complaints arose from the expense and delays which accompanied 
the administration of it. What was needed, he thought, was a 
reform of the judicature and not of the law.^ This report was 
a disappointment to Carleton, who wrote to the home authorities 
deploring the "narrow prejudices" of his attorney-general, 
which he attributed to his " having conversed more with books 
than with men." • 

^ Carleton to Shelburne, April 12, 176S, in State Paper Office, America and IVist 
Indies^ voL cccxxvi, No. ^^^ 

* Francois Masires, Drau^ of an Act . • • for settling the Laws of Quebec (Lon- 
don [1771]). 

* Carleton to Hillsborongh, October 3, 1769, in State Paper Office, America and 
West Indies, voL ccczzvii. 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 203 

The governor had now apparently come to the conclusion 
that the concurrence of the home authorities in his own plans 
could be secured only as the result of a personal visit to Eng- 
land ; and, to this end, in the following year (1770) he obtained 
a short leave of absence from the province. He was firmly 
convinced that the progress of the colony was being grievously 
hindered by the unsettled condition of its legal system. The 
people, for instance, were following the English system of 
conveyancing as simpler and less expensive than the French, 
even though it did not lend itself to the existing form of 
tenure. The seigniors were generally disregarding the pro- 
vision in the Arrfit of Marly (171 1) that no entry fee should be 
exacted from habitants for grants of land, but that holdings 
en censive should be freely conceded at the rates customary 
in the neighborhood. Many of them were refusing to pay 
their quint, some on the ground that the governor in council 
had no right to revive the Custom of Paris in part, and some 
on the ground that they had not been called upon to render 
fealty and homage, a duty which was, by the custom, a pre- 
requisite of the exaction. Many seigniors were exacting dues 
and services to which they were not entitled, and many habit- 
ants were refusing to render even their proper obligations. 
All this disorder served to produce a torrent of litigation 
which the inefficient judicial organization was utterly unable 
to stem with any approach to satisfaction. 

On his arrival in England, Carleton laid the question be- 
fore the authorities and recommended action. Immediate action 
upon a matter so important was not easy to secure ; neverthe- 
less the Board of Trade agreed to recommend to the king the 
expediency of giving permission for further grants en seigneurie 
in the colony.^ On June 27, 1771, the king in council issued 
instructions to the lieutenant-governor " revoking all His Maj- 
esty's former instructions for granting lands in the colony, and 
empowering the governor, with the advice of the council, to 
grant the lands which remain subject to His Majesty's disposal, 
in fief or seigniory, as hath been practised heretofore, ante- 

^ Report of the CottncQ for Trade to the King, April 24, 1770, in State Paper 
Office, Board of TratUf Canada^ vol. xyL 



204 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION'. 

cedent to the conquest of Canada ; omitting, however, in such 
grants, the reservation of the exercise of such judicial powers, 
as hath been long disused within the said province/' ^ 

The practical importance of these new instructions was not 
great. During the years intervening between 1771 and the 
outbreak of the Revolutionary War, there were numerous appli- 
cations for grants of land in the colony, but in very few cases 
were grants of seigniories desired ; almost invariably the appli- 
cants asked for concessions in free and common socage. The 
instructions are important mainly as showing that the British 
authorities had come to the determination, not only to preserve 
intact the seigniorial system of the French era, but to give 
opportunity for its further extension. Wise or unwise as the 
action of the British authorities on this occasion may be deemed, 
it was perhaps the only step possible in view of the development 
of afifairs since the conquest ; for never, perhaps, has any colony 
been placed in such a peculiar position with respect to the tra- 
ditions of its own past as was Canada after 1760. After the 
conquest many of the higher officials of administration and of 
justice took their departure, carrying with them the confidential 
archives, and thus leaving the colony with neither living nor 
dead depositaries of the colonial law; for the officials who 
stayed behind were not the most capable of preserving a cor- 
rect tradition of the legal spirit of the old regime.* New 
rulers and leaders arrived, not only ignorant of the tongue of 
those among whom they came to live, and strangers to existing 
laws, usages, and modes of thought and feeling, but bringing 
with them the opinions and maxims of a nation which was of 
all nations the least akin to France. The newcomers were, 
moreover, men who were not at all prepared to seize, or evea 
to try to grasp, the peculiarities of the juristic system which 
they sought to supersede, whether such had to do with the pre- 

^ Additional Instructions for Governor Carleton, June 27, 1771, in State Paper 
Office, Board of Trade^ Canada, vol. viu These instructions were received and en- 
tered on the records of the council at Quebec, June 30, 1772. They are printed in 
the Report on Canadian Archives for 1904, p. 228. 

^ This seems to be shown by subsequent events, despite the fact that, as Judge 
Baby has pointed out (^VExode des Classes Dirigeantes h la Cession du Canada^ 
Montreal, 1899), ^ '^^ considerable portion of the official class remained in Canada* 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION'. 20$ 

rogatives of the French crown, or with the confusion of execu- 
tive, legislative, and judicial functions which pervaded the whole 
French colonial system, or with the uncertain and purely com- 
mendatory character habitually attaching to its juridical acts, 
or with the vast and complex mass of rights of person and 
property subsisting under it. Under the French rule, for ex- 
ample, the governor and intendant had been wont to exercise 
a more than praetorian power in respect to land grants and the 
conditions of land tenure. We have the testimony of one of 
these officers that they could not, under the circumstances of the 
colony, follow the strict rules of the Custom of Paris, no matter 
how much they might be disposed to do so; for any strict 
adherence to it would have resulted in gross injustice in many 
individual cases. ^ 

The administration of the land laws under the old system 
was therefore exceedingly elastic. Though customary law is 
not by nature very flexible, in this case the possession by the 
intendant and council of wide discretionary powers had permit- 
ted elasticity in its application. Under the new government all 
this was changed. The executive authorities had now no judi- 
cial powers; the judiciary had no discretion but to follow the 
law wherever it could be discerned. It is no doubt true that in 
most cases the new English courts strove to discover the law 
and to follow it ; but by seeming analogies in English law they 
were too often misled to a misinterpretation of the ancient land 
laws of the province. 

Perhaps the most common as well as the most natural error 
made by the new courts in this particular lay in their attempt 
to apply to en censive lands the laws and customs relating to 
English tenure in copyhold. In England copyhold lands were 
governed largely, almost entirely, indeed, by the unwritten cus- 
toms of the various manors ; the copyholder's possession of his 
land was secure so long as he rendered the customary obligation 
to the lord of the manor. When, therefore, the colonial judges 
had to decide questions concerning en censive lands, they sought 
to discover the customs of the seigniory and to apply these to 
the cases in hand. The very term ^Uoutume** served to mis- 

^ See Raudot to Pontcbartrain, November lo, 1707, cited above, p. 124. 



206 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 

lead them. As a matter of fact, during the French period no 
stress had been laid on the custom of the seigniory except in a 
single particular, — namely, when land within a seigniory Was 
granted by the royal authorities because the seignior himself 
refused to concede at reasonable rates.^ The rights and respon- 
sibilities of seignior and habitant respectively, however, were 
regulated, not by any local seigpiiorial custom, but by the Cus- 
tom of Paris, which applied throughout the colony. 

This Custom of Paris, moreover, was not unwritten law, 
like the customary law of the English manors ; it was, like the 
other French coutumes, a written code, systematically drawn 
up and enacted by authority. In the language of jurispru- 
dence, it was statutory and not customary law. Although it 
was originally formed by the crystallization of a mass of cus- 
tomary rules, the perpetuation of the term " custom " rendered 
little service save to mislead. In a word, the English judges 
did not seem to grasp the fact that the Custom of Paris was 
a written code of law, subject to modification at any time by 
the authority possessing legislative power in France and in 
the colony. They persistently attached too much weight to 
"customary" rates and "customary" services, and too little 
both to the written contracts held by the habitants and to the 
written laws of the land.^ Again and again seigniors were 

^ See above, p. 89. 

^ Precedents had been set for the judges by the decisions of the military courts 
which were established during the period of military rule, 1 759-1 763. An example 
of the somewhat peculiar attitude taken by these courts is given in the case of Le 
Due vs. Hunaut, decided by the military court for the district of Montreal in 1762. 
By the deed of certain en censive lands in the seigniory of Isle Perrot, executed in 
1 718, the defendant Hunaut had been placed under obligation to pay the seignior 
Le Due ** one half minot of wheat and ten sob per year for each superficisl arpent ** 
within the grant Hunaut now appealed to the court against this exaction, on the 
ground that it was higher than the rate customary in the colony. The court decided 
that the rate stipulated in the deed must have been ** an error of the notary," and 
ordered that in future the seignior should exact only " the usual rate at which lands 
are granted in this colony, that b, one sol for each superficial arpent and one 
half minot of wheat for each arpent in front by twenty in depth "(Rosier of 
Arrkts of the Military Council of Montreal^ April 20, 1762). As has been shown in 
this study (above, ch. v), the court was quite in error in accepting any definite rate 
as " usual " throughout the colony. The habitant was entitled, after 1 711, to demand 
a grant at the rate customary in the neighborhood ; but if he chose to accept a 
grant at a higher rate the right of the seignior to exact such dues was incontestable. 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 20/ 

called upon to prove that they had in the past exacted certain 
dues and services from their habitants ; and having given this 
proof they received judgment compelling the habitants to con- 
tinue the payments. Throughout the French period there had 
been no dearth of cases in which the seignior enforced unwar- 
ranted exactions as the price of the habitant's general igno- 
rance: too often he repaid the confidence of his dependents 
by abusing his powers. When, however, any such case came 
to the notice of the authorities, a prompt end was made to the 
seigniorial abuse, and in most instances a penalty was imposed. 
To the French authorities a seigniorial claim, did not gain va- 
lidity through long assertion. The only sources of seigniorial 
privileges were the Custom of Paris, the deeds of concession 
embod)ring the contract made by the seignior with the origi- 
nal grantee, and the various edicts, ordinances, and decrees of 
the higher civil authorities. 

The provision which revived the old French law in all cases 
affecting the tenure of lands and the inheritance of real property 
did not, therefore, set the lands of the colony back under the old 
legal system, although this was most certainly what it had in- 
tended to do. It placed them rather under what the judges 
could discover to have been the customs and usages of the 
period before the conquest Such a situation was, naturally, 
very much more to the advantage of the seigniors than to that 
of the habitants.^ Prior to the conquest the habitants had had 
a double protection in the judicial power of the courts and the 
administrative jurisdiction of the intendant. Of the two the 
latter was by all means the more effective, and of it the habit- 
ants were now deprived. 

The three steps taken by the British authorities for the per- \'' 
petuation of the feudal system in Canada may at this point be 
recapitulated. They were the gfuaranteeing to all landholders of 

1 On this point the Report of the Commissioners of 1843 declared : ** However 
unfounded the pretension of the seignior might have been considered in the Court 
of the Intendant, he has in the Courts of later creation invariably been successful in 
all his contests with his tenants, with the exception of a single instance, which 
occurred in the Court of King's Bench at Montreal in 1828" ( Titles and Documents^ 
i. 66). This exception was the case of McCallum vs. Grey, King's Bench, April 18, 
X828. 



y 



208 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION^. 

their vested rights, the retention of the pid law in all cases 
relating to the tenure and inheritance of landed property, and 
the granting to the authorities of permission to continue the 
concession of seigniories! All three measures together did not, 
however, secure the maintenance of the old system intact : the 
framework was retained, but the spirit which characterized 
the system was gone. For this one can scarcely blame the 
British authorities either at home or in the colony, since they had 
endeavored to buttress the old tenure in so far as this could be 
done by official action. Nor should one overlook the difficulties 
which even the best of courts would have encountered under 
the peculiar circumstances ; for, even had the justices been dis- 
posed to study thoroughly the old system of law, — as they 
were not, — they would have found the task bewildering. The 
various sources of the law were difficult to get together, and 
when collected they presented little that was attractive to an 
English jurist The colonial ordinances and decrees were still 
in manuscript, unarranged, unindexed, to some extent incom- 
plete, and, above all, written in French, in a hand very hard to 
read. Since, then, the customs of the country were so much 
easier to discover than the law, it is not surprising that men 
trained in the common law of England should have sought 
the former as their rule of decision and neglected any serious 
attempt to ferret out the latter. During the dozen years inter- 
vening between the conquest and the compilation of the French 
law in 1772, the British officials and judges had thus, from the 
very nature of things, little accurate grasp of the old jurispru- 
dence. 

But to return to the mission of Carleton. The governor had 
proceeded to England in the autumn of 1770, with the intention 
of being absent about six months; but various circumstances 
combined to keep him there for four full years, the affairs 
of the colony being administered meantime by a lieutenant- 
governor, the Hon. H. T. Cramah6. Carleton, upon his arrival 
in England, lost no time in emphasizing to the ministry his desire 
for the full restoration of the old French civil law. At first the 
ministry was not willing to accede to this proposal, especially 
since tlie opinion of Mas&res had been recorded against it 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION^. 209 

Moreover, the question of legal reform in the colony had now 
become part of the larger question of political reform. The 
movement for an elective legislature was gaining force ; ^ and 
the ministry, naturally enough, concluded that the decision 
of the legal question should depend to some extent upon the 
disposition of the political 

The preliminary step to action was taken when the ministry 
requested the three chief law officers of the crown, — the 
attorney-general, the solicitor-general, and the advocate-general 
respectively, — to prepare reports upon Carleton's recommenda- 
tions. The reports of these three officials, presented during 
the years 1 772-1 773, were practically at one in recommending 
the reestablishment, substantially intact, of the whole of the old 
civil code.* There can be little doubt that these reports carried 
considerable weight with the ministry, and that they were in no 
small degree responsible for the legal provisions of the Quebec 
Bill, which was introduced into the British Parliament during 
the spring of 1774. 

By the terms of the Quebec Bill the criminal law of England 
was to be maintained in the colony ; but "in all cases relative to 
property and civil rights " resort was to be had to the old civil 
law through French modes of judicial procedure. Either sys- 
tem of law might be modified, however, by ordinances of the 
colonial government; and it was expressly provided that owners 
of land might bequeath their real property according to English 
rules of bequest, if they chose to do so. Other provisions of 
the bill ratified the guarantees made to Canadians by the 
capitulation of Montreal and the subsequent Treaty of Paris, 
and confirmed the Roman Catholic clergy in the enjoyment of 
their " accustomed rights and dues." 

^ The general history of this movement is traced in Christie, History of tht Late 
Province of Lower Canada^ vol. i, and in Kingsford, History of Canada^ vol. v. 

' The reports of Solicitor*General Wedderborn and of Advocate-General James 
Marriott dealt exhaustively with the whole legal situation in the colony. Wedderburn's 
report, presented December 6, 1772, is printed in Christie, History of the Late ProV' 
ince of Lower Canada^ L 27 ff., and in Doutre and Lareau, Histoire Generate du 
Droit Civil Canadien^ 643-658. Marriott's report, submitted on May 3, 1773, was 
published in the following year under the title A Plan of a Code of Laws for 
Quebec (London, 1774). An excellent summary of its contents is given in Doutre 
and Lareau, Histoire GeneraUt etc., 658-669. 



210 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION-. 

The debates in Parliament on the Quebec Bill developed 
considerable opposition to these provisions. One of the points 
emphasized was that, since the French civil code made no 
provision for jury trials, questions involving important interests, 
such as titles to land, would, under the new bill, be decided by a 
judge alone.^ Indeed, the French civil procedure in general 
did not commend itself to most Englishmen. Under that system 
the evidence in a case was taken at a court of inquiry at which 
no judge was present ; the record of the evidence and exhibits 
was then laid before the judge, who was addressed by the 
advocates of the opposing parties on the matters contained in 
it and on the points of law involved in the case. The judge 
did not come into contact with the witnesses. Now, while this 
procedure differed very decidedly from that followed in civil 
cases at English law, it did not differ so much from English 
actions at equity ; but this seems to have been overlooked by 
those who opposed the legal provisions of the bill in Parlia* 
ment. 

In due time, however, the Quebec Bill passed through 
Parliament and became law, going into operation on the first 
day of May, 1775.' In America, as well as in England, most 
of the provisions of the bill called forth criticism, the legal 
clause being among the number. Perhaps the most impor- 
tant of the criticisms offered was that of the framers of the 
Declaration of Independence, who enumerated among the 
arbitrary and injudicious acts of the home authorities that of 
"abolishing the free system of English law in a neighboring 
province." It may very well be doubted, however, whether any 
other course would have been expedient. The attempt to 
impose English law relating to civil rights upon the province 
had failed miserably, and the endeavor to retain parts of the 
two systems side by side had produced legal chaos of the worst 
sort. It is therefore not strange that the home authorities 
should have decided to adopt the third alternative, that of 
restoring the old system. On the assumption that Quebec 

1 Cayendish, Debates of the House of Commons iniheyear iyy4% on the BUI for . . . 
the Government of the Province of Quebec (ed. J. Wright, London, 1839). 

^ 14 George III, c. 83, printed in Houston, Constitutional Documents^ 90-96. 



BRITISH ADMimSTRATION. 2 1 1 

i¥ould for all time remain predominantly French in language, 
traits, and traditions, their decision was neither unnatural nor 
unreasonable. It certainly was not reached hastily, or without 
due consideration of objections from every quarter. 

Having seen the measure safely through Parliament, Carleton 
resumed his work as governor in Canada ; but before the changes 
in judicial organization necessitated by the act could be prop- 
erly made, he found his energies wholly taken up with the task 
of repelling an invasion of the colony by the forces of the revolt- 
ing seaboard settlements to the south. This threatened danger 
brought up an important question connected with the obligations 
imposed upon the seigniors and their dependents by the seign- 
iorial system. It had always been recognized, during the French 
period, that the governor might call upon the seigniors of the 
colony to enrol their habitants for military service in the inter- 
ests of the crown. No such stipulation, it is true, was ever in- 
serted in any of the title-deeds of grants within the colony ; ^ 
but the rights of the crown in this respect seem never to have ^ 
been questioned. It was now suggested to Carleton that he 
should issue a proclamation requiring the seigniors of the colony 
to enrol their dependents into companies, and to hold them at 
the disposal of those who commanded the small contingents of 
regular British troops in the colony. As the governor was ex- 
tremely anxious to increase the defensive strength of the colony 
to the utmost point, he readily accepted this suggestion, and on 
June 9, 1775, called upon the seigniors to muster their habitants 
to repel the invaders. He asked them to have the habitants 
provide themselves with arms, and to hold themselves in readi- 
ness to proceed.to designated centres of mobilization. 

Most of the seigniors, taking the view that the representative 
of the crown had a legal right to command their own service 
dnd that of their dependents, promptly conveyed the orders of 
the governor to their habitants ; but they met with very little 
favorable response, for in many cases the habitants took the 
ground that, with the cession of the colony, their obligation to 
do military service had passed out of existence. Some of the 
seigniors pointed out to them that refusal to serve would entail 

^ See above, p. 64. 



/ 



212 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 

the forfeiture of their lands, and that as soon as affairs were 
settled the courts of the province would be called upon to decree 
this forfeiture ; but the habitants gave little heed to these threats, 
and a few of the seigniors who attempted to bully their depend- 
ents into enrolment were very roughly handled. In some in- 
stances the governor sought to assist the seigniors by sending 
some regular officers into the seigniories ; but the habitants re- 
ceived them coldly and in some cases with open insolence. In 
one instance the women of the seigniory put the officers to flight 
with a well-aimed volley of rocks and other missiles.^ It ap- 

^ For a detailed account of the disorders which attended the attempts of some of 
the seigniors to enrol their habitants, see an interesting paper entitled " A Narrative 
of the tumultaous conduct of the freeholders of divers seigniories in the province of 
Quebec in the summer of the year 1775, in opposition to the endeavours used by 
their Seigniors to call them out to take arms against the American army, that had in- 
vaded the province : Shewing their aversion to being commanded by their Seigniors, 
and the little influence their Seigniors, and the other Noblesse of Canada, have over 
them." This paper, which was " written by a Gentleman very lately arrived from 
Quebec," is preserved by Mas^res in his AddiHomU Papers concerning the Province 
of Quebec (1776), 71 ff. 

A few extracts from this narrative may be interesting. It begins as follows : ** An 
opinion prevails in the Province of Quebec, (whether just or not I will not pretend 
to determine,) that the Seigniors owe military service to their Sovereign, by the 
tenure of their lands ; and that in the acts of Foi et Hommage^ or fealty and homage, 
they promise to perform the same to the Crown, when called upon : And that, by 
the same act, they also engage for the personal service of all their vassals, and other 
tenants, who hold their lands from them, either par foi et hommagey or par cens et 
rentes^ or (as it is often expressed) en Roture, It is universally believed, that the 
Seigniors have, by the Customs of Canada, (which are revived by the late Quebec 
act,) a legal right, to command the personal service of all the holders of land under 
them, whenever the Sovereign, or his Representative, calls upon them (the seigniors) 
for that purpose." It then proceeds to recount the experiences of various seigniors. 
M. La Come, seignior of Terrebonne, was told by his tenants '' that they were now 
become subjects of England, and did not look on themselves as Frenchmen in any 
respect whatever," and that consequently he had no right to enforce the obligations 
imposed by French law. When La Corne attempted to bully them, they mobbed him 
vigorously and compelled him to hurry back to Montreal ; when he threatened to 
return with soldiers and force them to their service, they resolved to arm themselves 
and to resist force with force. M. Deschambaud went over to his seigniory on the 
Richelieu and summoned his tenants to arms ; they listened patiently to what he 
had to say, and then peremptorily refused to accede to his demands. At this the 
seignior was foolish enough to draw his sword; whereupon the habitants gave both 
him and a few friends who accompamed him a severe thrashing and sent them off 
vowing vengeance. Fearing retaliation, the habitants then armed themselves, and to 
the number of several hundred prepared to attack any regular forces which might 



BRITISH ADMimSTRATION. 21 3 

pears that not more than a few hundred French militiamen were 
enrolled in all the seigniories ; and of these many were appar- 
ently induced to render their service through promises of a liberal 
bounty. 

The whole episode is interesting, not only because it shows 
the somewhat changed attitude of the habitant to the seigniorial 
system under the new government, but also because it seems to 
have been the last attempt on the part of the British authori- 
ties to enforce the seigniorial obligation of military service. 
Although the seigniorial system was still in existence during the 
war of 1812-1815, it does not appear that the enrolment of a 
feudal ban was even suggested to the authorities. The failure 
to enforce the obligation in 1775 seems to have ended its existence. 

Owing to the disturbances of the year 1775-1776, no steps were 
taken toward carrying out the terms of the Quebec Act till 
February, 1777, when a new system of civil courts for the 
administration of the revived French civil law was established. 
A little later a proclamation was issued requiring all holders of 
seigniories to render their fealty and homage to the representa- 
tive of the crown at Quebec.^ This step was deemed advis- 
able because, as there had been no general rendering of this 
obligation since the conquest, some of the seigniors were taking 
advantage of the fact to refuse payment of their dues to the 
crown. Since, however, the filing of aveux et cUnombrements 
had to accompany the performance of fealty and homage, and 
sitice the preparation of these files by the seigniors took time, 
the date fixed for the rendering of the allegiance was in 1778 
extended to the last day of 1779.^ 

be sent against them. Through the diacretioii of Governor Carleton, however, who 
hastened to send one of his officers to disavow the action of the seignior and to 
promise the habitants that if they returned quietly to their homes they should not be 
molested, they were persuaded to disperse. Mr. Cuthbert, an English gentleman, 
seignior of Berthier, tried in vain to secure a hearing from his tenants, who refused 
to assemble at his manor-house. They held a meeting of their own, however, and 
took oath among themselves that if any one of their number responded to the call 
" they would directly bum his house and his bam, and destroy his cattle." These 
and other examples serve to show that the habitants resisted in no uncertain way 
the attempts of the authorities to enforce the feudal obligation of military service. 

^ SUte Paper Office, Board of Trade, Canada, vol. xx, August 28, 1777. 

* Ibid, November 30, 1778, 



214 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION^. 

MeanwhUe Governor Carleton had left the colony and had 
been succeeded by Governor Haldimand. During the next dec- 
ade, little occurred in connection with the history and develop- 
ment of the seigniorial system that is worth recording. A 
number of the regular troops sent out to Canada during the 
American Revolution took up lands in the colony and became 
permanent settlers there ; but these received their grants in free 
and common socage. During the latter part of the war, and 
especially after the conclusion of the peace of 1783, large 
numbers of loyalists made their way from the seaboard States 
to Canada. Comparatively few of these, however, took up 
lands in the settled districts of Quebec, although some came 
into what are now the " Eastern Townships " ; the great ma- 
jority went either to the maritime provinces or to the western 
part of Canada, — to what now forms the province of Ontario. 
Haldimand was instructed to treat the loyalists generously in 
the matter of land grants, which in every case seem to have 
been made in free and common socage. Even among the 
French population of the colony there was a growing feeling 
in favor of the English freehold tenure ; petitioners for public 
lands almost invariably asked that the grants be given in this 
form. In the course of this research, not a single instance of 
a grant en seigneurie from the crown between 1775 and 1792 has 
come to light, though the colonial authorities possessed an un- 
doubted right to make such grants. On the other hand, there 
seems to have been a desire on the part of some seigniors to 
have their tenures converted into the new form. This feeling 
first manifested itself officially in a petition to the governor, in 
1788, from M. Charles de Lanaudi&re, a prominent seignior of 
the colony and a member of the council, who asked "that the 
tenure of his estates be converted from tenure in fief to tenure 
in free and common socage."* Lanaudiire's petition was 
promptly referred to a committee of the council, but no action 
was taken upon it 

In 1790, however, the governor ordered that a committee of 
the whole council should hear M. de Lanaudi^re on his petition, 
.and that it should, furthermore, " investigate and report a state- 

^ Minutes of the Coancil, August 25, 1790, Tides and Documents^ i. 25-26. 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 21 5 

inent of the comparative advantages of the tenure in free and 
common socage, and the present tenures of the province of a 
different description, with a view to the public interest, as well 
as that of the individuals holding under such tenures " ; that 
it " deliberate, and in case a conversion of the present tenures 
in fief or otherwise into socage tenure shall appear to be ad- 
visable," that it " report upon the most eligible mode of effecting 
the same, without prejudice to the rights of individuals and the 
general interest of the country. " The committee was also in- 
structed to obtain information regarding the seigniorial system 
from every accessible source, and, if it was deemed advisable, 
to call upon the law officers of the crown in the colony to assist 
in the investigation. 

Early in September, 1790, the committee began its inquiry 
by calling upon the surveyor-general for a table showing the 
number of seigniories granted, the total acreage of the same, 
and, so far as possible, the conditions on which the grant 
had been made in each instance. It then proceeded to draw 
up a series of legal questions, the decisions upon which seemed 
necessary to a proper understanding of the seigniorial system ; 
and these queries, eleven in number, it submitted to the attor- 
ney-general and the solicitor-general for a joint report.^ Through 

"L The quettions (which nwy be found in TUles and Documents^ i. 27 ff.) were at 
follows : — 

1. " Upon what tenures were the lands of this country granted by the French 
crown?" 

2. '' What kind of tenure was most prevalent, and what may be stated in probable 
conjecture for the proportion between them ? " 

3. ** What securities had the French crown by the law of the country, or the 
nature and tenor of the grants, to compd or promote the cultivation and improve- 
ment of the land granted ? " 

4. ** What were the legal burdens upon the grantee of the crown in reservations, 
conditions, rents, and services ; or what were the benefiti accruing to the French 
crown from the nature of the grant, founded in the usual reservations, or by the gen- 
eral laws of the country ?" 

5. ** What were the benefits which the grantee of the crown might draw from the 
Sttbfeudatory ; or what were the burdens, the acknowledgments, rents and services, 
to which the occupants under the royal grantee were liable from the nature of the 
concession or by the law of the country? " 

6. " Was the estate of the grantee of the crown subject to partition by marriage 
contract, testamentary disposition, or any other mode of alienation, voluntary or 



2l6 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION-. 

serious illness the attorney-general was prevented from assisting 
in answering the questions ; but early in October the solicitor- 
general, the Hon. J. Williams, presented the results of his in- 
vestigation.^ His answers were for the most part brief, and in 
general showed that only a cursory inquiry into the matter 
had been made by him. In one or two cases they were clearly 
misleading.^ On the whole, however, the report, considering 
the haste with which it was prepared, g^ve a good general out- 
line of the legal bases of the land-tenure system existent during 
the old regime. 

About the same time the council had requested M. de La- 
naudi^re himself to present answers to the same queries. Ac- 
cordingly, a week or two after the solicitor-general made his 
report, Lanaudi^re submitted his replies to the first seven of the 
eleven questions, his answers agreeing in the main with those 
given by the solicitor-general.* 

Having in these various ways possessed itself of information 
on the subject in hand, the council proceeded to adopt a series 
of resolutions embodying its views. After summarizing the in- 
judicial, and by inheritance in the lines direct or collateral ; or was any estate held 
impartible and unalienable, or in the nature of an English entail ? '* 

7. ** Were the subfeudatory farms of the concessions of the tenantry held under 
the royal grantees, devisable, descendible, alienable, and partible in the like manner 
without limitation?'' 

8. " Would a conversion of the French tenures into the tenure of free and com- 
mon socage be advantageous to the proprietor holding by grant of the French crown 
in fief, seigniory, or roture, discriminating its effects as to the parcels that are settled, 
or such as are still uncoaceded and uncultivated ; and what in particular appears to 
you to be the instances of advantage or disadvantage to result from such conver- 
sion ? " 

9. " Would such conversion of the tenure of estates or farms of the subfeuda- 
tories be beneficial or detrimental to them ; and in what respects as you apprehend, 
and for what reasons ? " 

la « How may the interests of the crown and public be affected by such conver* 
sion ; stating the points in which it may .operate to the loss or emolument of the 
royal revenue ? " 

II. ''By what mode may such conversion of tenure be accomplished ?" 

^ ** Report of the Solicitor-General to the Honorable Members of the Council," 
October 5, 1790, Titles and Documents^ i. 27-35. 

' For example, in declaring that the cens et rentes was uniform in amount. Cf. 
above, p. 92. 

« Titles and Documents, i. 35-39 (October 17, 1790). 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 21/ 

cidents of the seigniorial system under the French rule, it 
declared its opinion that " the feudal system . . . was among 
the main causes of that low condition in which Canada was 
found at the British conquest" Moreover, it affirmed that in 
all probability the continuance of the system would operate 
more detrimentally in the future than it had done in the past, 
since the population of the country now depended "for its 
increase upon the introduction of British settlers," who were 
"known to be all averse to any but English tenures." This 
being the case, it seemed to the council that the seigniors could 
hope to increase the number of their censitaires in future only 
by drawing upon the descendants of present censitaires ; and it 
expressed grave doubts whether even these would be found will- 
ing to take grants en censive^ when grants in free and common 
socage were to be had from the crown. Accordingly, the coun- 
cil resolved that it would be to the interest of all concerned if 
the tenure of lands held en seigneurie or en roture could be 
commuted into the tenure of free and common socage; but 
since "an absolute and universal commutation of the ancient 
tenures, though for a better, would be a measure of doubtful 
policy," it decided to recommend that legislation be had pro- 
viding for voluntary but not compulsory commutation. In 
accordance with this resolution, it submitted to the governor the 
draft of a bill providing that any seignior might surrender his 
lands to the crown and receive back the same in free and com- 
mon socage ; that any one who held lands en censive directly from 
the crown might do likewise ; and that one who held a grant en 
censive from a seignior might arrange with the seignior for a 
conversion of the tenure of his holding.^ 

From these resolutions one of the members of the council, 
Mr. Mabane, strongly dissented on several grounds. "It ap- 
pears," he declared vigorously, "that the slow progress of popu- 
lation and settlement under the government of France cannot 
be ascribed to any inherent vice in the several tenures under 
which lands are held in the colony; that it arose from the 
difficulties which the first settlers found in contending with the 
fierce and savage nations which surrounded them, from their 

1 Resolves of the Coancil, Titles and Documents^ i. 39^43. 



2l8 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION'. 

frequent wars with the British colonies, and above all, from 
their repeated expeditions in the upper countries and toward 
the Ohio, in which the ambitious policy of France had forced 
them to engage." As a proof that the present tenures were 
" not inimical to population and settlement of the colony/' Ma- 
bane pointed to the fact that the population of the colony- 
had doubled since the conquest. He showed, moreover, — and 
he was right in so doing, — that the council proposed to allow 
the seigniors to obtain full property in the imgranted lands of 
their seigniories, whereas by the provisions of various royal 
edicts they were merely trustees of these lands and were under 
obligation to grant them to applicants at the customary rates. 
The carrying out of the counciFs recommendations would, 
Mabane claimed, greatly enhance the value of the seigniories 
to their holders, and would at the same time deprive the people 
of the colony of vast areas of lands which the seigniors held in 
trust for them and for their descendants. " If the conversion 
of the seigniories into free and common socage should take 
place," he declared, "the children of the present inhabitants of 
the country and all others desirous to settle thereon would be 
left entirely subject to the arbitrary exactions of the seigniors, 
to their infinite prejudice and the manifest detriment of the 
country's improvement." In conclusion Mabane asserted that 
the great mass of the people were satisfied with conditions as 
they were; "that the services or burdens to which the censi- 
taires under concessions from seigniors" were subject were 
" few, clearly understood and ascertained, and ... by no means 
onerous or oppressive."^ 

The passing of these resolutions by a majority of the council 
seems to have had no tangible result whatever. The question 
was raised whether the power to carry out the recommendations 
was vested in the colonial authorities, or whether it would have 
to be sought from the home government; but the feeling in the 
country on the matter of obtaining commutation of tenures was 
not strong, and for many years after the recommendations of the 

^ ** Mr. Mabane's Reasons of Dissent from the Resolutions and Motion of the 
Chief Justice adopted by the Committee [of the Whole Council]," Tities and Dccu- 
trunis, i. 43-44« 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 219 

council were made the whole subject seems to have been left in 
abeyance. Other important questions, such, for example, as 
the obtaining and inaugurating of a system of representative 
government, engaged the minds and attention of the legis- 
lators. 

Meanwhile, although the colonial authorities in Lower Canada 
stood ready to grant lands en seigneurie whenever application 
for such a cession was made, there seems to have been no 
grants under this form of tenure.^ From time to time peti- 
tions were received from seigniors asking for the commutation 
of the tenures under which they held their lands, but in no case 
were the authorities bestirred to any action other than the mere 
acknowledgment of the petitions. 

During these years the land laws of the province were 
administered, so far as possible, as they were during the 
French period ; but although the judges sought to discover and 
enforce the legal rights of seigniors and censitaires respectively, 
they encountered many difficulties in their application of the; 
law. During the old regime, for example, the intendant had 
been endowed with wide discretionary powers, extending, as 
has been shown, even to the setting aside of seigniorial claims 
which, however well-founded at law, seemed to him unreason- 
able in exaction.* He had administrative as well as judicial 
powers : he could not only order a seignior to concede por- 
tions of his ungranted lands to a settler, but in the event of 
the seignior's refusal he and the governor might make the 
grant and convey a valid title by their own authority.' Now, 
by the Judicature Act of 1793, the court of King's Bench 
in Lower Canada was invested with "full power and jurisdic- 
tion to hear and determine all plaints, suits, and demands of 
what nature soever which might have been heard and deter- 
mined in the courts of the Pr^vdt^, Justice Royale, Intendant, 
or Superior Council under the government of the province, 
prior to the year 1759, touching rights, remedies, and actions 
of a civil nature." * From the wording of the statute it would 
appear that the administrative as well as the judicial au- 

^ See Dunkin, Address at the Bar^ etc., Appendix. 

* See above, p. 205. • Above, p. 89. * 34 George III, c. 6. 



220 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 

thority of the intendant had been inherited by the new court. 
In several important cases the court held that the provi- 
sions of the arrets of 171 1 and 1732 were still in force in 
the colony, and, in consequence, that a seignior was under 
obligation to make grants of land at the rates customary in 
the neighborhood ; ^ but in no case did it assume to follow 
up this opinion by making such a grant when the seignior 
refused to do so.^ In other words, in declining to apply 
the old remedy, it deprived of its former effectiveness the 
important rule of law in regard to compulsory subinfeuda- 
tion. 

In a number of other matters, also, the protection of the 
habitants against their seigniors was far less effective than 
it had been under the old dispensation. The old court of the 
intendant exacted no fees whatever for services ; its interven- 
tion could be had by the poorest habitant. Under the new judi- 
cial organization, litigation was very much more expensive; 
and, although the habitant might in theory still claim the 
protection of the courts against illegal seigpiiorial exactions, 
he was in most cases debarred from doing so by his com- 
parative poverty. This point is very plainly made in a re- 
port which the attorney-general submitted to the governor 
in 1794. In that year some of the habitants of the seign- 
iory of Longueuil petitioned the governor for relief against 
" an arbitrary increase of rents " claimed from them by their 
seigniors "in open defiance of the ancient ordinances of the 
kings of France. " The governor referred the matter to the 
attorney-general, who reported that, while the right of the 
habitants to refuse payment of the increased rentals and dues 
was perfectly clear, nevertheless the expense to which 
they had to go in order to make this right effective put them 
almost entirely at the mercy of their seigniors.* The situation 

^ See, for example, Langlois vs. Martel, 2 Lower Canada Reports^ 51. 

^ Meredith, Observations^ 113. 

* " They [the habitants] are able to institute and carry on their suits to judgment 
in the common pleas ; equal perhaps to meet the costs of the court of appeals ; but 
the enormous expense attending an appeal to His Majesty in council, to which the 
seignior is entitled, as his rights in future may be bound by the decision, deprives 
them of the possibility of obtaining justice, and compels them to abandon their rights, 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 221 

was one which in practice operated very much to the advan- 
tage of the seigniors, and the result was apparent in the very 
considerable rise in the rate of dues exacted in many of the 
seigniories. ^ 

Since 1791 the question had become a matter of concern to 
Lower Canada only ; for by the Constitutional Act of that year 
the colony had been divided into two provinces, and in Upper 
Canada provision had been made for the establishment of 
both the civil and the criminal law of England.^ In the 
upper province, lands were to be granted in free and com- 
mon socage only; in Lower Canada they were to be given 
under this form of tenure whenever the applicant so desired, 
but the right of the royal representatives to grant lands en seign- 
eurie in other cases was in no wise abridged.^ 

During the fifteen years following the passing of the Consti- 
tutional Act, no definite steps appear to have been taken by the 
authorities in the direction of commuting the tenure of lands 
held under the old system. It seems to have been the feeling 
that legislation would have to be sought from the British Parlia- 
ment before the matter could be properly dealt with ; but this 
point was not regarded as settled. Consequently, toward the 
close of 1 8 16, when the affairs of the province so long disturbed 
by war had become settled, the home authorities were asked for 
their opinion as to whether the colonial government could, of its 
own powers, accept the surrender of lands held en seigneurie 
for the purpose of regranting them in free and common socage. 

On receiving this request, Earl Bathurst, who was then in 
charge of the colonial office, desired the opinion of the law 
officers of the crown on the matter. This opinion he promptly 
received, and forthwith transmitted a copy to Quebec. The 
crown officers, after reviewing the various enactments relating 
to the tenure of lands in the colony, expressed the opinion that 
there did " not seem to be any objection to His Majesty's ac- 

and throw themselves upon the mercy of their antagonist, who compromises the action, 
and grants a new deed of concession upon his own terms " (Report of the Attorney- 
General, Febmary 27, 1794, Titles and Documents^ i. 93-95). 

^ 31 George III, c. 31. This act may be conveniently found in Houston's Con- 
sHiuHonai DocumtniSf 1 12-133. 

^IHd. §xliiL 



222 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 

cepting a surrender of lands holden en seigneurie and regp'antmg^ 
them in free and common socage/' and hence that no special 
legislation on the point by either the home or the provincial 
parliament would be necessary. They believed, however, that; 
if commutation were to be made compulsory, appropriate leg^ 
islation to this end must be obtained.^ 

The colonial authorities expressed their satisfaction with this 
opinion, but at once raised another question of a somewhat 
different nature. It seems that in 1794 Lord Dorchester had 
assured the colonial legislature that the proceeds of the droit €le 
quint^ which accrued to the crown from the seigniories, should 
be used toward defraying the civil expenses of the colony. The 
question which now presented itself was whether, in the event 
of permitting the seigniors voluntarily to obtain commutation, 
this right would not be lost, and whether, therefore, the crown 
would not, by the use of its prerogative, have broken its pledge 
to the legislature. Since the permitting of voluntary commuta- 
tion would reduce the revenues of the colony, ought not the 
consent of the colonial legislature to the proposed action to be 
asked?* To this question the home government, which was 
again consulted, returned answer " that to take from them [the 
legislature] this source of revenue without their assent, or with- 
out an equivalent, would be an infringement of what they might 
fairly consider a pledge or assurance on the part of the crown. "^ 
Consequently the colonial authorities were advised that it would 
not be expedient, without securing legislation from the provincial 
parliament, to make any attempt in the direction of chang^g^ 
the tenure of lands.^ 

One other question, though not so important, is of interest as 
showing the difficulties in the way of effecting a commutation of 

^ Batharst to Sherbrooke, February 6, 181 7, Correspondence between the Colonial 
Office and the Governors of Canada relative to the Seigniorial and Feudal Tenure 
(1853), 18-20. The opinion which accompanies Bathurst's despatch is dated Jan- 
nary 22, 181 7, and is signed by the Hon. W. Caron, attorney-general, and the Hon. J. 
Shepherd, solicitor-generaL 

' Sherbrooke to Bathurst, May 20, 18x7, J^d, 21. 

* Bathurst to Sherbrooke, August 31, 181 7, Ibid, 21-23. '^'^ despatch is accom- 
panied by an opinion on the question, dated August I, 1 81 7, addressed to Earl 
Bathurst and signed by ** Messrs. S. Shepherd and R. Gifford, His Majesty's law 
officers." 



BRITISH ADMINISTRATION. 223 

tenure even when both the seignior and the authorities were in 
favor of it. By the provisions of the Constitutional Act of 1791, 
one-seventh of the ungranted lands of the colony were to be re- 
served for the support of a Protestant clergy.^ The point was 
now made that, if a seignior surrendered his lands to the crown, 
he could receive back only six-sevenths of them in free and 
common socage ; for, by the very fact of surrender, he would put 
his property in the category of " ungranted lands," of which 
one-seventh must be reserved by the crown.* 

In view of the difficulties in dealing with the matter, it was 
thought best by the governor and council to ask the British 
Parliament to pass an act affording facilities for voluntary 
commutation, by making provision for replacing the quints 
which would be lost to the colonial treasury thereby, and for 
obviating the necessity of holding " clergy reserves " out of any 
part of the regranted lands. This request was acceded to by 
the British authorities, and in 1822 provisions along the lines 
desired were incorporated in a bill dealing with Canadian affairs. 
The bill was passed without difficulty, and went on the statute 
books as "An Act to regulate the Trade of the Province of 
Lower and Upper Canada, and for other purposes relating to 
the said Provinces."* /this enactment, which is commonly )/ 
known as the Canada v^^d^ Act, contained two important^ 
sections embodying the first legislative step toward the abo- 
lition of the feudal system in Canada.^ 

^ 31 George III, c. 31, $ xxxri. ' Cf. below, p. 224. 

* 3 George IV, c. 119. The fections of this act relating to the commatation of 
land tennre are printed in Edicts, Ordinances, DcclaraHons, and Decrees relative to 
the Seigniorial Tenure (Quebec, 1852), 290-291. 

* Sections zzzi-xxxii. 



CHAPTER XIL 

ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

It was the design of the Canada Trade Act of 1822 to make 
^ possible the voluntary commutation of the tenui^e of lands held 
( en seigneurie?^ After reciting the fact that doubts had arisen 
whether the tenure of lands held " in fief and seigniory " could 
legally be changed, the act provided ; " If any person or per- 
sons holding any lands in the said province ... of Lower Can- 
ada ... in fief and seigniory, and having legal power and 
authority to alienate the same, shall at any time from and after 
the commencement of this act, surrender the same into the 
hands of His Majesty . . . and shall by petition ... set forth 
that he ... is desirous of holding the same in free and com- 
mon socage, [the governor of the said province] . . . shall 
cause a fresh grant to be made to such person or persons of 
such lands to be holden in free and common socage, . . . sub- 
ject nevertheless to payment ... of such sum or sums of 
money as and for a commutation for the . . . dues which 
would have been payable to His Majesty under the original 
tenures." It further provided that no " clergy reserves " should 
be retained out of the lands whose tenure was commuted in this 
way, and made provision for a like commutation of tenure in 
the case of lands held en censive in the seigniories owned by 
the crown.^ 

The provisions of this act effected very little. It offered 
facilities for the commutation of the tenure of seigniories, and 
of that comparatively small category of en censive holdings 
comprised within seigniories belonging to the crown; but it 
made no provision for the commutation of the tenure of lands 
held en censive within the other seigniories, although the per- 

1 3 George IV, c. 119, §§ xxxi-xxxii. 
224 



ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 22$ 

sons who desired a change of tenure were the habitants rather 
than the seigniors. 

Three years later an attempt was made to remedy this defect 
in the act. In 1825 the British Parliament passed the Canada 
Trade and Tenures Act,* designed partly to readjust the trade 
relations of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, 
and partly to supplement the previous land-tenure legislation 
of the latter province. The act of 1825 reenacted the provi- 
sions of the act of 1822, and went on to provide that, when a 
seig^or obtained a commutation of the tenure of his seigniory, 
he should be bound to afford his habitants an opportunity to 
secure a like commutation of their holdings. It also made pro- 
vision that any seignior who had effected a commutation of his 
dues with the crown should be bound, "when thereunto re- 
quired " by any of his censitaires or by any persons who held 
d Hire de fief^ en arriire-fief^ or i Hire de cens, to consent to 
grant to such censitaires "a commutation, release, and extin- 
guishment of and from the droit de quint ... or droit de lods 
£t veNtes*' as the case might be, and from "all other feudaf 
and seigniorial rights and burdens " to which such censitaires 
and their lands might be "subject or liable, to such seignior 
... for a just and reasonable price . . . , which price," con- 
tinues the act, "in case the parties concerned therein shall 
differ respecting the same, shall be ascertained and fixed by 
experts, to be in that behalf nominated and appointed accord- 
ing to the due course of law in the said province."* Instruc- 
tions were sent to the governor-general that the commutation 
of the tenure of seigniories should be effected on a basis of five 
per cent of the value of the seigniory, a rate purposely made 
low "as an inducement to the seig^ors to carry into effect a 
change of tenure from which considerable public advantage" 
might be anticipated.' 

^ *' An Act to provide for the Extinction of Feudal and Seigniorial Rights and 
Durd* ns on Lands held a Htrt defiefzxA h Hire de cens, in the Province of Lower 
Canada ; and for the gradual Conversion of those Tenures into the Tennre of 
Free and Common Socage; and for other purposes relating to the said Province" 
(6 George IV, c. 59). 

* Sectl>n iii. 

' Bathurst to Dalhousie, August 31, 1825, Correspondence between the Colonial 



226 ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

On the receipt of these instructions, the governor-general 
issued a proclamation stating the main provisions of the Trade 
and Tenures Act, and asserting that seigpiiors might take ad- 
vantage of these provisions on very liberal terms.^ Apparently, 
however, the proclamation met with little response; for on 
June 19 of the same year (1826) the governor reported to the 
British authorities that, while there were before him some f ew 
applications for the commutation of the tenure " of houses and 
lots in Quebec city," it would "probably be a considerable 
time" before the proprietors of seigniories would "come for- 
ward to avail themselves of the benefits of the measure." They 
were, he went on to declare, afraid to ask to have their tenures 
altered lest the habitants should also take advantage of the pro- 
visions of the act and demand a commutation of their dues to 
the seigniors on the same low basis. The seigniors, he said, 
were not at all averse to commuting their own dues to the 
crown on a five per cent basis, but they were not willing to give 
their habitants any such favorable terms; still, if the crown 
treated them generously in the interest of the " public advan- 
tage," they could scarcely hope to avoid giving somewhat 
generous terms to their habitants in turn. Furthermore, in 
arranging a commutation with the crown, the seignior would 
be obliged to have his seigniory valued, and it would of course 
be to his interest to have it appraised at as low a figure as pos- 
sible ; when it came to commuting the dues of lands held by his 
habitants, however, it would be to his interest to claim for his 
seigniory as high a value as possible. This conflict of interests, 
concluded the governor, served to deter the seigniors from 
seeking the benefits afforded by the act* 

Another flaw in the Trade and Tenures Act lay in the fact 
that the five per cent commutation rule was to be applied to all 
seigniorial lands, whether rural or urban. Considerable portions 
of some of the seigniories were now comprised within the 
municipalities of Quebec, Montreal, and Three Rivers; and 

Office andtki Governors of Canada relative to the Seigniorial and Feudal Tenure 
(1853), 24-25. 

1 Quebec Official Gautte^ April 20, 1826, p. 380. 

' Dftlhousie to Bathurst, Jane 19, 1826, Correspondence between the Colonial Office 
and the Governors of Cancuia, etc, 25-26^ 



ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 22/ 

as these lands naturally changed hands more often than rural 
holdings, the mutation fines payable to the crown accrued more 
frequently. To place these lands on the same basis as rural prop- 
erty was obviously unfair to the holders of the latter ; accord- 
ingly, Governor Dalhousie promptly pointed out to the home 
authorities that a distinction should be made between the two 
classes of lands.^ In response, instructions were given that a 
double rate — ten per cent on the g^oss value of the lots — 
should be exacted in commuting the dues of lands lying within 
the limits of municipalities.^ 

In the same year Dalhousie received further orders that, 
since the act of 1825 "contemplated the entire extinction of 
the feudal tenure in Lower Canada," all future grants within 
the limits of seigniories owned by the crown were to be made in 
free and common socage and not en censive. He was asked, 
however, to make such reservations of timber, minerals, etc., as 
had usually been made in the old grants.^ While the wording 
of these instructions did not preclude the colonial authorities 
from making en censive grants out of the waste lands of the 
province not comprised within the crown seigniories, the spirit 
of them, especially as shown by the statement that the colonial 
office wished to see the complete extinction of feudal tenures in 
Lower Canada, seemed to dictate that waste lands should be 
given out only in free and common socage. A few years later 
(1830) the governor-general, Lord Aylmer, asked for definite 
instructions on this point 

In his communication he laid stress on the fact that the policy 
of refusing to grant waste lands en seigneurie or en censive 
would be unfair to the great mass of the population. "I 
would here take leave to remark," he wrote, "that the great 
majority of the inhabitants of Lower Canada hold their lands 
under the seigniorial tenure, to which they are much attached ; 
and that, in denying them the power of acquiring crown lands 
under that tenure, they are virtually excluded from the market 
when crown lands are put up for sale. Nothing can more fully 

1 Dftlhousie to Bathurst, June 19, 1826, Correspondencif eta, 27. 
' Bathurst to Dalhousie, August 31, 1826, Ibid, 
» October 30, 1826, IHd, 28. 






228 ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

establish the fact of the predilection to which I allude than 
the extremely rare occurrence of instances of French Cana- 
dians applying for a commutation of tenure from the seigniorial 
to the tenure of free and common socage. Upon the whole 
question I have been given to understand that the granting of 
the power to acquire crown lands on the seigniorial tenure would 
be considered a very gracious proceeding towards the Canadians 
of French extraction." Lord Aylmer therefore asked that, if 
possible, instructions might be given him making clear his 
authority, despite the prior orders of 1826, to give purchasers 
of waste crown lands the option of receiving their titles under 
either the old or the new form of tenure.* 

To this request the authorities of the colonial office made 
reply that, since the intention of the Trade and Tenures Act 
of 1825 was clearly to provide for the gradual extinction of 
the old system, they could not properly instruct His Majesty's 
representative in Canada to take any course which would 
assist in the perpetuation and extension of it Since Parlia- 
ment had passed the act of 1825, Parliament alone, they said, 
could give the authority which Lord Aylmer desired, either by 
repealing the act in question or by passing an amending act 
In the same communication the authorities expressed a desire 
that a further attempt should be made to reconcile the people to 
the new tenure. " If the mind of the people," wrote Lord 
Goderich, '' can be reconciled to the change, a very considerable 
object will be gained, because the lands of the province will 
thus be delivered from the absurd and injurious incidents of the 
feudal tenure." ^ 

' Matters, therefore, remained as they were. Meantime peti- 
tions addressed to Parliament began to come to the governor- 
general from various quarters, praying that those provisions of 
the Trade and Tenures Act which related to the commutation 
of the tenure of lands might be repealed. The most important 
of these petitions was one from the House of Assembly of 
the province, based upon certain resolutions passed by that 



^ Aylmer to Murray, December 19, 1830, Correspondence^ etc., 28-29. 
■ Goderich to Aylmer, March 13, 1831, IHd, 29-30. 



ABOLITION' OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 229 

body in the latter part of March, 1831. After a full discussion 
of the matter in committee of the whole, the assembly had 
unanimously adopted the following resolutions : — 

" That the introduction of English law into certain parts of 
this province by the act 6 George IV, c. 59, has introduced the 
greatest confusion into all parts of the province by destroying 
acknowledged rights and by affording facilities for fraud and 
oppression. 

'' That the law of England as introduced in certain parts of 
this province ... is opposed to the feelings of the inhabit- 
ants, incompatible with their education and habits of life, 
and has been forced upon them contrary to their rights, in- 
terests, and desires. 

"That the said law ought to be repealed." ^ 

These resolutions, embodied in a petition, the governor-gen- 
eral sent to the home authorities in the course of the following 
month. In transmitting them he drew attention to the fact that 
the upper and lower houses of the colonial legislature enter- 
tained very different views regarding the act in question, and 
suggested that the appointment of a commission from England 
to study matters on the spot might be found advisable.^ Before 
this communication reached England, however. Parliament had 
passed an act amending the statute of 1825 in its objectionable 
provisions. This new enactment, entitled " An Act to explain 
and amend the Laws relating to Lands holden in Free and 
Common Socage in the Province of Lower Canada, and for 
other purposes therein mentioned, " gave the provincial legisla- 
ture permission to make such laws in relation to the mode of 
descent, alienation, and tenure of socage lands as might seem 
desurable.* It was hoped, apparently, that, if the incidents of 
socage tenure were somewhat altered, the people would be 
reconciled to the general change in tenure. 

When the provincial legislature again met in December, 
183 1, the lower house proceeded to action as if the imperial 

1 Lower Canada, Assembly Journals^ March 24, 1831. 
' Aylmer to Goderich, April 7, 1831, Correspondence^ etc., 3a 
* I & 2 William IV, c. 2a This act was passed on March 30, 1 83 1, and was 
officially promulgated in the Quebec GautU of September 22 following. 



230 ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

act of the preceding March had given the colonial authorities 
a virtual right to repeal obnoxious provisions in the act of 1825. 
It introduced a series of resolutions setting forth the claim 
that the Trade and Tenures Act was in violation of the guar- 
antees given in the Articles of Capitulation of 1760, the Treaty 
of Paris of 1763, the Quebec Act of 1774, and the Constitu- 
tional Act of 1 79 1, in all of which the inhabitants had been 
assured of " a right to grants of sufficient portions of wild lands 
held from the crown i titre defief^ subject to the customary 
dues, and on conditions of cultivation and residence." The 
effect of the act of 1825, asserted the assembly, had been to 
deprive the people of this right by " vesting the said lands in 
the seignior, to dispose of them on such terms and conditions " 
as he might think fit, and at the same time by subjecting 
those who might settle thereon to laws with which the great 
majority of the people of the province were unacquainted, and 
which were "utterly unsuitable to their circums^nces, and 
repugnant to their feeling and usages." The provisions of the 
law of 1825 were, it concluded, "contrary to the established 
rights of the inhabitants of the province, to the extension of 
settlement, and to the general prosperity." ^ ' 

These resolutions were adopted with little or no dissent, and 
a bill was forthwith introduced providing for the repeal of those 
clauses in the act of 1825 which had " provided for the commu- 
tation of lands held ii titre de fief and i titre de cens to be held in 
free and common socage subject to the laws of England." 
During the month of January, 1832, this bill had its three read- 
ings in the lower house, and on February i was sent to the 
upper house or Legislative Council.^ This body, however, 
promptly refused concurrence, ostensibly on the ground that it 
was not within the power of the provincial legislature to repeal 
the provisions of the imperial act in question, but only to vary 
the incidents of the tenure which the act sought to establish.* 

1 Lower Canada, Assembly Journals^ January 28, 1832. 

^ The legislature of Lower Canada was at this time composed of two houses, — 
an upper house, or Legislative Council, the members of which were nominated by 
the crown, and a lower house, or Legislative Assembly, the members of which were 
elected by the people. 

« Lower Canada, Council Journals^ February 12, 1832. 



ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 23 1 

Baf&ed in this direction, the assembly turned to the governor- 
general with " an humble address " praying that, until such time 
as the repeal of the provisions in question could be secured, 
commutation of the tenure of seigniories should be granted only 
with a reservation protecting the inhabitants in their '' ancient 
right to demand from the seigniors concessions of land at the 
accustomed rates and dues." The address asked further that 
the same reservation be made in all socage grants given out of 
the waste crown lands of the province.^ The governor expressed 
his regret that the shortness of the time intervening before the 
end of the session prevented his bestowing upon the subject the 
attention necessary to a decision, but promised to give it " care- 
ful consideration before the next session.*' ^ When the assem- 
bly reconvened, however, its request was firmly negatived by the 
chief executive, who informed the members rather curtly that, 
in every instance in which he might be called upon to give effect 
to the Canada Tenures Act, he would not fail " to require the 
complete fulfilment of the law."^ The law, it may be said, re- 
quired the commutation into socage tenure to be made without 
any reservation whatsoever. 

Here the whole matter rested during the three ensuing years, 
the assembly contenting itself , meantime, with requesting returns 
showing the number of applications for commutation whether 
by seigniors, holders of sub-fiefs, or habitants, and giving a list 
of all '' oppositions, remonstrances, or memorials which may have 
been presented." * These returns, which were duly forthcoming 
in the spring of 1833,^ disclose the fact that very few serious 
applications for the commutation of the tenure of seigniories 
under the provisions of the act of 1825 had been received, and 
that down to the date on which the returns were presented a 
commutation of tenure had been effected in two cases only.* . 

In the early part of 1834, however, the assembly adopted the 

^ Lower Canada, Assembly Journals^ February 16, 1832. 

* IHd, February 25, 1832. * Ibid, December 7, 1831. 

* Ibid, November 24, 1832. 

* Ibid. March 22, 1833. 

* These were the seigniories of Ste. Anne de la Perade and Beauharnois, the tenures 
of which were commuted on December 28, 1830, and March 10, 1833, respectively. 
See Ibid. 1832-1833, Appendix. 



232 ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

famous Papineau Resolutions, ninety-two in number, which 
made a violent remonstrance against the policy of the executive 
authorities in general.^ Seven of these resolutions were devoted 
to a condemnation of the existing policy in relation to land ten- 
ure.^ In one of them the assembly laid down its future course 
of action by declaring : '' It is the duty of this house to persist 
in asking for the repeal of the Canada Tenures Act, and until 
such repeal shall have been effected, to propose to the other 
branch of the provincial parliament such measures as may be 
adapted to weaken the pernicious effects of the said act."^ No 
action appears to have been taken along this line during the 
session of 1835 ; but in the following year the assembly re- 
adopted its resolutions of four years previously,* and passed a bill 
similar to that which had been thrown out by the Legislative 
Council in 1832.^ 

There was no expectation on the part of members of the. as- 
sembly that the council would pass this bill, nor did it do so. 
The governor-general, however, was very anxious that some 
compromise should be effected, and to this end had his law 
officers make a report to him on such a possibility. This report 
emphasized the crux of the whole difficulty very well indeed. 
"There is," it ran, "every reason to hope that, whenever a 
better understanding may be established between the assembly 
and the council, there wUl be no objection on the part of the 
former to pass some measure for the gradual discharge of lands 
from feudal duties and services, if not in a manner obligatory 
on the seigniors, at least by voluntary agreement ; and whenever 
such measure may be passed, we have no hesitation in declaring 
that, in our opinion, the Tenures Act of 1825 should be repealed, 
of course making it a condition of the repeal that all tities and 
advantages acquired under either of the acts are to be held 
valid." « 

This report was undoubtedly right in declaring that the main 
difficulty in the way of a proper settlement of the whole ques- 

^ These resolutions are printed in Kingsford, History of Canada^ ix. 544-554. 

* Resolutions 56-62. ' Resolution 62. 

^ January 28, 1832. See above, p. 229. * Assembly Journah^ March i, 1836. 

* Report of the Commissioners, 1836, ch. ii { 3iz. 



ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 233 

tion of tenures lay in the antagonism between the two houses 
of the legislature, or rather, perhaps, in the antagonism of the 
lower house to both the upper house and the governor. It is 
not necessary here to detail the course of events that placed 
these different organs of government in a state of hostility which 
clogged the wheels of administration in such a way that it took 
an armed conflict to set them free. There were, of course, 
causes of difference even more important than the question of 
land-tenure laws. The root of the whole difficulty lay in the 
desire of the assembly to control the executive and to have the 
membership of the council made elective and not appointive. 
Deeper still, however, the conflict was between the French- 
speaking majority of the provincial population, which absolutely 
controlled the assembly, and the English-speaking minority, 
which just as absolutely controlled the governor, the governor's 
council, and the Legislative Council, or upper house of the 
legislature.^ It was, as Lord Durham afterwards remarked, a 
case of *' two nations warring in the bosom of a single state," a 
conflict not of principles but of races.* 

Since the British conquest many of the seigniories had passed 
from French into English hands. English settlers with means 
came to the colony and bought out seigniories, and English 
merchants of Quebec and Montreal frequently did the same. The 
new seigniors were often hard masters, enforcing the seigniorial 
dues and services to the letter, and calling freely — and usually 
with success — upon the courts for assistance in this direction. 
They looked upon their seigniories as means of profit, whereas 
the seigniors of the old regime had been forced to regard them- 
selves merely as royal agents for the upbuilding of the colony, 
as trustees of lands held for the use of future settlers and for 
the sons of the people. The habitant therefore disliked his new 
master, and desired that he should have no such favor before 
the law as the right to obtain, for a small sum, absolute property 
in the seigniory. 

1 For a dtscussion of the course of events during this decade of political conflict, 
see Kingsford, History of Canada, vol. viii ; Christie, History of Lower Canada^ vols, 
iii-iv ; Bradshaw, Self-Govtmrnent in Canada, chs. iir-iv. 

* Sec below, p. 237. 



234 ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

The church, too, disliked the incoming of the English seign- 
iors ; for most of them were Protestants, and hence not only paid 
no tithes themselves, but were ready to subgrant lands to Prot- 
estant settlers, who also would pay none. By this freedom 
from the tithe and from the necessity of observing the holy 
days of the church, the Protestant settler had a great economic 
advantage in the country ; and by working his land more intelli- 
gently than his Catholic and French neighbor he became so much 
more prosperous that the habitant was jealous of him and fre- 
quently tried to drive him away by petty persecution and boy- 
cott. The new English settler, moreover, turned his attention 
to the growing of new products, notably hemp, and in this 
policy the authorities encouraged him; but as hemp paid no 
tithe the church promptly frowned upon its cultivation by the 
habitant, despite the fact that it could be made to yield a good 
profit. 

Another class of men who opposed any interference with the 
old order of things were the notaries. Under the seigniorial 
system there had been no regular registration of deeds and 
titles ; every transaction relating to land had to be made before 
a notary, who recorded the sale or mortgage, as the case might 
be, and gave copies of the record to the parties concerned. 
Since this system brought the notaries both prestige and profit, 
it was only natural that the new policy, which greatly simplified 
the making of transactions relating to real property, should be 
opposed by this class of men ; and, as the notaries were numer- 
ous and influential, their opposition of course carried g^eat 
weight with the people, especially since they insisted that the 
new law was all in the seignior's favojf. One or two instances 
of their antagonism are conspicuous. It happened, for example, 
that in the same year in which the Canada Tenures Act was 
passed (1825) a charter had been given to the British American 
Land Company, an organization of English capitalists formed 
for the purpose of taking up large blocks of waste crown lands 
and settling them with immigrants from England.^ Taking ad- 
vantage of the coincidence of date, the notaries throughout the 
province hastened to suggest that both act and charter were 

1 British Parliamentary Papers, Papers relating to Lands in Canada (1837). 



ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 235 

parts of a joint scheme for the entire anglicizing of Lower 
Canada. Again they took up as a substantial grievance the 
commutation of tenures, although in reality the policy had 
been pursued to very slight extent ; and by flaunting it as an 
issue before the people many of them obtained seats in the 
assembly.* 

Finally, the habitants were as a class showing signs of rest- 
lessness and discontent during the earlier thirties. Under the 
influence of the French law of succession, their domains had 
been divided and subdivided until a holding, in the peculiar 
shape which it retained, would scarcely have sufficed to support 
a family even had the habitant adopted up-to-date methods of 
cultivation. This he did not do: his methods were for the 
most part those of his great-grandfather of the old French 
epoch. Fertilization of the land was rare ; systematic rotation 
of crops would have been most difficult on the narrow strip 
of land which he held; and implements showed little or 
no improvement If anything, the habitant was at this time 
worse oflF than he had been before the conquest ; for, while his 
average holding was much smaller, neither his seignior nor his 
church had in the least relaxed its demands upon him. The 
maintenance of his numerous progeny — for large families were 
still the rule — was to him an uphill task, and the loyal attempt 
at its accomplishment too often made him a spiritless drudge. 
No wonder, then, that he became an easy prey to the plausible 
sophistry of his leaders, who exploited him to their own political 
advantage. 

The antagonism of the two arms of government representing 
the two races in the province came to a climax in 1836, when 
the assembly definitely refused to grant the funds necessary 
for the carrying on of the administration. A commission of 
three, sent over from England under the chairmanship of the 
Earl of Gosford, investigated the situation, and, according to 
its report, found the assembly wholly in the wrong. Acting 
upon this report, the British Parliament, in the spring of 1837, 
passed a series of resolutions introduced by Lord John Russell, 
declaring that it was advisable to curtail the powers of the 

^ C£ Bradahaw, Self-Gcvernnunt in Canada^ 62-63. 



236 ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

assembly by providing ways and means of financing the provin- 
cial administration without the necessity of its assent. With 
this threat held before it, the assembly was reconvened in the 
hope that its members would show a more compromising spirit ; 
but by an overwhelming majority it declined to recede a single 
jot from its former stand. It was accordingly dissolved without 
further ado, and the last parliament of Lower Canada passed 
into history. 

Before the British Parliament could adopt any measure based 
upon the Russell resolutions, constitutional opposition on the 
part of the assembly had given place to armed opposition on the 
part of the followers of the assembly in the province. Passive 
resistance had given way to active, and the rebellion of 1837-38 
engaged the attention of the executive authorities both in the 
colony and in the mother country.^ 

For a time the revolt looked ominous enough, but being 
poorly organized and miserably managed by those who had it in 
charge, it was suppressed by the authorities without great 
difficulty. Some of the leaders fled to the United States on the 
first reverse, leaving the hapless habitants to shift for themselves 
as best they might. The rising was not, however, without far- 
reaching results ; for it drew the attention of the British authori- 
ties to the gravity of the Canadian situation, and caused them 
to seek fuller information before legislating further for Lower 
Canada. To this end they decided, in 1838, to send out to the 
colony a high commissioner with dictatorial powers, who was to 
assert the supremacy of the law, to hear complaints from all 
parties, and to recommend to the home authorities some plan 
of government for the province under which internal conflicts 
might be avoided. 

For this most difficult and dangerous task the British govern- 
ment chose John George Lambton, first earl of Durham, a man 
whose genius, experience, and disposition seemed eminentiy 
to qualify him for the work in hand. Durham arrived in the 

^ For the conne of events during the year 1837-38, see Christie, History of Lpwer 
Canada^ vol. iv ; Kingsford, History of Canada, vol. ix ; Dent, The Upper Canadian 
Rebellion; Lindsey, William Lyon Mackenne ; Richardson, Ei^ Years in 
Canada; Theller, Canada in 1837-1838; Read, Rebellion of 1837* 



ABOUTION OF THE SEIGmORlAL SYSTEM. 237 

colony during the early summer of 1838, and having taken what 
he deemed to be necessary measures for the strengthening of 
his own authority in the province, proceeded to make an ex- 
haustive study of the various grievances against which the 
assembly had before its dissolution complained so loudly and 
so long. Among other things, of course, the workings and 
the future of the seigniorial system of land tenure came in 
for his lordship's attention. The study was necessarily a 
cursory one, but it was conducted under the supervision of 
a man surpassed by none of his contemporaries in power 
of quick analysis or in ability to crystallize data into accurate 
generalizations.^ The results of the whole investigation, 
together with recommendations as to the future policy of 
the home government, were in 1839 presented to Parliament 
in Durham's famous " Report on the Affairs of British North 
America." * 

Durham recognized very clearly the wisdom of the British 
authorities in seeking the extinction of the old French system of 
land tenure. He pointed out that, while the rural population of 
the province was increasing steadily, the amount of cultivated 
land supporting this population was not increasing in the same 
proportion. According to an estimate made in 1826, the popu- 
lation of the various seigniories had more than quadrupled since 
the loyalist immigration, that is to say, during the forty-two 
years intervening between 1784 and 182^ but in this interval 
the quantity of land under cultivation in the province had 
increased by only one-third or thereabouts. Since 1826, as 
Durham had every reason to suppose, the same anomaly of de- 
velopment had been going on. The time was past, he declared, 
for continuing the maintenance of a system which encouraged 
this condition of affairs. He showed that the French rules of 
succession to real property had caused the oblongs of land to 
be so cut up into long narrow strips that healthy agricultural 
progress was being strangled, and pointed to the northern shore 

^ The only biography of Lord Durham is by Stuart J. Reid, T)u Life and Letters 
of the First Earl of Durham (a vols., London, 1906). 

* Report OH the Affairs of British North America (London, 1839), " by the Earl 
of Durham, Her Majesty's High G)mmissioner," etc. 



238 ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

of the St. Lawrence, where from Quebec to Montreal the 
alluvial land was shredded into mere ribbons, often with a river 
frontage of a few rods and a depth of a mile or more. Along 
this river-front ran the main road, — the carotid artery of 
colonial intercourse, — and along the road the habitants had 
built their dwellings, thus " giving the country of the seigniories 
the appearance of one never-ending, straggling village." The 
people were thus forced, he added, to devote their energies to 
the pursuit of what was in his opinion ''the worst possible 
method of small farming." 

The commissioner saw, however, that the faults were not all 
on the side of the habitant. A good deal of the difficulty he 
very properly laid at the door of the Englishmen who had 
bought out seigniories from their French-Canadian owners, and 
had then proceeded to exercise their seigniorial rights in a 
manner " which the Canadian," said he, " reasonably regards as 
oppressive." Differing from his dependents in race, religion, 
and language, the new seignior needed to exercise much tact, 
friendliness, and forbearance in order to get along amicably 
with them. Too often, however, he displayed none of these 
qualities. Hence it was in the general estrangement of the two 
races that the report found one real cause of difficulties regard- 
ing the land-tenure system. 

Lord Durham did not condemn the advocates, notaries, and 
other leaders who had stirred up the people against the pol- 
icy of the administration; he regarded it as an inevitable 
consequence of the grant of representative, but not respon- 
sible, government that popular leaders should become dema- 
gogues. The system of seigniorial land tenure, he believed, 
had passed its day of usefulness and should make way for a 
more suitable policy. He did not believe, however, that any 
radical steps toward its abolition should be undertaken by the 
British Parliament, but thought that the whole problem should 
be left for the new colonial government to solve for itself. In 
general, Durham was disposed to rely upon the " efficacy of 
reform in the colonial constitutional system for the removal of 
every abuse in administration which defective institutions have 
engendered." In a word, he thought that if the proper relation 



ABOLITION' OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 239 

between the elective and the appointive organs of colonial gov- 
ernment were permanently determined in the way which he pro- 
posed, the various grievances would in time right themselves. 
One of Durham's entourage, Charles BuUer, who ably assisted 
his lordship in gathering information and data regarding the 
land-tenure system in Lower Canada, outlined a definite 
scheme for the commutation of seigniorial lands, according 
to which the annual dues owing by either seignior or 
habitant should be made an annual rent charge on the land, 
which annual charge might at any time be commuted to a 
lump sum on a reasonable basis. It is interesting to note that 
thi^ plan was substantially followed by the colonial legislature 
when it undertook to arrange a scheme of commutation some 
fifteen years later. 

As a result of Durham's general recommendations, the British 
Parliament, in 1840, passed the Canada Act, more commonly 
known as the Act of Union, because by it the two provinces of 
Lower and Upper Canada were united, with equal represen- 
tation in a joint legislature.^ This new body met in the follow- 
ing year, and lost little time in taking up the seigniorial problem 
for solution. Its first step was to present to the governor- 
general of the now united provinces an address asking for the 
appointment of an impartial commission to examine the griev- 
ances of landholders in Lower Canada and to report some 
definite plan of remedy.* To this request Governor Bagot 
acceded, naming Messrs. Buchanan, Taschereau, and Smith 
as members of the commission desired.^ These gentlemen 
made a very careful study of the situation, and though some- 
what hampered, as they declared, by the fact that they had not 
been vested with power to compel the attendance of witnesses 
or to enforce the production of papers, they succeeded in laying 
before the legislature, in October, 1843, an exhaustive report of 
nearly forty closely-printed pages containing a considerable 

1 3& 4 Victoria, c. 35. This act may be conveniently found in Houston*! Con- 
stUuHonal Documents^ 149-1 73* 

* Canada, Aaembly Journals^ September 7, 184 1. 

* The governor first appointed Messrs. Vanfelson, McCord, and Doucet ; but for 
tome reason these gentlemen declined to serve. 



( UNIVERSITY ) 



240 ABOUTION OF THE SEIGmORlAL SYSTEM. 

amount of interesting and valuable information relating to the 
subject of their inquiry.^ 

The report of the commission of 1843 began by tracing at 
some length the vicissitudes of the feudal system since its first 
establishment in Canada, and then proceeded to analyze in a gen- 
eral way the various legal rights and duties of the seignior and 
the habitant under the French dominion. This analysis is toler- 
ably accurate and just to both parties, but the commissioners in 
some cases displayed a disposition to generalize too broadly from 
the data at hand. They gave it as their opinion that at the time 
of the British conquest the Arrfits of Marly (171 1) were still in 
full force, and that, in consequence, the seignior was under legal 
obligation to subgrant his vacant lands to whoever should apply 
for them, at the rate of dues customary in the neighborhood. 
When he refused to do so, the governor and intendant were, 
under the old dispensation, empowered to step in and make the 
grant ; but in the exercise of this power who were the successors 
of these French officials ? To this question the commissioners 
replied that, since the reestablishment of French civil law by the 
Quebec Act of 1774, the power had vested first in the court of 
Common Pleas and later in its successor the court of King's 
Bench, to which, on its establishment, certain spheres of juris- 
diction formerly belonging to the court of Common Pleas had 
been assigned. The Canada Tenures Act of 1825 had thus, they 
maintained, unfairly "given to the seigniors an absolute and 
unconditional property in the ungranted portions of their fiefs, 
in direct violation of the wise and beneficent intentions of the 
arrfitsof 1711 . . . by which seigniors are bound to gjant lands 
to such persons as apply for them, subject only to the accus- 
tomed rates and dues."^ 

^ " Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the laws 
and other circumstances connected with the Seigniorial Tenure," i843f TitUs and 
Documents^ i. 45-^1. A number of interesting documents are printed as an appendix 
to this report {^IHd, 92-210). 

* The assertion of the commissioners that the judicial powers of the governor and 
intendant of the old regime had passed to the high courts of the province is of doubt- 
ful validity. Certainly neither the court of Common Pleas nor the court of King'y 
Bench had ever attempted to exercise any powers on the ground that they were the 
successors of these officials. Cf. Angers, Resume de la Plaidoirie, etc. (1855), 93 ; 
and see above, p. 220. 



ABOUTIOI^ OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 24 1 

The commission further affirmed that the people of the colony 
had certain well-established rights in the ungranted lands of 
seigniories, — rights which the governor and intendant had stood 
ready to enforce ; that the British authorities had on more than 
one occasion pledged themselves to the observance and preser- 
vation of those proprietary rights enjoyed by the inhabitants 
of the colony at the time of the conquest ; and that the courts 
of law had the power to enforce these rights in behalf of the 
people. In 1825, however, said the commissioners, the Canada 
Tenures Act had offered to permit the seigniors, for a small 
consideration, to acquire absolute property in their ungranted 
lands, thus defeating the right of the people at large to share 
in these lands. 

Passing to a consideration of the " present working of the 
feudal system in the province," the report attempted to show 
that this form of tenure was " in many respects vicious and . . . 
productive of extreme injury." It " paralyzes the whole country 
by its influence," ran the vehement words. " No system can be 
devised better calculated to keep a man in perpetual subjection. 
Under it, all the generous emotions of his nature are stifled. 
Thus he gradually becomes impoverished; he toils through 
existence without the hope of relief, and transmits to his 
posterity a worthless inheritance. Under the operation of 
such a tenure, his right of property may become a mere delu- 
sion ; as a moral being, he is degraded, and his position is one 
of perpetual dependence." The present system, moreover, " is 
no longer suited to the spirit of the age nor the actual wants of 
the population ; it is the relic of a barbarous age, and, in its 
practical operations, antagonistic to the growth and permanency 
of free institutions." Of all the anathemas passed upon the feu- 
dal system in Canada from its first establishment to its abolition, 
whether by investigating officials, commissions, or legislative 
bodies, none surpasses the foregoing in vigor and virulence. In 
fact, the report of 1843 breeds suspicion by the very violence of 
its antagonism to the system. 

The commission recommended, in conclusion, that the legis- 
lature should proceed to the complete extinction of the seign- 
iorial tenure, indemnifying the seigniors for the loss of such 



242 ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEAf. 

dues as could be shown to have a legal basis, but bearing in 
mind that the position of the seignior, in relation to his un- 
granted lands, was that of a trustee and not that of an owner. 
a^( Three different schemes for effecting the indemnification of the 
^ seigniors were outlined: (i) that the habitants should pay- 
to the seigniors a capital sum, whereof the annual cens et rentes 
would be equivalent to interest at the rate of six per cent, to- 
gether with one lods et ventes ; (2) that they pay an annual rent 
charge, to be agreed upon in lieu of all feudal dues and services; 
(3) that they pay one-fifth of the value of their holdings (deter- 
mined by arbitration), in full commutation of all dues and ser- 
vices. The commissioners did not advise the adoption of any 
one of these three plans, but pointed out the advantages and 
disadvantages of each. 

As a result of the report, a bill was introduced into the 
assembly, and was passed by both houses during the year 1845 
under the title, "An Act the better to facDitate optional Com- 
mutation of the Tenure of Lands en roture in the Seigniories 
and Fiefs of Lower Canada, into that of franc aleu roturier,'^ ^ 
Some four years later this act was amended in a few slight par- 
ticulars.* These two acts simply provided that the habitant 
might arrange with his seignior to commute his feudal dues and 
services for a lump sum mutually to be agreed upon ; and that 
upon payment of such sum the habitant would receive from his 
seignior the grant of his holding en franc aleu roturier^ the form 
of tenure which, during the French period, had most nearly 
corresponded to the English system of tenure in free and 
common socage. This particular provision was intended to re- 
tain the lands under the French rules of inheritance ; for, except 
in regard to this matter, the two forms of tenure were substan- 
tially the same. 

Up to the time when the first of these acts was passed (1845), 
the habitant could not arrange for the commutation of his dues 
to his seignior unless the seignior had first arranged for the 
commutation of his own dues to the crown ; and very few of the 
seigniors had chosen to do this. In fact only nine seigniorial 
commutations had been arranged between 1825, when permis- 

1 Statutes of Canada^ 8 Victoria, c. 42. * IHd, 12 Victoria, c 49. 



ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 243 

sion to commute was given, and 1846, a year after the new law 
was passed.^ Nine commutations in twenty years scarcely prove 
the existence of any strong desire on the part of the seigniors 
to take advantage of the privilege afforded them. 

Although the acts of 1845 and 1849 were designed to make , 
possible the commutation of the tenure of holdings within seign- /\ 
iories which had not yet been commuted, there were several 
reasons for doubting that this end would be attained in any 
general measure. The seigniors, for instance, might be counted 
upon to stand out for full compensation for the loss of all dues 
and services which they claimed, even though the legality of 
some of these was not beyond question. There was, for ex- 
ample, the corvee, which in many cases had not been exacted for 
several years ; the right oifour banal^ which had never been en- 
forced at all ; and the right of the seignior over navigable rivers, 
which had been claimed by some to be an incident of seigniorial 
judicial power and hence to have been abrogated with the 
latter after the conquest. Until seigpiiors and habitants 
could agree as to what seigniorial claims were valid and what 
were not, it would be very difficult to reach any accord in regard 
to the sum to be paid in commutation of all dues. Then, too, 
even if the amount could be satisfactorily agreed upon, most of 
the habitants were so poor that it seemed impossible for them 
to get sufficient funds to pay it in a lump sum. A few of them 
were doubtless in positions to take advantage of the terms of 
the acts ; but, as the lapse of a few years served to show, any 
general commutation of the smaller holdings from tenure en 
censive to tenure in free and common socage seemed to be pre- 
vented by the two obstacles just mentioned. 

As time went by, this view impressed itself upon the members 
of the legislature. It was felt strongly that commutation must 
be made compulsory in the case of both seignior and habitant ; 
that, if necessary, the crown must forego the exaction of any 

1 These commutatioDS were as follows : Ste. Anne de la P6rade, December 28^ 
1830 ; Beauharnois, March 10, 1833; Lotbini^re, December 31, 1835 > Madawaska 
and Temiscouata, December 5, 1838 ; Mont-Louis, June 6, 1839 ; Perthuis, April 7, 
1841 ; Riviere de la Magdeleine and Pabos, March 8, 1842 ; Anse du Grand-Eung, 
February 4, 1846. This list is printed in Correspondence bettveen the Colonial Office 
and the Governors of Canada^ etc(i853), 37. 



244 ABOLITlODr OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

sum from the seigniors in commutation of their dues ; and that 
the burden upon the habitants should be lightened as much as 
possible, partly by exact definition of the legal rights of the 
seignior, partly by permission to pay in annual instalments 
instead of in a lump sum, and partly by assistance out of the 
public treasury.^ 

That a plan of commutation might be drafted along these 
lines, the assembly in the spring of 185 1 appointed a special 
committee to which it delegated this task.* The committee, 
after a number of sessions and hearings, presented its report,' 
together with the draft of a bill ; * but the legislation outlined 
was not regarded as satisfactory by the leaders of the house, 
and action upon it was accordingly postponed.* In the year fol- 
lowing, however, a new ministry came into office ; and in the 
session of 1853 a government measure was introduced dealing 
with the question of tenures in Lower Canada. In general 
this measure proposed to afford seigniors compensation, amount- 
ing to a small fixed annual sum per arpent, for the loss of all 
rights, provided that such rights should be declared legal by 
the courts ; but all seigniorial rights and dues other than the 
right to this small annual rental were to be abrogated. After 
a spirited debate the measure passed the assembly, but was 
subsequently rejected by the council. This action of the upper 
house greatly irritated the assembly, which showed its temper 
by passing an address to the home authorities asking that the 
council be made an elective instead of an appointive body.* 

The elections of 1854 made it clear that public sentiment was 
strongly in favor of the abolition of the seigniorial system, for 
a ministry pledged to accomplish this end was established in 

^ Canada, Assembly Journals, June 26, 185a 

' The members of this committee were the Hon. L. T. Drummond, chairman, and 
Messrs. Armstrong, Badgley, Boutillier, La Terri^re, and Lemieox. 

* Troisihne Rapport et Deliberations du Comite Special de VAssemblee Legislative 
, , , au Sujetde la Tenure Seigneuriale {i%si), 

* " Acte poor definir certains droits des seigneurs et des censitaires dans le Bas^ 
Canada, et poor en faciliter Pexercice," Ibid, Appendix A. 

* Cf. The Seigniorial Question : its present Position (18^4), <* by a member of the 
Legislative Assembly from Upper Canada" [Sir Francis Ilincks]. 

* Canada, Assembly Joumalst February 14 to June 14, iZ$i, passim. 



ABOUTION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 245 

power.^ After some delay caused by difficulties connected 
with the ministerial organization, the McNab-Morin ministry 
prepared and laid before Parliament a comprehensive measure 
providing for the complete abolition of the whole seigniorial 
system. The measure encountered much opposition and under- 
went several important amendments at the hands of the Legis- 
lative Council, but finally passed both houses. Under the title 
" An Act for the Abolition of Feudal Rights and Duties in 
Lower Canada," it received the viceregal assent on December 
18, 1854.* 

In the first place, the act of 1854 repealed entirely the acts 
of 1845 and 1849,' but provided that deeds of commutation 
granted under them should remain in full force and should have 
the same effect as if the acts had not been repealed. It then 
made provision for the appointment, by the governor-general, of 
commissioners to such number as might be found necessary, 
who should visit all the seigniories in Lower Canada and in 
each draw up a schedule setting forth the total value of the 
seigniory, the rights of the crown therein (or, in the case of 
rear-fiefs, the rights of the dominant seignior), the amount of 
land held by each habitant, and the annual dues and charges 
payable therefor. With reference to this last item the schedule 
was to differentiate the various charges and services, estimating 
the annual value of those which were not already fixed in 
money, such as the banal rights or the reservations.^ 

In order that the commissioners might act uniformly in 
preparing their schedules, certain definite rules were laid down 
for their guidance. In the case of dues payable in kind (grain, 
poultry, fruits, etc.), they were instructed to obtain the average 
prices of such commodities during the last fourteen years 
" from the books of the merchants nearest the place or in such 

1 The question of the secularization of the clergy reserves was an equally impor- 
tant issue in this election. On the course of events during these years of high party 
tension in the Canadas, see Gait, Canada^ 1B49 ^ '^59 i I^i^t* The Last Forty 
Years, vol li, chs. xxix-xxxvi ; David, L Union des Deux Canadas ; and Turcotte, 
Le Canada sous P Unions voL ii. 

* 18 Victoria, c. 3. 

* 8 Victoria, c. 42, and 12 Victoria, c. 49. See above, p. 242. ' 

* Sections^u-v. 

^' K A, ^ ^ . 

\ 



246 ABOLITION' OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

other manner as may be thought equitable " ; and in computing- 
the annual value of personal labor (corvee) they were to 
follow a similar procedure.^ Since rural and urban holdings 
changed hands with different degrees of frequency, the com- 
missioners were instructed to take this fact into consideration 
in estimating the value of the lods et venteSy or alienation fines.^ 
In determining the value of the banal rights, they were to 
"estimate the probable decrease (if any) in the net yearly 
income of the seigfnior arising from the loss of such rights." ® 
The total value thus set on the lands of each habitant was to 
become a fixed rent upon the lands, payable upon the day 
and at the place at which the seigniorial dues had formerly 
been payable, unless the seignior and the habitant should ag^ee 
upon some other time or place. 

Since the work of the commissioners was of the highest 
importance, the act gave them every facility for the proper 
performance of their tasks. Before beginning the work of 
computation in any seigniory, they were to give notice to that 
effect to all concerned, putting " placards in English and French 
at the door of every parish church in such seigniory for four 
consecutive Simdays,'' stating the place, day, and hour at 
which the work would begin. All parties were to have every 
possible facility in the presentation of their views, and the 
commissioners on the other hand were invested with wide 
powers to enforce the production of information when neces- 
sary. They might examine witnesses under oath, order the 
production of land titles, accounts, and other documents, impose 
fines for contempt, and command the services of all justices 
or other peace officers in the province.* 

Should a seignior or any twelve habitants challenge a com- 
putation, the commissioner was required by the act to submit 
his schedule to the revision of expert valuators, one to be 
appointed by the seignior, one by the habitants in general 
meeting, and a third by these two, unless the seignior and the 
habitants could agree upon the third. The fees of such valu- 
ators were to be paid from the public treasury.* The govemor- 

^ Section vi. i. ' Section vi. 2. * Section vi 5. 

* Sections vii-ix. • Section x. 



ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 247 

general, moreover, was empowered to select, from the whole 
corps of commissioners, a committee of four to act as a court 
of revision to hear appeals against the schedules drawn up by 
individual commissioners, or against changes made by boards 
of expert valuators; but this court might make alterations 
only when errors were clearly shown.^ 

The act provided that, when the schedule for any seigniory 
was completed and revised, copies of it should be deposited 
with the proper governmental authorities, and legal notice of 
such deposit be given in the official Gazette and in at least one 
local newspaper.^ It then proceeded: "From and after the 
date of the publication . . . every censitaire in such seigniory 
shall, by virtue thereof, hold his land in franc aleu roturier^ 
free and clear of all cens^ rentes^ lods et ventes^ droit de banaliti^ 
droit de retrait^ and other feudal or seigniorial dues, except the 
rente constittiie^ which will be substituted for all seigniorial 
duties and charges; and every seignior shall thereafter hold 
his domain and the unconceded lands in his seigniory, and all 
• , . real estate now belonging to him in /nj«^a/<fi^ n?/«n>r . . . 
free and clear of all quint, relief or other feudal dues or duties 
to the crown or to any seignior dominant of whom his fief or 
seigniory is now held." Any reestablishment of the feudal 
system was definitely prohibited by the clause," No seignior as 
such shall, after the said time, be subject to any onerous obliga- 
tion towards his censitaires, or be entitled to any honorary 
rights, nor shall any land be granted by any seignior to be held 
by any tenure other than franc aleu roturier^ or subject to any 
mutation fines or other feudal dues." ^ 

Provision was further made for the creation of a special reve- 
nue fund to be raised by the issue of debentures, the proceeds 
of which were to be applied to the reduction of the fixed annual 
rentals set by the schedules upon the lands of the habitants. 
Every seignior was to receive a fixed percentage on the total 
amount of constituted rents established by the schedule in his 
seigniory, after deducting the value of the crown dues ; and by 
this percentage the annual rentals of all habitants were to be 
reduced.* 

1 Section xii. ^ Section xiii. * Section xir. * Sections xvii-xix. 



248 ABOLITION OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

Finally, the act provided for the solution of a very important 
difficulty, — the question as to what claims of seigniors were 
valid at law and what were not. This was not a matter which 
the legislature could very well determine, or one that could 
properly be left to the commissioners ; for the right decision of 
it assumed a thorough knowledge of the Custom of Paris and of 
the various modifying edicts, ordinances, and decrees. Obvi- 
ously, the seigniors could expect compensation only for such 
alleged rights as might be shown to have a legal basis ; but as 
to the exact extent of these rights there was a wide difference 
of opinion. The legislature very properly decided, therefore, 
to make provision for the temporary establishment of a special 
court, to which should be referred the settlement of questions 
relating to the validity of seigniorial claims for compensation. 
The commissioners were not to complete their schedules until 
the decisions of this court should have been iiled.^ 

This special court was to consist of the chief-justice and 
justices of the court of Queen's Bench, together with the chief- 
justice and justices of the Superior Court for the province of 
Lower Canada, — making fifteen judges in all.* The attorney- 
general of the United Provinces was instructed to draw up a 
list of questions covering all possible matters in dispute, while 
the seigniors and the habitants (acting through their counsels) 
were permitted to submit such supplementary questions as they 
might think fit. The tribunal was, in many ways, an extraordi- 
nary one. It was an assemblage of judges, yet the subject in 
hand was not a strictly judicial one ; the judges were to express 
opinions rather than to give judgment There was a court, but 
no suitors, no issue, no evidence, no record, and no sentence. 
The judges were simply to examine the questions as students of 
legal history and to express their opinions. In the event of 
disagreement, a majority was to prevail 

^ Section xvi. 

* These were the Hon. Sir Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine, Bart., chief justice of the 
court of Queen's Bench ; the Hon. Edward Bowen, chief justice of the Superior Court ; 
the Hon. Messrs. Aylwin, Duval, and Caron of the court of Queen's Bench; and 
the Hon. Messrs. Day, Smith, Vanfelson, C Mondelet, Meredith, Short, Morin, and 
Badgley of the Superior Court The Hon. Mr. Justice D. Mondelet, being himself a 
seignior, abstained from attendance. 



ABOUT/ON- OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM, 249 

The court met on September 4, 1855, and was duly consti- 
tuted. The Hon. L. H. Drummond, attorney-general, presented 
a list of forty-six questions covering the whole range of matters 
in dispute; and on behalf of various seigniors and bodies of 
habitants thirty more questions were filed. It was arranged 
that the court should hear the arguments of counsel on the 
merits of the different questions; and an imposing array of 
eminent Canadian lawyers appeared before it.^ Their argu- 
ments were exhaustive and showed a close study of the com- 
plicated legal points involved, especially that of Christopher 
Dunkin, who appeared on behalf of some of the seigniors. 
Although on most points the judges disagreed with him, his 
argument, which was lengthy, comprehensive, and a model of 
close legal reasoning, stands as perhaps the most scholarly and 
able plea ever made before any Canadian judicial body. 

After many sessions the Special Seigniorial Court, as it was 
called, was able to frame answers to all the questions submitted.^ 
In a few cases there was entire unanimity, but on almost every 
important issue one or more of the justices disagreed with the 
rest The opinion of the majority was that the cens et rentes 
had never been made uniform; that the seignior was under 
obligation to subgrant his lands at customary rates, and hence 
did not hold any full property in his ungranted lands ; that the 
lods et ventes^ tiie banalities, and the corvee were valid claims ; 
but that prohibitions and reservations, except in so far as they 
had been made for the protection of the seignior's obligation to 
the crown, were without validity. In the course of the deliber- 
ations, each member of the Special Court gave his individual 
opinions on the various questions at issue, justifying his accord 
with the answers agreed upon by the majority of his colleagues 
or his dissent from them.^ A careful reading of these opinions 

^ Among the coussel were, in addition to the attorney-general (who was, unfortu- 
nately, prevented by illness from attending most of the sessions), Messrs. F. R. 
Angers, £. Barnard, and T. J. J. Loranger, Q. C, on behalf of the crown; and 
Messrs. Christopher Dunkin, R. Mackay, and C S. Cherrier, Q. C, on behalf of various 
seigniors and others. 

' These are printed as Proceedings of the Special Seigniorial Court held under the 
authority of the Seigniorial Act of 18^4 (Quebec, 1856). 

* These opinions, or Observations, were published as public documents, but com- 
plete sets are now rare. For a discussion of their scope and value, see below, p. 261. 



250 ABOLITION' OF THE SEIGNIORIAL SYSTEM. 

serves to show that each judge made a very earnest, and some- 
times elaborate, study of one or more of the legal phases pre- 
sented by the seigniorial system and its history both in France 
and in Canada. 

It was upon a basis of the majority opinions that the sched- 
ules of fixed rents were drawn up and put in force. As the 
work of compiling these in all the seigniories took time, it 
was some years before all had been completed and depos- 
ited with the proper authorities. Meantime the legislature had 
passed a short act changing a few provisions in the act of 1854 
which had been found to need amendment, but which were of 
no great importance.^ In the session of 1859 the colonial par- 
liament appropriated the funds for the indemnification of the 
seigniors, and with this measure completed the work of com- 
mutation.^ The act of 1854 had exempted from the compul- 
sory provisions which it contained the seigniories held by 
the Seminary of St. Sulpice at Montreal, the " Seigniories of the 
late order of Jesuits," the seigniories either belonging to the 
crown or held in trust by it for the Indians, and a few others 
which it enumerated.' In most of these, however, commuta- 
tions were later effected by private agreement* 

As the act of 1854 changed the tenure of lands, not to free 
and common socage, but to franc aleu roturier^ it did not intro- 

1 "An Act to amend the Seigniorial Act of 1854" (18 Victoria, c. 3). 

* In some cases, however, the amounts were not paid over to the seigniors until 
as late as 1864. 

^ Act of 1854, fxxxv. 

* After the suppression of the Jesuit order by Pope Qement XIX in 1773, the 
Jesuit seigniories in Lower Canada passed into the hands of the crown; but those 
who had been members of the order were supported by the revenues during the re- 
mainder of their lives. When, in 181 4, the order was reestablished by Pope Hus 
VII, it began a movement for regaining its old estates ; but recovery was no longer 
possible, for much of the land had passed into other hands by purchase from the 
crown. In 1888, however, by the Jesuits' Estates Act, the government of the province 
of Quebec granted the Papal See the sum of ^400,000 in order to obtain from the 
Catholic church and its orders a surrender of all their claims to the escheated 
lands. This measure evoked strong protest from the Protestant section of the popu- 
lation, and the Dominion government was called upon to disallow the act. This, 
however, it refused to do. While the ecclesiastical claims against the lands had no 
legal validity, it was found that, in an overwhelmingly Catholic community, the clerical 
bitterness served seriously to impair the value of such of the lands as the government 
slill held. See Thwaites,/;^^/ Relations and Allied Documents, Ixxi. 39^393. 



ABOUT/ON' OF THE SEIGmORIAL SYSTEM. 2$! 

duce the rules of English law relating to the alienation, bequest, 
and inheritance of lands : these matters continued to be regulated 
by the rules of French law. It was therefore thought advisable 
that the civil laws and procedure of Lower Canada should be 
revised and recodified ; and in 1857 ^^^ attorney-general secured 
the passage of a measure establishing a commission to under- 
take this work. Messrs. Justices Caron, Day, and Morin, who 
had been members of the Special Court, were intrusted with the 
undertaking, and completed it with high credit in 1864. 

The seigniorial system in Canada had, by the middle of the ^ 
nineteenth century, clearly demonstrated its unsuitability to its\ 
new social and economic environment, and by a large proportion 
of the people the prolongation of its existence had come to be 
regarded as a public evil. The terms upon which the abolition 
was effected were, however, by most of the seigniors regarded as 
unfair, and it is altogether probable that, despite the compen- 
sation, most seigniorial properties were worth less after the 
passing of the act than they had been before 1854. Strong 
protests were made by the seigniors against the slowness with^ 
which the schedules were drawn up, and it was claimed that 
many commissioners prolonged their work unduly in order to 
increase their remuneration. The censitaires were given the 
option of commuting their annual fixed rentals by the payment 
of a lump sum, the determination of which was provided by the 
act. Comparatively few of them, however, took advantage of 
this provision, and to the present day they or their descendants 
continue to pay their rente constitu/e with more or less punctu- 
ality. Most of the habitants still refer to their landlord as "the 
seignior," though for a full half century no such title has been 
recognized by the laws of the province. 

The problem of abolition was a difficult one, but it may be 
questioned whether its solution was not attended with as little 
injustice as usually accompanies such important changes. That 
the Canadian legislators of 1854 were able to cut away the 
foundation upon which the social order of Lower Canada rested, 
without doing any violence to the superstructure, is a tribute 
alike to their moderation and to their progressive spirit. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. 

Throughout this monograph an earnest endeavor has been made to 
observe the recognized canons of sound historical writing by giving 
definite references, page by page, to the sources from which informa- 
tion has been drawn. Nevertheless, it may not be superfluous to sum- 
marize in a general way the scope and the relative value of the various 
materials of which use has been made. 

One of the most extensive, and at the same time the most satisfactory, 
sources of data for the study of land tenure and the state of agriculture 
during the French period is the formidable collection of manuscript 
material commonly known as the Correspondance GitUrale. This 
mass of documents comprises a very large part of the correspond- 
ence, memoirs, reports, and returns transmitted by the various officials 
of New France to the home government throughout the entire period 
of French dominion in North America. The collection also contains 
many despatches from the king and minister to the governor and in- 
tendant of Canada ; for when the French authorities withdrew from the 
Western world they took with them all their confidential archives. 

This vast store of contemporary material is now in the archives of the 
Minist^re des Colonies, which are located in the attic story of the Pa- 
vilion de Flore, in the south wing of the Louvre. More than a score 
of years ago, officials of the Dominion government began the examina- 
tion and classification of this material for the Canadian archives under 
the supervision of Mr. Joseph Marmette \ but after a portion of the 
work had been done the project was interrupted, to be resumed some 
time later under the general direction of Mr. Edouard Richard, and 
continued till his death a few years ago. At the present time the 
work of transcribing the documents is again being pushed forward. A 
large part of the collection was first examined and the subject-matter of 
the documents calendared chronologically; these calendars may be 
found in the annual Report on Canadian Archives (ed. Douglas Brymner) 
for the years 1885-1887, 1899- . Such of the transcripts as have been 
made are in the Dominion Archives (Series F), at Ottawa, and comprise 
at present nearly two hundred and fifty large folio volumes. 

253 



ce 



254 BIBUOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. 

, As yet but a very small portion of this Correspondance GeneraU has been 
rendered available in printed form. Extracts from a large number of the 
documents have been printed in the Collection de Manuscrits conienani 
LettreSy Memoires^ et autres Documents Historiques relatifs d la Nouvelle- 
France^ recueillis aux archives de la Province de Quebec^ ou copies a 
r Stranger (4 vols., Quebec, 1 883-1 885) ; but the accuracy of this col- 
lection has been seriously called in question. Some of the documents 
may be found printed in Pierre Margry's Relations et Mimoirs inedits, 
pour servir d rHistoire de la France dans les Pays d^ Outre Mer^ Hres 
des archives du Ministere de la Marine et des Colonies (Paris, 1865), 
and in his Decouvertes et EtabUssements des Franqais dans P Quest (6 
vols., Paris, 1879-1888) ; but these papers relate mainly to discovery and 
exploration. A few of the more important reports are given in Henry 
Harrisse's Notes pour servir d VHistoire , . . de la Nouvelle-France 
(Paris, 1872) ; and some fragmentary extracts and incidental quotations 
from the more significant pieces are printed in the appendices to Francis 
Parkman's various works, more particularly in the appendix to his Old 
Regime in Canada, Parkman, it may be added, had a large number of 
the more important documents in the Correspondance Generate copied 
for his own use ; and these transcripts are now in the library of the 
Massachusetts Historical Society in Boston. Many of the papers which 
have some bearing on intercolonial relations are included in Volume 
IX of the Documents relating to the Colonial History of New York 
(ed. O'Callaghan and Femow, 15 vols.. New York, 1853-1883). 

In 1 85 1 the Legislative Assembly of Canada ordered that such parts 
of the correspondence as had relation to the seigniorial system in the 
colony should be published for the use of its members, and of others 
who at that time were deeply interested in the movement for the aboli- 
tion of the system. Consequently a small blue-book entitled Corre- 
spondence between the French Government and the Governors and 
Intendants of Canada relative to the Seigniorial Tenure (Quebec, 1853) 
was published, copies being issued in both French and English. This 
volume appears, however, to have been compiled hastily and without 
proper care ; for it is not at all complete within its announced scope. 

The correspondence between the British government and the colonial 
officials relative to the land-tenure system after the conquest is preserved 
in the collections of the State Paper Office. It has been properly calen- 
dared in the annual Report on Canadian Archives for the years 1890- 
1893, along with the other documents in the State Paper Office relating to 
Canadian affairs. The Haldimand collection is similarly calendared in 
the annual reports for the years 1886-1889. In 1851 the Legislative 



BIBUOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. 255 

Assembly of Canada ordered that such documents in this correspondence 
as had any relation to the seigniorial system should be transcribed and 
printed ; accordingly a small publication bearing the title Correspond- 
ence between the Colonial Office and the Governors of Canada relative 
to the Seigniorial and Feudal Tenure (Quebec, 1853) was issued in both 
languages. A comparison with the calendars shows, however, that sev- 
eral important documents were overlooked by the compilers. 

Of equal importance with the Correspondance Ginirale is the collec- 
tion of Edits^ Ordonnances Royaux^ Declarations^ et Arrets du Conseil 
d*Etat du Roi concemant le Canada (2 vols., Quebec, 1803-1806 ; 
later edition, enlarged and improved, 3 vols., Quebec, 1854-1856). Of 
the latter set (which is the one referred to throughout this study under 
the general title oi Edits et Ordonnances) ^ the first volume contains the 
Edits et Ordonnances Royaux^ and the Arrets du Conseil d^Etat du Roi 
relating to the affairs of New France ; the second contains the Arrets 
et RhgUments du Conseil Superieur de Quebec^ and the Ordonnances et 
Jugements des Intendants du Canada^ the latter comprising the period 
1 705-1 759 only. The third volume, which is entitled Compliment des 
Ordonnances et Jugements des Gouvemeurs et Intendants du Canada^ 
contains a large number of decrees issued by governors and intendants, 
as well as the commissions of these officers and of other royal officials 
in the colony. The collection is a most valuable one, admirably indexed 
both chronologically and alphabetically; and on any topic connected 
with the social or the economic life of the French period it is an indis- 
pensable source of the most useful data. It was printed in both English 
and French at the public expense ; but, although a large edition was 
published, sets are now rather difficult to obtain. 

In 185 1 the Legislative Assembly of Canada requested that a volume 
be compiled containing all the edicts, ordinances, declarations, and 
decrees relating directly to the seigniorial tenure ; and in the following 
year this request met response in the issue by the queen's printer of a 
stout octavo publication entitled Edicts, Ordinances, Declarations, and 
Decrees relative to the Seigniorial Tenure (Quebec, 1852), printed in 
both English and French. This collection is, however, very incomplete, 
for it omits many important decrees which have a direct bearing on the 
question with which it deals. For this reason references are made, 
throughout the present study, to the French edition of the general col- 
lection of Edits et Ordonnances rather than to this special compilation. 

The records of the Superior Council at Quebec have been preserved 
in fifty-six ponderous manuscript volumes covering the period from 
September 18, 1663, to April 8, 1760. Of these the records from 1663 to 



256 BIBUOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. 

1 716 have been printed vckjugements et DeUberaHons du Conseil Souve- 
rain de la NouveUe-France (6 vols., Quebec, 1885-1891), a compilation 
which is a model of scholarly editing. The registers of the royal court 
of the Pr^vdt^ at Quebec are preserved in the provincial archives at 
Quebec, but many volumes are lacking. These records have not yet 
been made available in published form, but are now being transcribed 
for the federal archives and will, it is hoped, be printed in due course. 
Meanwhile, some of the more important decisions of the court of the 
Pr6v6t6 at Quebec may be found in J. F. Perrault's Extraits ou Prece- 
dents^ tires des Registres de la Prevostk de Quebec (Quebec, 1824). 
It is beyond reasonable doubt that the Old Council {Pancien conseU)^ 
which preceded the Sovereign (Superior) Council, also kept registers ; 
but a diligent search on the part of various Canadian antiquarians has 
not served to bring them to light. It is more than likely that they 
were destroyed by the fire which consumed the intendant's palace in 
1 713. The absence of these records is regrettable; for they would 
unquestionably serve to throw light upon certain phases of the seigniorial 
system before 1663, which, for want of reliable data, must be passed 
over almost untouched. 

The various orders in council issued by the British authorities in 
Canada, from the establishment of civil government in 1764 to the in- 
stitution of representative government in 179 1, are to be found in Ordi- 
nances made for the Province of Quebec by the Governor and Council 
since the Establishment of Civil Government (Quebec, 1767), and in 
Ordinances made and pctssed by the Governor and Legislative Council 
of the Province of Quebec^ and now in force in the Province of Lower 
Canada (Quebec, 1792); but these collections are not entirely com- 
plete. 

During the years 1852-1854 a veiy important publication appeared, 
entitled Pieces et Documents relatifs d la Tenure Seigneuriak (2 vols., 
Quebec) . An English edition containing substantially the same mate- 
rial, but differentiy arranged, was issued at the same time and called 
Titles and Documents relating to the Seigniorial Tenure, The first 
volume contains a number of miscellaneous documents ; but to a con- 
siderable extent it duplicates the small compilation of Correspondence 
between the Colonial Office and the Governors of Cancuia already re- 
ferred to. In the foregoing pages reference has always been made to 
the English edition of this volume, since the documents contained in it 
were originally issued in that language. The second volume, which has 
been found extremely valuable for the purposes of this study, contains 
copies of the titie-deeds of over three hundred of the most important 



BIBUOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX, 25/ 

seigniorial grants. The French edition of this volume is usually referred 
to by one of its sub-titles, Titres des Seigneuries^ or Titres Seigneuriaux ; 
of these the former has been used throughout this monograph. 

The edicts of the king ratifying concessions en fief in the colony may 
be found in Edits et Ordonnances, vol. i ; and, in response to a request 
made by the Legislative Assembly, they were also printed separately as 
Brevets de Ratification (Quebec, 1853). In tracing the descent of 
seigniories from hand to hand, the Fealty Rolls {Actes de Foi et Horn- 
mage) preserved at Ottawa are most serviceable; abstracts of these 
rolls are published in the Report on Canadian Archives for the years 
1883-1885. The task of the student who endeavors to follow the 
growth and changes in colonial population during the old regime has 
been greatly simplified by Johnson's Summary 0/ the Censuses 0/ Canada, 
1665-1871 (OtUwa, 1876). 

On the topography of the seigniorial system a fruitful source of data 
are the Cadastres^ or topographical and descriptive records compiled 
from the aveux et denombrements made from time to time by the seign- 
iors. In 1863 an abridgment of these records was published at Quebec 
in four parts, as follows : Cadastres abriges des Seigneuries du District 
de Quebec, 2 vols. ; Cadastres abreges des Seigneuries du District de 
Montreal^ 3 vols. ; Cadastres abrkgks des Seigneuries des Trois-Riviires, 
1 vol. ; Cadastres abrSgis des Seigneuries appartenant d la Couronne^ 
I vol. Extremely useful works on the topography of the seigniories 
are Joseph Bouchette's British Dominions in North America (2 vols., 
London, 183 1), and the same writer's earlier volume. Description Topo- 
graphique de la Province du Bcu- Canada (London, 181 5). 

The movement for the modification, and later for the abolition, of the 
seigniorial system in Lower Canada brought forth a number of interesting 
publications. Among the earlier of these, special value attaches to the 
four compilations of the laws of the French period which were published 
under the auspices of Governor Carleton in 1 772-1 773 (see above, p. 
198, note). F. J. Cugnet's Traite de la Loi des Fiefs (Quebec, 1775) 
and Traiti de la Police (Quebec, 1775) ^^^ useful commentaries on the 
legal system of the old regime in Canada by a jurist who was thoroughly 
versed in his subject. Of much less value (for reasons given above, 
p. 202) is Francis Mas^res's Draught of an Act of Parliament for 
settling the Laws of the Province of Quebec (London, [1771]) ; but 
there is a considerable amount of very interesting contemporary 
data in the other works of Mas^res, — A Collection of severed Commis- 
sions and other public Instruments . . . relating to the State of the 
Province of Quebec (London, 1772), Additional Papers concerning the 



258 BIBUOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. 

Province of Quebec (London, 1776), and An Account of the Proceed- 
ings of the British and other Inhabitants of Quebec (London, i775)- 
Mention may also be made of James Marriott's Plan of a Code of Lenos 
for the Province of Quebec (London, 1774). 

The various debates in the Legislative Assembly with reference to 
the seigniorial question may be found in the journals of that body. 
Journals of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada^ 1 792-1837 (53 
vols.) ; and the proceedings of the Legislative Council relating to the 
same subject are on record in foumcUs of the Legislative Council of 
Lower Canada^ 1792-183 7 (25 vols.). The parliamentary proceedings 
leading toward the abolition of the seigniorial tenure in 1854 are 
printed in full m Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Canada^ 1841- 
1866 (48 vols.), and Journals of the Legislative Council of Canada^ 
1841-1866 (44 vols.). The reports of the various commissions and 
committees appointed to investigate the workings and effects of the 
seigniorial system are usually printed in the appendices to the annual 
volumes of the foregoing journals ; and the more important reports, such 
as those of 1790 and 1843, are also printed in Titles and Documents 
mentioned above (p. 256). In 1853 a small publication, Debats dans 
PAssembUe Legislative sur la Tenure Seigneuriale, was published at Que- 
bec ; but this contains only a small portion of the more important debates. 

Some of the legislative investigations on the subject, both in England 
and in Canada, during the period 1841-1854 were very exhaustive. 
Special attention should be called, for example, to the Report of the 
Committee on the State of the Civil Government of Canada (1828); 
the Report of the Committee on the Affairs of Lower Canada ; with 
Evidence (1834-183 7) ; the Report of the Commissioners on the Griev- 
ances complained of in Lower Canada (1837); and the Troisieme Rap- 
port et Deliberations du Comite Special de FAssemblee Legislative 
(Quebec, 185 1), which handles well some details of the seigniorfal 
system. The famous Report on the Affairs of British Nor^ America, 
"by the Earl of Durham, Her Majesty's High Commissioner and 
Governor-General of British North America" (London, 1839 ; new edi- 
tion without the valuable appendices, London, 1900), devotes compara- 
tively little space to a consideration of the movement for the abolition 
of the old tenure ; but such consideration as it does give to the matter 
incidentally is of the highest interest and value, for in eveiy paragraph 
this epoch-marking state paper embodies the genius of a master hand. 

The Seigniorial Tenures Abolition Act of 1854, and the amending act, 
may be found in Statutes of Canada^ 1 841-1866 ; they are also printed 
in a separate volume with an excellent analytical index (Quebec, 1854). 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. 259 

Considerable light is thrown on the workings of the seigniorial system, 
and upon its relation to the general discontent during the period between 
the conquest and 1854, by the various works of travel and description 
in which this era was uncommonly fruitful. Volumes of this class which 
give more than cursoiy sketches of the matter are, for example, Laroche- 
foucault-Liancourt's Travels in the United States . . . with an authen- 
tic account of Lower Canada (4 vols., London, 1803); George Heriot's 
Travels through the Canadas (London, 1807) ; John Lambert's Travels 
through Canada (3 vols., London, 1814); Joseph Sansom's Sketches of 
Lower Canada (New York, 181 7) ; John Martin's Travels in Cancuia 
(London, 1824); and Sir Francis Head's Emigrant (ljon<diOTif 1847). 

When, about the middle of the nineteenth century, the movement 
for the abolition of seigniorialism reached its final stage, there ap- 
peared a veritable flood of pamphlets, articles, and other campaign 
literature dealing with the question from almost every point of view. 
Most of these were written either by strong partisans or by strong op- 
ponents of abolition, and few have more than a mere passing interest as 
showing the extent to which public feeling on the matter was wrought 
up. Those which have proved of some service in the preparation of the 
present volume are the following : J. C. Tzchi^ A Flan for the Commuta- 
tion of the Seigniorial Tenure (Quebec, 1854), which has in its appen- 
dix some serviceable statistical data and some valuable tables ; 
Robert Abraham, Some Remarks upon the French Tenure of " Franc 
Aleu Roturier^^^ and on its relation to the Feudal and other Tenures 
(Montreal, 1849) ; Clement Dumesnil, De r Abolition des Droits 
Feodaux et Seigneuriaux en Canada (Quebec, 1855) > Alexis Kier- 
kowski. The Question of the Seigniorial Tenure in Lower Canada 
reduced to a Question of Landed Credit (Quebec, 1850) ; [A. X. Ram- 
bau], Le Bill Seigneurial expose sous son Vrai Jour^ etc. (Montreal, 
1855) ; [Sir Francis Hincks], The Seigniorial Question: its Present 
Position (Quebec, 1854) ; the anonymous pamphlet, Quelgues Avis d'un 
Cultivateur aux Censitaires du Bas- Canada au sujetde la Loi d" Abolition 
de la Tenure Seigneuriale (Quebec, 1855) ; Faie, Pauvre Peuple, Paie / 
"parle Fr^re de Jean-Baptiste " (Quebec, 1855); ^^^ ^^^ pamphlet 
containing the proceedings of La Convention Anti-Seigneuriale de Mon- 
/r^W (Montreal, 1854). 

Among this plethora of pamphlets the closing years of the agitation 
brought forth one publication which must be singled out for special 
emphasis because of its comprehensiveness, lucidity, and real scholarly 
value. This was Christopher Dunkin's Address at the Bar of the Legis- 
lative Assembly of Canada on beha^ of certain Seigniors itf Lower 



260 BIBUOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. 

Canada^ against the Second Reading of the Bill for the Abolition of ike 
Seigniorial Tenure (Quebec, 1853). Dunkin's researches went deep into 
some of the more complicated legal phases of the seigniorial question ; and 
his argument displays a wealth of learning in feudal law, as well as a 
close study of the application of some of its provisions in the colony. 
The analytical table of title-deeds appended to the publication is of 
prime value in simplifying the task of examining the large number of 
these documents. Unfortunately, Mr. Dunkin confined himself^ in the 
main, to an attempt to show that the seigniors had full property in their 
unconceded lands, and were not to be regarded as mere trustees of the 
crown, — a thesis which even the most convincing jurist could scarcely 
have found it possible to prove in view of the arrfit of 1 7 1 1 and the other 
enactments which placed the seigniors under obligation to subgrant their 
lands at the customary rate of dues and services. 

The act of 1854, which abolished the old tenures, provided for the 
creation of a special court to unravel some knotty legal problems which 
the legislature wisely enough did not assume to solve, but upon the solu- 
tion of which depended, in part at any rate, the amount of compensation 
to be paid the seigniors for the loss of their rights and privileges. All 
the parties directly or indirectly concerned were represented before this 
court by able counsel (see above, p. 349), and the arguments of the 
leading counsel representing the different interests were subsequently 
published. Once again Mr. Dunkin made an elaborate appeal on 
behalf of the seigniors, his printed address to the court covering some 
two hundred and twenty closely printed pages. This publication, entitled 
The Case of the Seigniors of Lower Canada (Montreal, 1855), contains 
some new matter ; but to a large extent it duplicates the erudite coun- 
sel's address at the bar of the Legislative Assembly a couple of years 
before. Dunkin's argument is supplemented by those of his colleagues, 
Robert Mackay, The Case in Part of the Seigniors of Lower Canada 
(Montreal, 1855), ^^^ C. S. Cherrier, Memoire contenant un Resuml du 
Plaidoyer . . . sur tes Questions soumises d Id Decision des Juges de la 
Cour (Montreal, 1855). Arguments on the other side of the question 
were put forth by T. J. J. Loranger, Memoire compose de la Plaidoirie . . . 
devant la Cour Seigneuriale (Montreal, 1855), *^^ ^7 F- R- Angers, 
Resumi de la Plaidoirie , . . d PAppui des Propositions soumises d la 
Cour par le Procureur- General (Montreal, 1855). These various 
addresses are all of value as covering different phases of the subject. 

The Special Court delivered its decisions in the form of answers to 
the large number of questions submitted to it ; and in addition each 
justice recited his own opinions and observations, stating at some length 



BIBUOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. 261 

the reasons which led him to side with the majority or the minority of 
his colleagues, as the case might be. These opinions and observations 
were subsequently printed in full at the public expense, under the general 
editorship of Messieurs Leli^vre and Angers. They are entitled Lower 
Canada Reports : Seigniorial Questions (Quebec and Montreal, 1856), 
and fill three substantial octavo volumes. Of the various Observations^ 
that of Chief-Justice Sir Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine, Bart., is the roost 
elaborate and the most illuminating. Sir Louis was quite the most 
accomplished Canadian jurist of his generation, and his opinions bear 
the marks of ripe legal scholarship. He devotes more than four hun- 
dred pages to a consideration of the legal status of some five or six dif- 
ferent seigniorial claims, and in each case gives abundant evidence of 
his rare analytical power. Of the very highest interest, for example, 
are his discussions of the origin and nature of the seigniorial obligation 
to concede lands, of the question whether the rate of cens was ever fixed 
uniformly throughout the colony, and of the nature and scope of the 
right of mill banality. While the present writer has had occasion, in the 
course of this study, to differ from his lordship's opinions on more 
than one important point, he has done so in no case lightly or without 
sincere regret that the logic of ^ts has seemed to compel diveigence. 

The observations of the Hon. Mr. Justice Mondelet, although much 
less extended than those of his senior colleague, are not less scholarly. 
They are of special interest, moreover, from the ^t that on almost 
every disputed point Mondelet reached a conclusion at variance with 
that agreed upon by a majority of the court. The other justices of 
the Special Court all discuss, in their printed ObservationSy various 
phases of the questions at varying lengths ; but on the whole these dis- 
cussions add surprisingly litde of importance to the opinions of Lafon- 
taine and Mondelet. These publications comprise the opinions and 
observations of the Hon. Messrs. Justices Aylwin, Badgley, Bowen^ 
Caion, Day, Duval, Meredith, Short, and Smith. One of the members 
of the court, the Hon. Mr. Justice Vanfelson, died during the sittings of 
the tribunal, and his observations were not included. 

The whole collection forms a store of instructive discussions which 
cannot but be of the highest service to any student of the later history 
of feudal institutions. Its great limitation lies in the &ct that the ob- 
servations deal only with those points of the seigniorial system which 
were the subjects of dispute between the seigniors and the habitants 
in 1854. With many of the most important incidents of the old tenure 
— as, for example, the lods et ventes^ the corvee, the judicial rights, the 
honorary privileges of seigniors, and the whole physical aspect of seign- 



262 BIBUOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. 

iorialism — the opinions are not concerned at alL The justices discuss 
elaborately the legal bases of disputed seigniorial claims, but give no at- 
tention to the actual workings of the various incidents of the seigniorial 
system. They therefore cover at best but a small section of the whole 
field. 

In addition to the foregoing sources of information, a number of 
general works have been freely drawn upon for incidental data. On 
the personnel of the system, much has been taken from Benjamin Suite's 
monumental Histoire des Canadtens-Franfais (8 vols., Montreal, 1882— 
1884) ; while works of prime value on the genealogy of the seigniors and 
the noblesse in New France are Frangois Daniel's Histoire des Grandes 
Families Fran^aises du Canada {VlonXxe^aXy 1867), and CyprienTanguay's 
DicUonnaire Genealogique des Families Canadiennes depuis la Fondation 
de la Colonie jusqu^ d nos jours (7 vols., Montreal, 1 871-1890). Tan- 
guay's Repertoire Geniral du Clerge Canadien (Quebec, 1868) is of 
value on the personnel of the ecclesiastical seigniories. 

Three excellent treatises on the legal history of New France are Ed- 
mond Lareau's Histoire du Droit Canadien^ depuis les Origines de la 
Colonie jusqu* d nos jours (2 vols., Montreal, 1 888-1 889) ; Doutre and 
Lareau's Histoire Ginerale du Droit Civil Canadien (Montreal, 1872) ; 
and B. A. Testard de Montigny's Histoire du Droit Canadien (Montreal, 
1869). Each of the two latter includes a number of important legal 
documents relating to land tenure and to the regulation of succession to 
real property. A much older work of less service is McCarthy's Dic- 
tionnaire de PAncien Droit du Canada (Quebec, 1809). 

Many contemporary references to seigniorial matters may be found 
in the writings of the Jesuits, which, in the collection entitled TTie 
Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents (ed. R. G. Thwaites, 73 vols., 
1896-1901), are now accessible in completeness. There is also some 
scattered material in the larger contemporary histories of the old regime, 
such as Marc Lescarbot's Histoire de la Nouvelle-France (ed. E. Tross, 
3 vols., Paris, 1866) ; F. X. Charlevoix's Histoire et Description Ginirale 
de la Nouvelle-France (ed. J. G. Shea, 6 vols., New York, 1866-1872) ; 
Gabriel Sagard's Histoire du Cancuia (ed. E. Tross, 4 vols., Paris, 1865- 
1866) ; and Nicholas Denys's Description Giographique et Historique 
des Costes dePAnUrtque Septentrionak (2 vols., Paris, 1672). 

On the social life of the French era there are some interesting com- 
ments in Lahontan's Nouveaux Voyages (2 vols., The Hague, 1705, and 
many subsequent editions), and in Peter Kalm's Travels into Nor^ 
America (2 vols., London, 1772). 

The later historians have paid very little attention to the seigniorial 



BIBUOGRAPHICAL APPEATD/X. 263 

system. Some works, however, which afford information upon various 
matters that influenced its development, especially in its later stages, 
are William Kingsford's History of Canada (10 vols., Toronto, 1887- 
1898), a prosy work but containing much serviceable material ; William 
Smith's History of Canada (2 vols., Quebec, 18 15), containing a number 
of documents not elsewhere published; F. X. Gameau's Histoire du 
Canada (4 vols., Montreal, 1882-1883), which shows excellent judgment 
on men and measures ; and Robert Christie's History of the late Prov- 
ince of Lower Canada (6 vols., Montreal, 1866), which is particularly 
valuable on the period following the conquest. 

On the general history of the movement for the abolition of the old 
tenures, serviceable works are Louis P. Turcotte's Le Canada sous 
r Union (2 vols., Quebec, 1871-1872) ; J. C. Dent's I7te Last Forty 
Years (2 vols., Toronto, 1881) ; Sir Francis Hincks's Reminiscences 
(Montreal, 1884) ; and F. Bradshaw's Seff- Government in Canada 
(London, 1903). 

Biographical works which necessarily contain incidental infor- 
mation bearing on seigniorial relations are Francis Parkman's Count 
Frontenac (Frontenac ed., 2 vols., Boston, 1901) ; Lorin's Li Comte 
de Frontenac (Paris, 1895) ; Thomas Chapais's fean Talon (Quebec, 
1904) ; Gabriel Gravier'sZa Salle (Paris, 187 1) ; and Auguste Gosselin's 
Viede Laval (2 vols., Quebec, 1890) and Jean Bourdon (Quebec, 1904). 

There is an excellent but very short chapter on '^ Canadian Feudal- 
ism" in Parkman's Old Regime in Canada (2 vols., Boston, 1901); 
and references to various details of the seigniorial system are to be found 
in almost all of the same writer's imperishable volumes, which, taken as 
a whole, give the most faithful portrayal of the whole political, social, and 
economic organization of New France. Edmond Lareau has incorpo- 
rated into his Melanges Historiques et LittSraires (Montreal, 1871) a 
short chapter entitied '' De la F6odalit6 en Canada," which is, however, 
little more than a digest of part of Lafontaine's Observations. In the 
third volume of J. Castell Hopkins's Canada : an Encyclopadia of the 
Country (5 vols., Toronto, 1898-1900), there are articles on " The Seign- 
iorial Tenure in Canada " by Benjamin Suite, and '' The Abolition of 
the Seigniorial Tenure " by Alphonse Desjardins. W. P. Greenough's 
Canadian Folk- Life and Folk-Lore (New York, 1897) attempts, in a 
chapter on ''The Feudal System," to give a popular sketch of the subject. 

Local histories to which one may turn with confidence for information 
within their scope are J. Edmond Roy's Histoire de la Seigneurie de 
Lauzon (5 vols., Montreal, 1897-1904) ; Jodoin and Vincent's Histoire 
de Longueuil (Montreal^ 1^89); F. X. Gatien's Histoire de la Paroisse 



264 BIBUOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. 

i/»Cii/-5a«/Sr (Quebec, 1884); Benjamin Suite's Chronique Trifluvienne 
(Montreal, 1879) ; ^^^ Robert Sellar's History of Huntingdon^ Chateau- 
gay^ and Beaukamois (Huntingdon, 1888). 

Works of a literary rather than of a historical nature which deal to 
some extent with the daily life of seignior and habitant are William 
Kirby's Chien d* Or (New York and Montreal, 1877); Philippe A. de 
Gasp6's Zes Anciens Canadiens (Quebec, 1863) ; H. R. Casgrain's 
Une Paroisse Canadienne au xvii* SHcU (Quebec, 1880) ; and Sir J. 
M. Le Moine's Maple Leaves (7 series, Quebec, 1863-1906), and 
Chronicles of the St Lawrence (Montreal, etc., 1878). 

Short articles which bear more or less directly on the subject arc 
" La Tenure Seigneuriale " by Benjamin Suite, in Revue Canadienne^ 
July-August, 1882 ; "The French Canadian Peasantry" by Prosper 
Bender, in Magazine of American History^ August, 1890; "Titles of 
Honor in Canada " by J. D. Edgar, in Quarterly Review of the Univer- 
sity of Toronto, 1891 ; " L'Ancienne Noblesse du Canada " by Benja- 
min Suite, in Revue Canadienne j May-September, 1885; "The Droit 
de Banality during the French Regime in Canada" by W. B. Munro, in 
American Historical Association, Report iox 1899; ^^^ "The Noblesse 
of the Old Regime " by W. B. Munro, in Canadian Magazine, April, 
1900. 

It is not easy to understand some of the incidents of Canadian feudal- 
ism without constant reference to the workings of the land-tenure system 
in France during the two centuries preceding the Revolution. Bearing 
upon this topic are a large number of exhaustive and important works. 
The Biblioth^que Nationale in Paris has on its shelves no less than six- 
teen different commentaries on the Custom of Paris alone. Of these 
various commentaries the following have been most serviceable : 
Charles Dumoulin, Coutumes de la Prevdte et Vicomte de Paris (Paris, 
1681) ; Claude Ferri^re, Corps et Compilation de tous les Commentateurs 
Anciens et Modemes sur la Coutume de Paris (4 vols., Paris, 17 14) ; 
Francois Bourjon, Le Droit Commun de la France et la Coutume de 
Paris reduits en Principes (2 vols., Paris, 1770). Mention should also 
be made of the " Essai sur TAncienne Coutume de Paris" by H. Buche, 
in the NouveUe Revue Historique du Droit Franqais, viii. 45-86, ix. 558- 
579, and of Henri Klimrath's Etudes sur les Coutumes (Paris, 1837). 
Very useful works on the development of the seigniorial system in France 
are Renauldon's Traiti Historique et Pratique des Droits Seigneuriaux 
(Paris, 1765) ; F, Boutaric's Traiti des Seigneuries et des Matieres 
Fiodales (Toulouse, 1774) ; Dareste de la Chavanne's Histoire des 
Classes Agricoles en France (Paris, 1858); Paul Viollet's Histoire 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. 265 

du Droit Civil Franqais (Paris, 1893), *°d ^^ same author's Histoire 
des Institutions PoUtiques et Administrates de la France (3 vols., Paris, 
1 890-1 903); Achille Luchaire's Manuel des Institutions Fran^aises 
(Paris, 1 89 2) ; Adh^mar Esmein's Cours Elementaire d^ Histoire du Droit 
Franfais (FaiiSf 1905); Jean Brissaud's Manuel d" Histoire du Droit 
Franqais (Paris, 1898 and 1904) ; and E. D. Glasson's Precis Elementaire 
de r Histoire du Droit Franqais (Paris, 1904). On the various incidents 
of French seigniorialism, important sources of detailed information are 
Herv^'s Theorie des Matiires Fiodales et Censuelles (8 vols., Paris, 1785- 
1788); Henrion de Pansey's Dissertations FeodcUes (2 vols., Paris, 
1 789) ; Championni^re's De la Propriete des Eaux Courantes (Paris, 
1846) ; Nicholas Brussel's Nouvel Examen de P Usage GenSral des Fiefs 
en France (2 vols., Paris, 1727) ; and Salvaing de Boissieu's ZP^ P Usage 
des Fiefs et autres Droits Seigneuriaux (Grenoble, 1731). 

The ordinances of the French kings may be found in Ordonnances des 
Rois de France de la Troisiime Race (22 vols,, Paris, 17 29- 1849), *°d 
in Isambert's Recueil General des Anciennes Lois Francoises depuis Fan 
420jusqu'd la Rhwlution de 1789 (30 vols., Paris, 1822-1833). 

The Champlain Society of Canada has arranged for the publication, 
in 1907, of a volume of Documents relating to the Seigniorial Regime. 
This will contain, with an introduction and explanatory notes, all the 
more important documents to which reference has been made in the 
course of the present study. 



ALPHABETICAL LIST OF PRINTED MATERL\LS. 

Abraham, R. Some Remarks upon the French Tenure of ^ Franc Aleu 
Roturier," and on its relation to the Feudal and other Tenures. Montreal, 
1849. 

Abstract of those Parts of the Custom of the Viscounty and Provostship 
of Paris, which were received and practised in the Province of Quebec in the 
time of the French government ; (2) The Sequel of the Abstract . . . con- 
taining the thirteen latter Titles of the said Abstract ; (3) An Abstract of 
the Criminal Laws that were in force in the Province of Quebec in the time of 

the French Government. Drawn up " by a Select Committee of Canadian 

Gentlemen well skilled in the Laws of France and of that Province " ; (4) An / 
Abstract of the Several Royal Edicts, and Declarations, and Provincial Regu- 
lations and Ordinances, that were in force in the Province of Quebec in the 
time of the French Government, and of the Commissions of the several Gov- 
emours-general and Intendants of the said Province, during the same Period. 
By '* Francis Joseph Cugnet, Esquire, Secretary to the Govemour and Council 
of the said Province, for the French Language." 4 parts in i vol. London, 
1772-1773. 

Angers, F. R. R^sum^ de la Plaidoirie . . . k PAppui des Propositions 
soumises k la Cour par le Procureur-G^n^ral. Montreal, 1855. 

AvENEL, G. d\ Histoire Economique de la Propri^t^, des Salaires, des 
Denrto, et de tous les Prix en g^n^ral depuis Tan 1200 jusqu^en Tan 1800. 
4 vols. Paris, 1894-1898. 

AvENBL, G. d\ Richelieu et la Monarchie Absolue. 4 vols. Paris, 1884- 
1890. 

Baby, Judge. L^Exode des Classes Dirigeantes k la Cession du Canada. 
Montreal, 1899. 

Bender, P. The French-Canadian Peasantry. Mageudne of American • 
History^ August, 1890, pp. 126-136. New York, 1890. 

BiGGAR, H. P. The Early Trading Companies of New France. (Uni- 
versity of Toronto, Studies in History,) Toronto, 1901. 

BoissiEU, D. S. de. De PUsage des Fie& et autres Droits Seigneuriaux. y'^^^ 
Grenoble, 1731. 

BoucHETTE, J. British Dominions in North America. 2 vols. London, 
1831. 

BoucHETTE, J. Description Topographique de la Province du Bas- 
Canada. London, 181 5. 

BouLUiE, A. Histoire de la Vie et des Ouvrages du Chancelier d^ Agues- 
seau. 2 vols. Paris, 1835. 

BOURINOT, J. G. Manual of the Constitution of Canada. Montreal, 1888. 

267 



fj 



\ 



268 ALPHABETICAL LIST, 

BouRjON, F. Le Droit Commun de la France et la Coutame de Piaris 
rdduits en Principes. 2 vols. Paris, 1770. 

BouTARic, F. Traits des Sdgneuries et des Mati^res F^dales. Tou- 
louse, 1774. 

Bradshaw, F. Self-GqvecBlDent in Canada. London, 1903. 

Brevets de Ratification. Quebec, 1853. 

Brissaud, J. Manuel d'Histoire du Droit Fran9ai8. Paris, i898-[i9043. 

Brussel, N. Nouvel Ex^men de TUsage G^ndral des Fiefe en France. 
2 vols. Paris, 1727. 

Brymner, D. Reports on Canadian Archives. 18 vols. Ottawa, 1872- 

1903- 

Buche, H. Essai sur TAncienne Coutume de Paris aux ziii* et ziv* 
Sixties. NouveUe Revue HistoriquCy viii. 45-86, ix. 558-579. Paris, 1884- 
1885. 

Cadastres abr^g^ des Seigneuries du District de Quebec, 2 vols.; 
Cadastres abr^g^s des Seigneuries du District de Montreal, 3 vols. ; Cadas- 
tres abrdg^ des Seigneuries des Trois-Rivi^res ; Cadastres abr^^ des Seign- 
euries appartenant k la Couronne. 7 vols. Quebec, 1836. 

Canada. Statutes, 1841-1866. 16 vols. 

Casgrain, H. R. Une Paroisse Canadienne au zvii* SiMe. Quebec^ 
1880. 

Cavendish, Sir Henry. Debates of the House of Commons in the Year 
1774, on the Bill for . . . the Government of the Province of Quebec. 
Edited by J. Wright. London, 1789. 

Chalmers, G. A Collection of Treaties between Great Britain and other 
Powers. London, 1790. 

Championni^re, p. L. De la Propri^t^ des Eauz Courantes. Paris, 1846. 

Chap ATS, T. Jean Talon, Intendant de la Nouvelle-France. Quebec, 1904. 

Charlevoix, F. X. Histoire et Description G^n^ral de la NouveUe- 
France. Edited by John Gilmary Shea. 6 vols. New York, 1866-1872. 

Chauveau, p. J. O. Notice sur la Publication des Registres duConseil 
Souverain de Quebec. Quebec, 1885. 

Cherrier, C. S. M^moire contenant un R^sum^ du Plaidoyer . . . sur 
les Questions soumises ^ la D(5cision des Juges de la Cour. Montreal, 1855. 

Cheyney, E. p. European Background of American History. {The 
American Nation : a History ^ Vol. I, edited by A. B. Hart) New York, 1904. 

Christie, R. A History of the Late Province of Lower Canada. 6 vols. 
Montreal, 1866. 

Clement, P. Lettres, Instructions, et M^moires de Colbert. 7 vols. 
Paris, 1 861-1870. 

Coffin, V. The Province of Quebec and the Early American Revolution. 
Madison, Wisconsin, 1896. 

Collection de Manuscrits contenant Lettres, M^moires, et autres Docu- 
ments Historiques relatifs k la Nouvelle-France, recueillis aux archives de la 
Province de Quebec, ou copies \ T^tranger. 4 vols. Quebec, 1 883-1885. 



%^ 



ALPHABETICAL LIST. 269 

Correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Governors of Can- 
ada relative to the Seigniorial and Feudal Tenure. Quebec, 1853. 

Correspondence between the French Government and the Governors 
and Intendants of Canada relative to the Seigniorial Tenure. Quebec, 1853. 

CouTUME DE Paris. — See Abstract and Dumoulin. 

CuGNET, F. J. Traits de la Loi des Fiefs. Quebec, 1775. 

CuGNET, F. J. Traits de la Police. Quebec, 1775. 

Daniel, F. Histoire des Grandes Families Fran9aises du Canada, ^y 
Montreal, 1867. 

Dareste de la Chavanne, a. C. Histoire des Classes Agricoles en 
France. 2d edition. Paris, 1858. 

D'AvENEL. See Avenel, G. d'. 

David, L. O. UUnion dex Deux-Canadas. Montreal, 1898. 

Debats dans PAssembl^e Legislative sur la Tenure Seigneuriale. Quebec, ^ 

1853- 

Dent, J. C. The Last Forty Years. 2 vols. Toronto, 188 1. 

Denys, N. Description G^ographique et Historique des Costes de PAm^ 
rique Septentrionale. 2 vols. Paris, 1672. 

Doughty, A. G. Reports on Canadian Archives. 2 vols. Ottawa, 1904- 
1906. 

Doutre, }., and Lareau, £. Histoire G^n^rale du Droit Civil Canadien. J^ 
Montreal, 1872. 

Dumesnil, C. De PAbolition des Droits F^odaux et Seigneuriaux en 1^ 
Canada. Quebec, 1855. 

Dumoulin, C Coutumes de la Prdv6t^ et Vicomt^ de Paris. Paris, 
1 539. — New edition. Paris, 168 1 . 

DuNKiN, C. Address at the Bar of the Legislative Assembly of Canada y 
on behalf of certain Seigniors in Lower Canada, against the Second Reading /> 
of the Bill for the Abolition of the Seigniorial Tenure. Quebec, 1853. 

DuNKiN, C. Case of the Seigniors of Lower Canada. Montreal, 1855. ^ 

Durham, Earl op. Report on the Affairs of British North America; 
with appendices. London, 1839. — New edition, without appendices. Lon- 
don, 1900. 

Edgar, J. D. Titles of Honor in Canada. University Quarterly Review^ 
February, 1890, pp. 98-104. Toronto, 1890. 

Edicts, Ordinances, Declarations, and Decrees relative to the Seigniorial i^ 
Tenure. Quebec, 1852. 

Edits, Ordonnances Royaux, Declarations, et Arrets du Conseil d'Etat 
du Roi concemant le Canada. 2 vols. Quebec, 1 803-1 806. — New edition, 
enlarged and improved. 3 vols. Quebec, 1 854-1 856. 

EsMEiN, A. Cours El^mentaire d^Histoire du Droit Franks. Paris, 1905. 

Faillon, M. E. Histoire de la Colonie Fran^aise en Canada. 3 vols. 
Ville-Marie, 1865-1866. 

Ferland, J. B. A. Cours d^Histoire du Canada. 2 vols. Quebec, 1861- 
1865. 



f 



^, 



270 ALPHABETICAL LIST. 

Ferriere, Claude. Corps et Compilation de tout les Commentatems 
Andens et Modernes sur la Coutume de Paris. 4 vols. Paris, 17 14. 
\J Fustel de Coulanges, N. D. La Justice dans la Sod^t^ F6odale. Revue 
des Deux Mondesy zdi. 274-298. Paris, 1871. 

Garneau, F. X. Histoire du Canada. 4 vob. Montreal, 1882-1883. 

Gaspe, p. a. de. Les Andens Canadiens. Quebec, 1863. 

Gatien, F. X. Histoire de la Paroisse du Cap-Sant^. Quebec, 1884. 

Glasson, £. D. Precis EMmentaire de THistoire du Droit Fran9a2s. 
Paris, 1904. 

GossELiN, A. Les Normands au Canada: Jean Bourdon et son ami 
TAbb^ de Saint-Sauveur. Quebec, 1904. 

GossELiN, A. Vie de Mgr. de Laval, premier Ev^ue de Qu^ec et Ap6tre 
du Canada. 2 vols. Quebec, 1890. 

Grande ENCYCLOPtois. 31 vols. Paris, 1886-1900. 

Gravier, G. Cavelier de la Salle de Rouen. Paris, 1871. 

Great Britain. Parliamentary Papers. Papers relating to Lands in 
Canada. London, 1837. 
^ Greenough^J SL P- Canadian Folk-Life and Folk-Lore. New York, 1 897. 

Hakluyt, R. a Discourse on Western Planting, written in 1584. (Maine 
Historical Sodety, Collections^ 2d series, vol. ii.) Cambridge, 1877. 

Hallam, H. View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages. 
London, 1846. 

Harrisse, H. Notes pour servir k THistoire . . . de la Nouvelle-France. 
Paris, 1872. 

Head, Sir F. B. The Emigrant. London, 1847. 

Henrion de Pansey, p. P. N. Dissertations F^odales. 2 vols. Paris, 
1789. 

Heriot, G. Travels through the Canadas. London, 1807. 

Herv6, M. T. Th^rie des Mati^res F^odales et Censudles. 8 vols. 
Paris, 1 785- 1 788. 

Hincks, Sir F. Reminiscences of his Public Life. Montreal, 1884. 

[HmcKS, Sir F.] The Seigniorial Question ; its Present Position. By a 
Member of the Legislative Assembly from Upper Canada. Quebec, 1854. 

Hopkins, J. C, editor. Canada : an Encydopaedia of the Country. 5 vols. 
Toronto, 1 898-1900. 

Houston, W. Documents Illustrative of the Canadian Constitution. 
Toronto, 1891. 

Isambert, F. a. Recudl G^n^ral des Andennes Lois Franqaises depuis 
Tan 420 jusqu'k la Revolution de 1789. 30 vols. Paris, 1 822-1 833. 

Jean-Baptiste, Le Fr^re de. Paie, Pauvre Peuple, Paiel Quebec, 
1855. 

JODOiN, A., and Vincent, J. L. Histoire de Longueuil et de la Famille 
de Longueuil. Montreal, 1889. 

Johnson, G. A Summary of the Censuses of Canada, 1 665-1 871. Ottawa, 
1876. 



ALPHABETICAL LIST. 271 

Journals of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, 1 792-1 837. 53 
vols. 

Journals of the Legislative Council of Lower Canada, 1792-1837. 25 
vols. 

Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, 1 841-1866. 48 vols. 

Journals of the Legislative Council of Canada, 1 841-1866. 44 vols. 

JuGEMENTS et Deliberations du Conseil Souverain de la Nouvelle-France. 
6 vols. Quebec, 1 885-1 891. — In Vol. V the title is changed to " Jugements 
et Deliberations du Consdl Superieur de Quebec^ 

Kalm, p. Travels into North America. 2 vob. London, 1772. 

KiERKOWSKi, A. The Question of the Seigniorial Tenure in Lower Can-j 
ada reduced to a Question of Landed Credit. Quebec, 1850. 

KiNGSPORD, W. History of Canada, ip vols. Toronto, 1887-1898. 

KiRBY, W. The Chien d'Or : The Golden Dog, a Legend of Quebec. 
New York, etc., 1877. 

KiRKE, H. The First English Conquest of Canada. London, 1871. 

Klimrath, H. Etudes siur les Coutumes. Paris, 1837. 

Lafont aine, Sir L. H . Observations. Printed in Lower Canada Re- ^ 
Poris: :>etgntortai Questions^ vol. i. Quebec, 1856. 

Lahontan (or La Hontan), Le Baron de. Nouveaux Voyages. 2 vols. 
The Hague, 1705, and many subsequent editions. — See also Thwaites, 
R.G. 

Lambert, J. Travels through Canada. 3 vols. London, 1814. 

Lareau, £. Histoire du Droit Canadien, depuis les Origines de la Colonie 
jnsqu^k nos jours. 2 vols. Montreal, 1888-1889. 

Lareau, E. Melanges Historiques et Litteraires. Montreal, 1871. 

Larochepoucault-Liancourt, F. a. F. de. Travels in the United 
States . . . with an authentic account of Lower Canada. 4 vols. London, 
1803. 

Laveleye, £. DE. De la Propriete et de ses Formes Primitives. Paris, 
1874. 

Le Blanc (or Leblanc), F. Traite Historique des Monnoyes de France. 
Amsterdam, 1692. 

Le Moine, J . M. Chronides of the St Lawrence. Montreal, etc., 1878. 

Le Moine, J. M. Maple Leaves. 7 series. Quebec, 1863-1906. 

Lbroy-Beaulieu, p. De la Colonisation chez les Peuples Modemes. 2 
vols. Paris, 1902. 

Lescarbot, M. Histoire de la Nouvelle-France. Edited by E. Tross. 
3 vols. Paris, 1866. 

LiNDSEY, C. The Life and Times of William Lyon Mackenzie. 2 vols. 
Toronto, 1863. 

LoiSEL, A. Institutes Coutumi^res. Paris, 1688. 

L0RAN6ER, T. J. J. Memoire compose de la Plaidoirie • . . devant la 
Cour Seigneuriale. Montreal, 1855. 

LORIN, H. Le Comte de Frontenac. Paris, 1895. 



272 ALPHABETICAL UST. 

\ Lower Canada Reports. Decisions des Tribunaux du Bas-Canada : 
^ Seigniorial Questions. Edited by Messrs. Leli^vre and Angers. 3 vols. 
Quebec, etc., 1856. 

LucHAiRE, A. Manuel des Institutions Fran9aises. Paris, 1892. 
i Mackay, R. The Case in Part of the Seigniors of Lower Canada. 
Montreal, 1855. 

McCarthy, J. Dictionnaire de TAnden Droit du Canada. Quebec, 
1809. 

Maitlano, F. W. Domesday Book and Beyond. London, 1897. 

Mandements, Lettres Pastoiales, et Circulaires des Ev^ues de Quebec 
Edited by Messrs. H. T^tu and C. O. Gagnon. 6 vols. Quebec, 1 887-1 890. 
^^\ >^ Manesse, L. Les Paysans et leurs Seigneurs avant 1789. Paris, 1895. 

Margry, p. D6couvertes et Etablissements des Fran^ais dans TOuest. 
6 vols. Paris, 1 879-1 888. 

Margry, P. Relations et M^moires in^dits, pour servir k PHistoire de la 
France dans les Pays d'Outre Mer, tir^ des archives du Minist^re de la 
Marine et des Colonies. Paris, 1865. 

Marie de lUncarnation, M^re. Lettres Historiques. Paris, 1857. 

Marriott, J. A, Plan of a Code of Laws for the Province of Quebec. 
London, 1774. 

Martin, J. Travels in Canada. London, 1824. 

Maseres, F. An Account of the Proceedings of the British and other 
Inhabitants of Quebec. London, 1775. 

Maseres, F. Additional Papers concerning the Province of Quebec. 
Quebec, 1776. 

Maseres, F. A Collection of several Commissions and other Public In- 
struments . . . relating to the State of the Province of Quebec. London, 
1772. 

Maseres, F. Draught of an Act of Parliament for settling the Laws of the 
Province of Quebec. London, [ 1 77 1 ] . 

Montesquieu, Baron de. The Spirit of Laws. Translated by Thomas 
Nugent. London, 1897. 

MONTIGNY, B. a. Testard DE. Histou*e du Droit Canadien. Montreal, 
1869. 

Montreal Convention. La Convention Anti-Seigneuriale de Montreal. 
Montreal, 1854. 

MoREAU DE St. M£ry, M. L. Lois et Constitutions des Colonies Fran- 
daises de TAmdrique. 6 vols. Paris, 1 784-1 790. 

Moyat, L. Etude Historique, Critique, et Compart sur le Droit de Chasse. 
Paris, 1900. 

Myj gp, W. B. The Droit de Banality during the French R^me in 
Canada. Amencan Historical Association, J?^;^/^/, 1899, i. 205-228. Wash- 
ington, 1900. 

MuNRO, W^. The Noblesse of the Old Regime. Canadian Magazine^ 
r 4 April, 1900, pp. 568-573. Toronto, 1900. 



i 



^\ 



ALPHABETICAL LIST. 273 

MuNRO, W. B. The Office of Intendant in New France. American 
Historical Review^ October, 1906, pp. 15-38, New York, 1906. 

New York. Documents relating to the Colonial History of New York. 
Edited by O^Callaghan and Femow. 15 vols. New York, 1853 -1883. 

NouvELLE Revue Historique du Droit Fran^ais. 29 vols. Paris, 

1877-1905- 

Ordinances made for the Province of Quebec by the Governor and Coun- 
cil since the Establishment of Civil Government. Quebec, 1767. 

Ordinances made and passed by the Governor and L^slative Council of 
the Province of Quebec, and now in force in the Province of Lower Canada. 
Quebec, 1792. 

Ordonnances des Rois de France de la Troisi^me Race. 22 vols. Paris, 
1 729-1 849. 

Parkman, F. Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV. 
Frontenac edition. Boston, 1901. 

Parkman, F. The Old R^me in Canada. 2 vols. Boston, 1901. C^ 

Parkman, F. The Pioneers of France in the New World. 2 vols. 
Boston, 1901. 

Perrault, J. F. Extraits ou Precedents, tir^s des Registres de la Prd- 
voste de Quebec. Quebec, 1824. 

Perwich, W. The Despatches of William Perwich, English agent in 
Paris, 1 669- 1 677. [Camden Society, Publications^ 3d series, vol. v.] Lon- 
don, 1903. 

Pi^ES ET Documents relati& k la Tenure Seigneuiiale. 2 vols. Quebec, 
1 852-1 854. — See also Titles and Documents. 

PiGEONNBAU, H. La Politique Coloniale de Colbert Annates de PEcoie 
Libre des Sciences Poultques^ i. 487-509. I'aris, 1886. 

Proceedings of the Special Court held under the authority of the Seign- 
iorial Act of 1854. Quebec, 1856. 

QuELQUES Avis d\in Cultivateur aux Censitaires du Bas-Canada au sujet 
de la Loi d^Abolition de la Tenure Seigneuriale. Quebec, 1855. 

[Rambau, a. X.] Le Bill Seigneurial expose sous son Vrai Jour par le 
Journal "La Patrie." Montreal, 1855. 

Rameau de St. P^re, E. Une Colonie F^odale en Am^ricue. 2 vols. 
Paris and Montreal, 1889. 

Rapport du Ministre des Travaux Publics de la Province de Quebec. 
Quebec, 1899. 

Read, D. B. The Rebellion of 1837. Toronto, 1896. 

Regne Militaire en Canada, ou Administration Judiciaire de ce Pays par 
les Anglais du 8 Septembre, 1760, au 10 Aoiit, 1764. (Montreal Historical 
Society, Publicaiums,) Montreal, 1872. 

Renauldon, J. Traits Historique et Pratique des Droits Seigneuriauz. 
Pari.<s 1765, 

Report of the Commissioners on the Grievances complained of in Lower 
Canada. London, 1837. 



y 



274 ALPHABETICAL LIST. 

Report of the Committee on the Affairs of Lower Canada ; with Evidence. 
London, 1 834-1 837. 

Report of the Committee on the State of the Civil Government of Can- 
ada. London, 1828. 

Reports. — See Lower Canada Reports. 

Richardson, J. Eight Years in Canada. Montreal, 1847. 

RiouFOL, M. L^Origine et THistoire des Banalit^s. Paris, 1893. 

RocHEMONTEix, C. DE. Les J^suites et la Nouvelle-France au xvii">* 
Si^cle. 3 vols. Paris, 1 895-1 896. 

Roy, J. E. Histoire de la Seigneurie de Lauzon. 5 vob. Montreal, 1897- 
1904. 

Roy, R. Les Intendants de la Nouvelle-France. Royal Society of 
Canada, Proceedings^ 1903, Mhnaires, sec. i. 65-75. Ottawa, 1903. 

Royal Society of Canada. Proceedings. First series, 11 vols., Ottawa^ 
1882-1894. Second series, 11 vols., Ottawa, 1895-1906. 
« Sagard, G. Histoire du Canada. Edited by £. Tross. 4 vols. Paris, 

1865-1866. 

Sansom, J. Sketches of Lower Canada. New York, 1817. 

Sargent, A. J. The Economic Policy of Colbert (London School of 
Economics, Studies in Economics and Political Science ^ No. 5.) London, 1899. 

Sellar, R. History of Huntingdon, Chateauguay, and Beauhamois. 
Huntingdon, Quebec, 1888. 

Smith, W. Hbtory of Canada. 2 vols. Quebec, 181 5. 

SuLTE, B. L^Ancienne Noblesse du Canada. Reime CanadieHnej May- 
September, 1885, pp. 298-556 /ATJiVff. Montreal, 1885. 

SuLTE, B. Chronique Trifluvienne. Montreal, 1879. 
s. SuLTE,B. Histoire des Canadiens-Fran^ais. 8 vols. Montreal, 1 882-1 884. 

SuLTE, B. La Guerre des Iroquois. Royal Society of Canada, Procud- 
ingSy 1897, Mtmoires^ sec. i. 65-92. Ottawa, 1897. 

SuLTE, B. Le Regime Militaire, 1 760-1 764. Ibid, 1905, Appendix A. 
Ottawa, 1906. 

SuLTE, B. Le Regiment de Carignan. Ibid. 1902, Mimairesjscc. i. 25-95. 
Ottawa, 1902. 
^ ^k SuLTE, B. La Tenure Seigneuriale. Revtse CanaeUenne^ July-August, 
^ 1882, pp. 437-462 /^j/w. Montreal, 1882. 

^ Tach£, J. C. a Plan for the Commutation of the Seigniorial Tenure. 
-T Quebec, 1854. 

m Taine, H. a. Les Origines de la France Contemporalne, Vol. I : L^Anden 
^ Regime. Paris, 1876. 

Tanguay, C. Dictionnaire G^ndalogique des Families Canadiennes depuis 
la Fondation de la Colonie jusqu^k nos jours. 7 vols. Montreal, 1871-1890. 

Tanguay, C. Repertoire G^n^ral du Clerg^ Canadien. Quebec, 1868. 

Theller, £. A. Canada in 1837-1838. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1841. 

Thwaites, R. G., editor. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. 
73 vols. Cleveland, 1 896-1901. 



ALPHABETICAL LIST. 27$ 

Thwaites, R. G., editor. Lahontan^s New Voyages to North America. 
2 vols. Chicago, 1905. 

Titles and Documents relating to the Seigniorial Tenure. 2 vols, v*^ 
Quebec, 1 852-1 854. 

TiTRES DES SEIGNEURIES. — Vol. II of PifeCES BT DOCUMENTS. 

TocQUEViLLE, A. DE. The Old Regime and the Revolution. Translated L* 
from the French by J. Bonner. New York, 1856. 

TROisikME Rapport et D^ibdrations du Comitd Special de TAssembl^ 
Legislative. Quebec, 185 1. 

TuRCOTTE, L. P. Lc Canada sous TUnion. 2 vols. Quebec, 1871-1872. 

ViOLLET, P. Histoire du Droit Civil Franpais. Paris, 1893. 

ViOLLET, P. Histoire des Institutions Politiques et Administratives de la 
France. 3 vols. Paris, 1890-1903. 

Weir, R. S. The Administration of the Old Regime in Canada. Mon- u 
treal, 1897. 



INDEX. 



Abraham, Pierre, carpenter, sent to the 
seigniories to look for timber, 137. 

Abraham, Robert, on the nature of tenure 
en franc aleu roturier, 53; on the droit de 
retrait, 99. 

Absenteeism, evil of, in France, 12. 

Abuses, seigniorial, in France, 12; appear 
in Canada, 39; reported by Raudot, 
39-40; reform of, considered by min- 
ister, 41-42; provisions in Arrets of 
Marly relating to, 42-^44; discussed by 
Beauhamois and Hocquart, 47-48; in 
exercise of the droit de retrait, 97-98; 
instructions of Pontchartrain for remedy 
of, 98; in exercise of banal rights in 
France, 102; enforcement of mill banal- 
ity in Canada, 104-105 ; continuance of, 
permitted by non-publication of royal 
decree, 10^107; connected with inef- 
ficiency of banal mills, 111-115; in- 
crease of, after the British conquest, 121, 
206-207; connected with right of oven 
banality, 122-124; in exaction of cor- 
v6es, 128-130; attempted reform of, 
128-129; in matter of reservations, 
134-139; opinions of Special Court 
on, 137-140; in matter of prohibitions, 
140; protection of habitants against, 
by the intendant, 143; in seigniorial 
courts, 155-157; Carleton's opinion on, 

«S7. 

Act, Quebec (1774), 209-219; Judicature 
(1793)* 219; Constitutional (1791), 221 ; 
Canada Trade (1822), 223-224; Canada 
Trade and Tenures (1825), 225-226; 
Canada (1840), 239; for optional com- 
mutation of tenures ( 1 845 ) , 242 ; for abo- 
lition of the seigniorial tenure (1854), 
244-245; Jesuits' Estates (1888), 250. 

Advowson, seigniorial right of, 185; en- 
deavor of Laval and of St. Vallier to 
limit, 185; opinion of Duchesneau 



regarding, 185; restricted by royal 
arret, 185. 

Agriculture, progress of (i 608-1 627), 
20-22; under Company of One Hun- 
dred Associates, 26-27; difficulties of, 
in New France, 28; apathy of Com- 
pany of the West Indies in develop- 
ment of, 32-33; methods of, described 
by Catalogue, 45-47; neglected during 
the closing years of the old r6gime, 51, 
188; effect of subdivision of lands on, 
83-84; relation of seigniorial mills to, 
125-126; state of, under British rule, 
23s. 237. 

Aguesseau, Henri- Fran90]S d'. See Da- 
guesseau. 

Ailleboust. See IVAilleboust 

Atnesse, droit d', recognized in succes- 
sions to seigniories, 82. 

Amherst, General Jeffrey, signs articles 
of capitulation, 189; organizes system 
of military government, 190. 

Amiot, Charles, seignior of Vincelotte, 
establishes a banal oven, 121 ; is granted 
letters of noblesse, 172. 

Amortisement, of seigniories owned by 
Jesuits, 53; of lands held by other reli- 
gious bodies, 53. 

Arpent, definition of, 24. 

Arret, of Marly (171 1), 42-44; of Ver- 
sailles (1732), 49; draft of an, for re- 
form of seigniorial abuses (171 7}, 128, 

135- 
Arridre-fiefs, number of, 77; obligations 

imposed upon holders of, 77; reasons 

for making grants o^ 79; provisions in 

act of 1854 relating to, 245. 
Associates. See Company of One Hundred 

Associates. 
Aubert, Charles, Sieur de la Chesnaye, 

purchases '* marquisat de SabU," 170. 
AuteuiL See D'Auteuil. 



277 



278 



INDEX. 



Aveu et d^nombrement, made by seign- 
iors, 57; its nature and scope, 57-58; 
its value to the colonial authorities, 58; 
in case of arri^re-fieft, 77. 

Aylmer, Lord, governor of Canada (1831- 
1835), recommendations concerning the 
seigniorial tenure, 227-228. 

Baby, Judge, on exodus of French-Cana- 
dians after the British conquest, 192. 

Bagot, Sir Charles, governor of Canada 
(1842-1843), appoints commission to 
study seigniorial problem, 239. 

Bailiffs, seigniorial, in France, 1 2. 

Ban, feudal, in France, 65. 

Banal mills. See Banality, Mills. 

Banality, forms of, in France, 4, loi; 
Henrion de Pansey on, loi ; origin of, 
101-102; provisions of Custom of 
Fftris relating to, 102; narrow scope 
of the obligation in Canada, 102-103; 
official regulation of, 105-108; Raudot 
on restriction of, 106-108; differences 
between the obligation in France and 
in Canada, ill; applied to ovens, 121; 
no vested right of, in Canada, 124; 
Parkman on burden of, 125; Goldwin 
Smith on non-enforcement of the obli- 
gation, 125; relation of the right to 
agriculture, 126; minor forms in Can- 
ada, 142; obligation abolished by act 
of 1854, 247; opinion of the Special 
Court on the legal basis of, 249. See 
also Mills, Ovens. 

Baronies, authority to create, given to 
La Roche, 161; to Company of One 
Hundred Associates, 161- 162; number 
of, in Canada and Acadia, 166. See 
also Cap Tourmente, Des Islets, Lon 
gueuil, Pobomcoup, Portneuf. 

Barroys. See Le Bu'roys. 

Basse justice. See Justice (seigniorial). 

Batiscan, seigniory of, seigniorial judges 
in, ordered to hold regular sessions, 156. 

Beaches, to be left free for fishermen, 75; 
seigniorial reservation of, 138; method 
of fishing on tidal, described by Kalm, 
138. 

.Beauhamois, Charles, Marquis de, gov- 
ernor of New France (i 726-1 747), 
discusses seigniorial abuses, 47-^8; calls 
Attention to subdivision of lands, 84. 



Beaumont, seigniory of, given to Charles 
Couillard de Beaumont (i7i3)» 44; 
conditions in title-deed of, 59; inter- 
pretations of banal obligations in, 119. 

Beauport, seigniory of, granted to Robert 
Giffard (1634), 25 ; augmentation of 
(1653), 25; terms in title-deed of, 
64. 

Beaupr6, seigniory of, population in 1667, 
186. 

B^ancour, seigniory of, wrongly termed 
a barony, 167. See also Robineau. 

Begon, Michel, intendant of New France 
(1710-1724), judgment on the droit 
de retrait, 99; ordinance regarding 
banal rights, 117; on the exaction of 
corvee labor, 129; forbids future stipu- 
lations for corvees, 130; on the nature 
of seigniorial reservations, 1 35 ; counsels 
creation of parishes, 182. 

Belceil, seigniory of, given to Lemoyne de 
Longueuil (1713), 44. 

Berthelot, Fran9ois, seignior of Isle Jesus, 
165 ; exchanges seigniories with Laval, 
165 ; becomes Comte de St. Laurent, 
165 ; commended to the royal favor by 
Talon, 166. 

Berthier, seigniory of, enforcement of 
royal reservation of timber in, 136. 

Berthier, Alexandre, officer in the Carig- 
nan regiment, becomes owner of a 
seigniory, 7a 

Bienville. See Lemoyne de Bienville. 

Bigot, Francois, intendant of New France 
( 1 748-1 760), orders demolition of 
buildings erected by habitants, 84. 

Blaine. See Droit de blairie. 

Bouchard. See Isles Bouchard. 

Boucher, seigniory of, granted without 
judicial rights, 147. 

Boucher, Pierre, sent to France to present 
colonial grievances, 26 ; given rank in 
the noblesse, 171 ; patent revoked, 
171; restored to rank, 172. 

Boucher de la Perri^re, leader in the 
Haverhill raid, 176. 

Bouchette, Joseph, on characteristics of 
the Norman settler in Canada, 153. 

Boundaries, of seigniories, how deter- 
mined, 55 ; to be set forth in the aveu 
et d^nombrement, 57 ; within seignior- 
ies to be delimited by seigniors who had 



INDEX. 



279 



middle jurisdiction, 150; frequent dis- 
putes among habiunts regarding, 153. 

Bourdon, Jean, surveyor-general of New 
France, credited with origin of oblong 
grants, 80 ; his map of the seigniories, 
80 ; as attorney-general supervises ad- 
ministration of seigniorial justice, 156 ; 
commended to the king for ennoble- 
ment, 172. 

Bourinot, Sir John George, on the guar- 
antees contained in the capitulation of 
1760, 190. 

British American Land Company. Set 
Company. 

Cadillac. See Lamotte-Cadillac. 

CaSn, Guillaume de, given Cap Tour- 
mente ( 1624), ^i > created baron of Cap 
Tourmente, 166. 

Capitaine de la milice, local agent of 
central authorities, 43; position and 
powers of, 43 ; specific duties of, 43, 
73 ; supervises exaction of royal cor- 
vees, 133. 

Capitulation of Montreal, signed by 
Vaudreuil and Amherst, 189; terms 
of» 1 89; guarantees of proprietary 
rights in, 189-190; confirmed by the 
Treaty of Paris, 191. 

Cap Tourmente, granted to Guillaume 
de Cafin (1624), 21 ; made a barony, 
166. 

Card money, seigniorial dues payable in, 
92 ; depreciation of, 188. 

Carignan-Sali^res regiment sent to Can- 
ada, 33 ; several companies disbanded 
in colony, 36; previous history in 
France, 67 ; project of Talon with ref- 
erence to, 68 ; officers receive seignior- 
ies along the Richelieu, 69-70; grant of 
monetary assistance to non-commis- 
sioned officers and men, 70; provided 
with wives, 72 ; effect of settlement in 
colony, 72; former members assist in 
construction of Fort Frontenac, 73. 

Carleton, Guy, governor of Canada (176S- 
1778, 1 786-1 796), views on seign- 
iorial obligation of military service, 66 ; 
on seigniorial justice, 151, 157 ; assumes 
governorship, 196; investigates legal 
situation in the colony, 198; orders 
compilation of French law, 19S-199; 



views on legal needs of Canada, 199- 
200; proposes ordinance for reform 
of legal system, 200-201 ; recommen- 
dations to Shelburne, 201 ; opinion of 
Masires, 202; goes to England, 203; 
secures partial adoption of recommen- 
dations, 203-204; resumes duties in 
Canada, 211. 

Caron, Judge, on extent of the right of 
mill banality, 118. 

Cartier, Jacques, expeditions to New 
France (i534-i535)» >7- 

Casgrain, Abb6 H. R., on method of pay- 
ing seigniorial dues, 95 ; on relation 
between the seigniory and the parish, 
183. 

Catalogne, G6d^on de, engineer, report 
on state of seigniories (171 2), 45-47 ; 
on ownership of fiefe in Canada, 46; 
on influence of the church, 46-47 ; on 
seigniorial justices, 152; on seigniorial 
cures, 182; superior management of 
church fiefs noted by, 182. 

Cens, definition of, 85 ; origin of, 85-86 ; 
Herv6 on origin of, 86; Henrion de 
Pansey on origin of, 87 ; amount of, in 
France, 87 ; Bourjon on rate in France, 
87 ; rate not fixed in Canada prior to 
1 71 1, 88 ; desire of Raudot for uniform 
rate, 89 ; relation of ArrSt of Marly to 
rate, 89-90 ; common belief in uniform- 
ity of rate, 90 ; Hocquart's attitude re- 
garding rate, 90-91 ; absence of uniform 
rate in royal grants, 92 ; payable in coin 
at a discount, 92-93 ; abolition of, 247 ; 
opinion of the Special Court in regard 
to rate, 249. 

Cens et rentes, in France, 4; how and 
when payable in Canada, 95 ; Casgrain 
on payment of, 95 ; date and place of 
payment strictly interpreted, 95. See 
also Cens, Rentes. 

Censitaires. See Habitants. 

Census, of 1734, 49; ©^ ^739» 85; of 
1720, 108; of 1681, 166; of 1667, 188. 

Centralization, administrative, in France, 
13 ; in Canada, 15. 

Chambly, seigniory of, restriction of 
seigniorial reservations in, 135. 

Chambly, Philippe de, officer in the 
Carignan regiment, receives a seign- 
iory, 70. 



28o 



INDEX. 



Quimpigny, Jean Bochart de, intendant 
of New France (1686-1702), asks that 
Longueuil be made a barony, 168 ; on 
poverty of the noblesse, 173-175; im- 
plores the king to give no more patents, 

Championni^re, A., on banal abuses in 
France, 102. 

Cbamplain, seigniory of, banal obligation 
in, 117 ; seigniorial judges of, ordered 
to hold weekly sessions, 156. 

Champlain, Samuel, voyages to the St. 
Lawrence, 20 ; founder of Quebec, 20; 
his powers, 20-21 ; advises seigniorial 
grants, 21 ; issues ordinances, 145 ; 
establishes Brst court at Quebec, 145. 

Chapais, Thomas, on growth of population 
in New France (1669-1673), 72 ; on 
the life and work of Talon, 165, 

Charles VIII, king of France (14830I498), 
codification of the coutumes during the 
reign of, 7. 

Charlesbourg, granted to the Jesuits en 
franc aleu noble (1637), 5^ 

Charlevoix, F. X., on powers of the 
Company of the West Indies, 32. 

Charter, of La Roche, 18-19 ; of Com- 
pany of One Hundred Associates, 22- 
24 ; revocation of, 27 ; of Company of 
the West Indies, 30-32 ; revocation of, 

37. 

Chasse. See Droit de chasse. 

Ch&tellenie. See Conlonge. 

Chavigny, Francois de, seignior of La 
Chevroti^re, seeks enforcement of 
corv6e obligation, 130. 

Ch6ruel, A., on gradations of the noblesse 
in France, 170. 

Chesnaye. See Aubert 

Church, the, its relation to Canadian 
feudalism, 178 ; support given by, to 
agriculture, 179 ; lands controlled by, 
1 80-1 8 1 ; superior management of 
seigniories by, 186; influence in France 
and in Canada, 187-188 ; dislikes new 
settlers, 234; attitude toward Jesuits' 
Estates, 250. See also Jesuits, RecoUets, 
Salpitians, Ursulines. 

Churches, sometimes erected by corv6e 
labor, 131 ; reservation of sites for, 
139; right of seigniors to places of 
honor in, 161 ; methods of erection. 



184; refusal of Laval to consecrate, 
1^5 » right of advowson in seigniorial, 
185-186. 

Qergy Reserves, question of, 222-223, 
224; prominence of, in elections of 
1854, 245 ; secularization of, 245. 

Colbert, Jean Baptiste, his interest in 
affairs of New France, 14; organizes 
Company of the West Indies, 30 ; ap- 
proves Talon's scheme of military colo- 
nization, 69; secures revocation of 
patents of noblesse, 171. 

Colombier. See Droit de colombier. 

Commissioners of 1843, opinion in regard 
to corvees, 133; report of, 207; to be 
appointed to value seigniorial rights, 
245-247. 

Company, British American Land, or- 
ganized to develop lands in Quebec, 

234- 

Company of New France. See Company 
of One Hundred Associates. 

Company of One Hundred Associates, or- 
ganized by Richelieu, 22; its powers, 
23; its organization, 24; encounters dif- 
ficulties, 24; seigniorial grants made by, 
25; exploits fur trade, 26; surrenden its 
privileges, 27; grants lands subject to 
French Vexin, 63 ; conditions relat- 
ing to land grants in its charter, 88; 
empowered to grant titles of honor, 
161-162. 

Company of the West Indies, organized 
under auspices of Colbert, 30; its exten- 
sive powers, 31 ; its prerogatives in law 
and in fact, 31-32; exploits fur trade, 
32-33; sends agent to Canada, 32; 
makes few land grants, 33-34 ; its 
charter revoked, 37; its heavy losses, 

37- 

Compensation, not granted for loss of ju- 
dicial powers, 15S; given to seigniors 
upon abolition of seigniorial tenure, 
247-248; considered inadequate by 
seigniors, 251. 

Contrecoeur, Antoine P&ody de, officer of 
the Carignan-Sali^res, becomes a seign- 
ior, 70. 

Copyhold, tenure in, confused with tenure 
en censive, 205-206. 

Corvee, exaction, in France, 5, 127; 
provisions of Custom of Paris relating 



INDEX. 



281 



to, 127; abuses in Canada, 128-150; 
exaction restricted, 129-130; future stip- 
ulations of, forbidden, 130- 131 ; super- 
vision of, 133; amount of, 133-134; 
commutation of, 133 ; " king's corvee," 
nature of, 132-133 ; exaction after the 
conquest, 133. 

C8te de Lauzon, habitants of, ordered to 
pay dues into royal treasury, 30. 

Couillard de Beaumont, Charles, obtains 
seigniory of Beaumont (1713), 44 ; rec- 
ommended for rank in the noblesse, 
172. 

Coulonge, chfttellenie of, given to Louis 
d'Ailleboust (1656), 169-170. 

Council, Old (I'ancien conseil), estab- 
lished at Quebec, 146; jurisdiction of, 
146; registers of, not preserved, 146; 
replaced by Sovereign Council, 154- 

Council, Royal. See Council of State. 

Council, Sovereign, appeals from, carried 
to Council of State, 14; established at 
Quebec (1663), 29; procedure to follow 
Parliament of Paris, 29; issues decree 
revoking land grants, 29-30; relation 
to Company of the West Indies, 32 ; 
delays promulgation of royal decree, 
38; duty in registering royal arrets, 
65; judgment relating to payment of 
lods et ventes, 96; decree regarding 
banal mills, 103; forbids exaction of 
more than legal rate of toll, 105 ; police 
regulations issued by, 105 ; orders pro- 
mulgation of royal orders, 106; mem- 
bers mostly seigniors, 107; considers 
petition of Morin, 109; hears appeal 
from the Pr^vdti, Z12; considers com- 
plaints regarding mills, 113; confirms 
appointment of seigniorial judges, 151 ; 
hears appeals from royal courts, 153; 
forbidden to consider appeals from seign- 
iorial jurisdictions, 154; suppresses 
seigniorial jurisdiction in Sillery, 154; 
orders collections of tithes, 183; pre- 
vents extension of tithe obligations, 
184. 

Council, Superior. See Council (Sover- 
eign). 

Council, of the Regent, in France, adopts 
minute on colonial corv6es, 128. 

Council of State (conseil d'etat du roi). 



hears appeals from Sovereign Council, 
14. 

Countships. See Orsainville, St Laurent 

Courcelle, Daniel de Rimy de, governor 
of New France (i 665-1 672), accepts 
proposals of Le Barroys, 34; makes in- 
formal grant to Jean Lemoyne, 35. 

Courts, royal. See Justice (administra- * 
tion of). 

Coutume de Normandy, compilation of, 
la 

Coutume de Paris. See Custom of Paris. 

Coutumes, codification of, in France, 7; 
frequent revisions of, ii; English 
judges mistake nature of, 205-206. 

Cramahi, Hon. Hector T., lieutenant- 
governor of Canada (i 770-1 774), ad- 
ministers affairs during absence of 
Carleton, 208. 

Cugnet, Francois Joseph, on exaction 
of the relief after the conquest, 64 ; on 
uniformity of the cens in Canada, 90 ; 
on supervision of seigniorial justice, 
152 ; prepares abstract of edicts and 
ordinances, 201. 

Curis, sent about from seigniory to seign- 
iory, 182 ; permanently located in 
parishes, 183 ; support given by, to 
seigniors, 183; coUect tithes, 184; 
might exempt habitants from payment, 

185. 

Custom of Paris, first official compilation 
of (1510), 7-8; revision of (1580), 8 ; 
arrangement and scope of, 8 ; commen- 
taries on, 8 ; relation to other customs, 
8 ; introduced into New France, 9 ; 
unsuitability to colonial needs, 9-10; 
consequences of its introduction, lo-i i ; 
provisions regarding subinfeudation, 59, 
82 ; regarding exaction of the quint, 
62 ; rules of succession regulated by, 
83 ; provisions regarding the cens, 88 ; 
regarding exercise of the droit de re- 
trait, 97 ; its rules often disregarded in 
Canada, 100 ; on right of mill banality, 
102 ; its provisions set aside, ill; on 
scope of banal rights, x 1 7-1 18; on 
right of oven banality, 121 ; on corvee 
exaction, 127 ; droit de colombier recog- 
nized by, 142 ; to be followed in seign- 
iorial courts, 152; abstract of, prepared 
under Carleton's orders, 198-199; nature 



282 



INDEX. 



oU misunderstood by English jadges, 
205 ; not customary law in English 
sense, 206 ; importance as a source of 
seigniorial law, 207; perpetuation in 
civil code of Quebec, 251. 

Dagnesaean, Henri-Fraiifoia, eminent 
lawyer of Paris, 41 ; requested to draft 
an arrftt for reform of seigniorial abuses, 
41-42; becomes chancellor of France, 
41 ; opinion of, regarding provisions of 
Arr^t of Marly, 62. 

D'Ailleboust, Louis, governor of New 
France (1648-1651, 1657-1658), given 
the ch&tellenie of Coulonge, 169. 

D'Ailleboust de Musseaux, Charles- Joseph, 
member of noblesse, 171 ; poverty of, 

174- 

Dalhousie, Lord, governor of Canada 
(1820-1828), action regarding com- 
mutation of tenures, 227. 

D'Auteuil, Denis-Joseph Ruette, Sieur, 
attorney-general of New France, recom- 
mended for rank in the noblesse, 172. 

D'Auteuil, Francois Ruette, Sieur, attor- 
ney-general of New France, delays pro- 
mulgation of royal decree, 107. 

D'Autray (or Dautr^, seigniory of, stipu- 
lations in title-deed of, 60-61 ; timber 
for royal use taken from, 136-137. 

DeerBeld, part taken by the noblesse in 
destruction of (1704), 176. 

De Gaspi, Philippe Aubert, on daily life 
of habitants during the old regime, 153; 
description of May-pole ceremony, 160. 

Demaure, seigniory of, banal mill in, 109- 
iio; habitants ordered to give corvees, 
131. 

D^nombrement. See Aveu et d6nombre- 
ment. 

Denonville, Jacques-Ren6 de Brisay, Mar- 
quis de, governor of New France (1685- 
1689), on poverty of the noblesse, 
172-174. 

Denys (or Denis), Charles, Sieur de la 
Trinite, member of Sovereign Council, 
recommended for rank in the noblesse, 
172. 

Dequindre, Douville, habitant at Detroit, 
receives new title to lands, 92. 

Deschaillons. See St. Ours. 

Deshaguais, M., eminent lawyer of Paris, 



requested to draft an arr^ for reform 
of seigniorial abuses, 41 ; tardiness in 
compliance, 42; opinions on provisions 
of the Arrets of Marly, 62. 

Des Islets, barony of, created for Talon 
(1671), 163-164. 

Desjordy, seigniory of, disputes regarding 
corvee obligations in, 129. 

Detroit, en censive grants at, 79, 91-92. 

Deux-Montagnes, Lac des, seigniory oi, 
given to the Seminary of St. Sulpice at 
Montreal (1714), 44; stipulations in 
title-deed of, 59. 

Dombourg, seigniory of^ dispute regarding 
banal rights in, 109-110. 

Dorchester, Lord. See Carleton. 

Douglas, Robert, on extent of seigniorial 
jurisdiction, 147. 

Dovecotes, seignioriaL See Droit de 
colombier. 

Droit de banal. 5^^ Banality, Mills, Ovens. 

Droit de blairie, in France, 128. 

Droit de chasse, in France and in Canada 
compared, 141. 

Droit de colombier, recognized by Cus- 
tom of Paris, 142. 

Droit de jambage, mention of, 142. 

Droit de p^che, nature of, 140; not an 
important exaction, 140. See aisa 
Beaches, Reservations. 

Droit de retrait, recognition of, in Custom 
of Paris, 97; different forms of, 97- 
98; Raudot on extension of, in Canada, 
97-98; Pont chartrain desires restriction 
of, 98; Begon's interpretation of, 99; 
incidents in other tenure systems cor- 
responding to, 99; views of Robert 
Abraham on service of, 99; abolition 
of, 247. 

Drummond, L. H., attorney-general^ 
presents list of questions to Special 
Seigniorial Court, 249. 

Duchesneau, Jacques, intendant of New 
France (1676-1682), makes proposals 
regarding land grants, 38; refers in 
despatches to poverty of the noblesse, 

Dugue, Sidrac, Sieur de Bois Briant, officer 
in the Carignan regiment, obtains seign- 
iory of Mille Isles, 44^ 73; takes part 
in expedition to Fort Frontenac, 73; 
disposes of seigniory, 108. 



INDEX. 



283 



Dunkin, Giristopher, counsel for seign- 
iors before Special Seigniorial Court, 
249. 

Dupuy, Qaude-Thomas, intendant of New 
France (i 725-1 728), judgment regard- 
ing obligation of banality, 113. 

Durantaye, Olivier Morel de la, officer of 
the Carignan-Sali^res, receives a seign- 
iory in Canada, 70; member of expedi- 
tion to Fort Frontenac, 73. 

Durham, John George Lambton, first earl 
of, on the shape of Canadian farms, 81 ; 
" Report on the Affairs of British North 
America," 237-239; opinions on the 
relation of tenures to popular discon- 
tent, 238-239. 

Dusable, marquisate of, purchased by 
Charles Aubert, Sieur de la Chesnaye, 
170. 

Sen, of Louis XIV, amount of, 46. 

Egremont, Lord, secretary of state for 
the Southern Department (1761-1763), 
asks for reports on conditions in Can- 
ada, 190-191. 

Entremont, Philippe-Mius d', receives bar- 
ony of Pobomcoup (1652), f66. 

Exodus, of French-Canadians after the 
conquest, 192; conflicting views of 
Suite and Gameau on extent of, 192; 
difficulties in administration resulting 
from, 204; opinion of Judge Baby 
regarding its nature, 204. See also 
Noblesse, Population. 

Explorations, of Cartier and Roberval, 17; 
La Salle given rank in the noblesse for 
his zeal in, 171. 

Paillon, M. £., historian, on services of 
the Jesuits to agriculture, 186. 

Fanning-mills, sent to colony by the king, 
X16. 

Pealty and homage, obligation of, in 
France, 56; rendered by seigniors in 
Canada, 56-57; last performed in 1854, 
57; oath of, a pledge of military service, 
65 ; rendered to seigniors by sub-seign- 
iors, 77; rendered by habitants to 
seigniors, 159; might be enforced by or- 
dinance, 159; description of ceremony 
by Kirby, 159; rendered by seigniors 
to new suzerain, 190; regarded as a 



prerequisite to the exaction of seign- 
iorial dues, 203. 

Ferland, J. B. A., on origin of French- 
Canadians, 9. 

Ferries, rights of seigniors to establish, 
141 ; legal basis of right, 142. 

Fert6, Jean Juchereau de la, member of 
Sovereign Council, recommended for 
rank in the noblesse,. 172. 

Feudalism, origin of, 2; definition of, 2-3; 
development of, in France, 3-^; promi- 
nence of the military obligation in, 3-4; 
decline of, 6; relation to absolutism, 
13; abolition of, in England, 15; first 
implanted in New France, 19; fealty 
and homage as an incident of, 56; 
judicial administration an essential 
phenomenon of, 145; attitude of 
Louis XIV toward, 155; abolition of, 
in Canada, 245. See also Seigniories. 

Five Nations. See Iroquois. 

Foi et hommage. See Fealty and hom- 
age. 

Forfeiture, of seigniories, 29-30 ; of lands 
remaining uncleared, 36, 38; of en 
censive grants, 44; decree of, affect- 
ing twenty seigniories, 50; of banal 
rights, 106-XO7. See also Retrench- 
ment. 

Foucault, Francois, receives regrant of his 
seigniory, 50. 

Franc aleu noble, nature of tenure in, 52; 
rules of succession relating to, 82. 

Franc aleu roturier, nature of tenure in, 
53; Tocqueville's definition of, 53; 
rules of succession relating to, 83; 
tenure en seigneurie commuted to 
tenure in, 243, 245. 

Franche aumdne, nature of tenure in, 53. 

Frankalmoign, nature of grants in, 53. 

Fraser, Captain, receives seigniory of 
Mount Murray (1762), 193. 

Frontenac, Fort, built at Cataraqui in 

1673. 73. 
Frontenac, Louis de Buade, Count, gov- 
ernor of New France (i 672-1 682, 
1 689-1698), orders seigniors to drill 
their habitants, 66; describes ch&teau 
of Longueuil, 67 ; estimates population 
of colony in 1673, 72; builds fort at 
Cataraqui, 73; praises the disbanded 
Carignans, 73; asks that Longueuil be 



284 



INDEX. 



made a barony, 1 68; recommends Her- 
tel for letters of noblesse, 174; pre- 
dicts land monopoly by Jesuits, iSo. 

French-Canadians, origin of, 9-10; Fer- 
land on the origin of, 9 ; strength of 
Norman element among, 10 ; unfamil- 
iar with Custom of Paris, 10; Cata- 
logue's description of, 47 ; pen portrait 
of, by Hocquart, 143 ; Kalm and 
Lahontan on economic condition of, 
144 ; tendency to litigiousness among, 
153 ; De Gaspi on daily life of, 153 ; 
Talon's description of, 171 ; influ- 
ence of the church among, 188 ; 
exodus of, after the conquest, 192 ; 
Murray's report on the condition of, 
197 ; departure of leaders among, 204 ; 
attitude during the Revolutionary War, 
211-213; relation of English seign- 
iors to, 233; economic condition of, 
234; influence of notaries among, 
234-235 ; later attitude toward the 
seigniorial system, 241-245. See also 
Habitants, Noblesse, Population. 

Fttstel de Coulanges, Numa-D€nis, on 
administration of feudal justice in 
France, 145. 

Gftmean, F. Z., opinions on seigniorial 
judicial powers, 147 ; on extent to 
which judicial powers were exercised, 
158 ; on grants of seigniories with 
jurisdiction after 1 7 14, 158; on ex- 
tent of exodus after the conquest, 192. 

Gaudais, Louis, sent to Canada as royal 
commissioner, 29. 

Gaudarville, seigniory o^ habitants to 
receive new titles at customary rates, 
90; rate of rentes in, 93; payment of 
lods et ventes in, 96. 

Gentilly, seigniory of, granted without 
judicial rights, 147. 

Gentilshommes. See Noblesse. 

George III, king of Great Britain and 
Ireland (1760-1810), recrudescence of 
royal power during reign of, 15. 

Giffard, Robert, first seignior of Beauport, 

25- 

Gobin, seigniory of, its extent, 55. 

Godefroy (or Godfroy), Jean-Baptiste, rec- 
ommended for rank in the noblesse, 
172. 



Goderich, Lord, secretary of state for 
war and for the colonies ( 1 830-1 833) , 
instructions regarding tenures in Can- 
ada, 228. 

Gosford, Lord, governor of Canada 
( 1 835-1 838), head of commission to 
investigate grievances in Canada, 235; 
dissolves parliament of Lower Canada, 
236. 

Governor, under English rule. See Carie- 
ton, Durham, Gosford, Haldimand, 
Murray. 

Governor, under French rule, appoint- 
ment of Champlain to post of, 24; em- 
powered to redistribute forfeited lands, 
28; Company of the West Indies em- 
powered to appoint, 31 ; Charlevoix on 
appointment of Mezy as, 32; to make 
grants of seigniories jointly with in- 
tendant, 37; instructed to grant lands 
en censive when necessary, 43; reports 
forfeiture of uncleared grants, 44; 
authorized to make grants in absence 
of intendant, 50; ceremony of fealty 
and homage rendered to, 56; recom- 
mends distribution of royal favors in 
the colony, 162-172. See oho Beau- 
hamois, Champlain, Courcelle, D'Aille- 
boust, DenonviUe, Frontenac, Lauzon, 
M6zy, Ramezay, VaudreuiL 

Grand voyer, ofiice of, in New France, 132. 

Grant, Charles Colmore, recogoized as 
seventh baron of Longueuil, 169. 

Grants, en franc aleu noble, 52-53; en 
franc aleu roturier, 53; en francfae 
aumdne, 53-54; en arri^re fief, 77-78; 
en roture or en censive, 78-79; at De- 
troit, 79; shape of, 79-80 ; subdivision 
of, 8x; effect of subdivision of, 83-85. 
See also Seigniories. 

Granville, Pierre Becquart, Sieur de, 
officer of the Carignan-Sali^es, be- 
comes a seignior in New France, 70. 

Grondines, seigniory of, complaints re- 
garding banal mill in, 113. 

Habitants, explanation of term, 39; often 
did not receive written titles, 39-41; 
relation of Arrfit of Marly to, 43; ref- 
erences of Catalogue to condition and 
habits of, 47-48; ignorant of their 
rights, 48; nature of land grants re- 



INDEX. 



285 



ceiyed by, 78-80; subdivision of farms 
held by, 83-84; houses demolished 
by intendant's order, 84; dues in seign- 
iory of Gaudarville, 90; permitted to 
pay dues in card money, 92; gathered 
in November at the manor-house, 95; 
of Varennes and Mille Isles, obtain 
banal rights, 108; complain of ineffi- 
ciency of seigniorial mills, 112-Z14; 
banalities not burdensome, 1 20-1 21; 
attracted by profits of the fur trade, 
126; of Desjordy, ordered to render 
corvees, 129; of La Chevroti^re, de- 
mand food and tools during corvee 
periods, 130; of Demaure, ordered to 
build a bridge, 132; royal corvee of, 
supervised by grand voyer, 132-133; 
reservations placed upon lands o^ 
134-139; prohibited by seigniors from 
trading with Indians, 139-140; condi- 
tion of, as compared with French cen- 
sitaires, 143; Kalm and Lahontan on 
condition of, 144; disposition to litig- 
iousness, 153; rebuked by Talon, 
153; daily life as portrayed by De 
Gaspe, 153; compelled to pay for 
special sessions in seigniorial courts, 
156; plant May-pole at the manor- 
house, 160; more desirable as settlers 
than gentilshommes, 174; protected by 
intendant, 177; influence of the church 
with, 188; respect and obey the 
noblesse, 197; called upon by Carleton 
for military service, 21 1 ; refuse to obey 
their seigniors, 212-213; rents of, in- 
creased after the conquest, 220; show 
Bgns of discontent, 235; deserted by 
their leaders in the rebellion, 236; dis- 
content of, discussed by Durham, 
238-239; proposals for commutation 
of tenure of, 242; empowered to 
challenge valuations made by commis- 
sioners, 246; provisions in act of 1854 
relating to, 247-248; lands to be held 
en franc aleu roturier, 250-251. 

Haldimand, Frederick, governor of Can- 
ada ( 1 778-1 786), instructed to grant 
lands to loyalists, 214. 

Hamelin, Louis, seignior of Grondines, 

"3. 
Haute justice. Set Justice (seigniorial). 
Haverhill, noblesse in raid on, 176. 



Hay, Judge, opinion on uniformity of 
the rate of cens, 90. 

Hebert, Louis, receives seigniory of Sault 
au Matelot (1623), 21. 

Henrion de Pansey, P.P.N., on nature of 
tenure in frankalmoign, 54; on origin of 
the cens, 87; on scope of banalities in 
France, loi; concerning exercise of 
royal authority over seigniorial mills, 
IQ4; on extension of banal rights to 
grain other than wheat, 118. 

Henry HI, king of France (i 574-1589), 
orders revision of Custom of Puis, 8. 

Henxy IV, king of France (1589-1610)^ 
grants commission to La Roche, 18. 

Hertel de Rouville, Francois, forbidden to 
take wood from lands of habitants, 134; 
offered rank in the noblesse, 174. 

Hertel de Rouville, Jean-Bapttste, de- 
stroyer of Deerfield, 176; takes part in 
raid on Haverhill, 176. 

Hocquart, Gilles, acting intendant of New 
France (i 729-1 731), intendant of New 
France ( 1 73 i-i 748), discusses seignior- 
ial abases, 47-48 ; calls attention to sub- 
division of lands, 84; orders new titles 
at customary rates in seigniory of Gau- 
darville, 90; endeavors to secure im- 
provement of seigniorial mills, 115; asks 
king for fanning-miUs, 116; strives to 
foster agriculture, 1 26 ; his description of 
Canadian population, 143. 

Honors, accorded to seigniors in France, 
5; in Canada, 159-160. Su also No- 
blesse. 

Hospital, General, at Quebec, obtains Tal- 
on's seigniory, 165; lands held by, 181 • 

Hospital, General, at Montreal, lands held 
by, 181. 

Hdtel Dieu, at Quebec, lands held by, 181 • 

Hurons, extirpation of, by Iroquois, 26. 

Ibenrille. See Lemoyne d'Iberville. 

Intendant, not mentioned in edict of 1663, 
29; caUs attention to apathy of the com- 
pany, 33; land grants to be made by, 
34; instructed to prepare a table of lands 
conceded, 36; to grant seigniories jointly 
with governor, 37; discusses seigniorial 
abuses, 41-42; empowered to grant 
lands en censive, 43; reports forfeiture 
of many holdings, 44; might make 



286 



INDEX. 



grants alone in absence of governor, 
50; complains of subdivision of small 
holdings, 84; protection of habitants by, 
143; appeals taken to the coait of, 153; 
enforces equality of seigniors and habit- 
ants before the law, 177; administrative 
jurisdiction of, not preserved after the 
conquest, 207; powers of, declared to 
have passed to English courts, 240. 
See also B6gon, Bigot, Champigny, 
Duchesneau, Dupuy, Hocquart, MeuUes, 
Raudot, Robert, Talon. 

Iroquois, extirpation of Hurons by, 26; 
scourge the colony, 33; Carignan regi- 
ment sent out to crush, 67; Richelieu 
district rendered safe against, 72. 

Isle aux Coudres, granted to the Jesuit 
Seminary at Quebec, 61. 

Isle J6sus, seigniory of, exchanged by 
Berthelot for island of Orleans, 165; 
progress made in cultivation of, i66. 

Isle of Orleans, seigniory of, exchanged by 
Laval for Isle Jesus, 165; population of 
(1667), 186. See aiso St Laurent. 

Isle Perrot, seigniory of, rate of cens in, 
during period of military rule, 206. 

Isle St. Joseph, seigniory of, small extent 
of, 60; granted without judicial rights, 

147. 

Isle aux Ruaux, stipulations in title-deed 
of* 58 ; given to Jesuits, 60. 

Isles Bouchard, seigniory of, rate of rentes 
in* 93; extension of reservations forbid- 
den in, 136. 

Islets, Barony des. See Talon. 

Jacqnes Cartier, seigniory of, granted 
without judicial rights, 147. 

Jambage. See Droit de jambage. 

Jesuits, receive their first grant of lands 
in Canada (1626), 21 ; receive lands en 
franche aumdne at Three Rivers, 25 ; 
controversy with company over liquor 
traffic, 26; receive grants en franc 
aleu noble, 52 ; acquire Charlesbourg, 
52; secure amortisement of estates, 
53 ; receive seigniory of La Prairie, 54 ; 
seigniors of Isle aux Ruaux, 60; ju- 
dicial powers of, suppressed in Sillery, 
154; lands of, taken by Talon, 162- 
163; regain forfeited lands, 165; 
become largest landholders in the 



colony, 179 ; prediction of Frontenac 
regarding, 180 ; table of lands held by, 
x8o; churches erected in seigniories 
of, 185 ; superior cultivation of their 
seigniories, z86; services to agricul- 
tural development, 186; order sup- 
pressed by the Pope, 250 ; estates pass 
to the crown, 250. See also Laval, 
Pontbriand, St. VaUier. 

Jesus, The Reverend Fathers of the So- 
ciety and Company of. See Jesuits. 

Jeu de fief. See Subinfeudation. 

Juchereau de la Feite, Jean, member of 
council, reconunended for rank in the 
noblesse, 172. 

Justice, administration of, in New France 
before 1627, 145 ; under Company of 
One Hundred Associates, 146; after 
1663, 147 ; by royal courts, 153 ; views 
of Lahontan on, 156-157 ; under Brit- 
ish rule, 195 ; Murray's strictures upon, 
197; chaos attending, 200; absence 
of discretionary powers in, 205; as 
provided for in Quebec Act, 209. 

Justice, seigniorial, early history oU in 
France, 5 ; Maitland on essential na- 
ture of, 145 ; gradations of, 147 ; haute 
justice, 148-149; moyenne justice, 
150; basse justice, 1 50-1 51 ; adminis- 
tration of^ in France and in Canada 
compared, 147-152 ; failure of seign- 
iors to exercise, 152; subject to ap- 
pellate jurisdiction of royal courts, 154; 
attitude of Louis XIV toward, 155; 
sundry abases in administration of» 
156 ; views of Carleton on, 157 ; com- 
ments of Gameau concerning adminis- 
tration of, 158; abolished by British 
authorities, 158, 190; in fiefo of the 
church, 187. 

Blalm, Pster, Swedish naturalist, on 
methods of fishing on tidal beaches, 
138 ; on dwellings of habitants, 144. 

Kirby, '^lliam, describes ceremony of 
fealty and homage, 159. 

Kirke, Sir David, captures Quebec (1629), 
24-25. 

La Cheyxotidre, seigniory of, disputes re- 
garding corv6e obligation in, 130. 
Lahontan, Le Baron de, views on female 



INDEX. 



287 



emigrants to Canada, 71 ; on the com- 
fort of the habitants, 144 ; on admin- 
istration of justice in New France, 
156-157. 

Lamotte-Cadillac, Antoine de, makes in- 
formal grants at Detroit, 79. 

Lanaudi^re, Charles de, submits answers 
to disputed questions, 65, 216; peti- 
tions for commutation of tenure, 214. 

Lanaudi^e, Jacques-Thomas Tarieu de, 
officer of Oirignan regiment, becomes 
a seignior in Canada, 7a 

L'Ange-Gardien, seigniory of, demolition 
of houses in, by intendant's order, 84. 

Langlois, NoSl, purchases a seigniory and 
aspires to be a gentilhomme, 172. 

Langlois, NoSl, carpenter, commissioned 
to look up timber for the royal navy, 

137. 

Langloiserie, Charles-Gaspard Piot dit^ 
seignior of Mille Isles, 44. 

La Prairie de la Magdelaine, seigniory of, 
granted to Jesuits (1647), 54- 

La Salle, Robert Cavelier, Sieur de, given 
rank in the noblesse, 171. 

La Tour, Claude-Etienne de, governor of 
Acadia, grants barony of Pobomcoup, 
166. 

Lauzout seigniory of, banal mill demol- 
ished, 120. 

Lauzon, Jean de, governor of New 
France ( 1 651-1656), ordinance relating 
to seigniorial mills, 103; recommends 
Herre Boucher for rank in the no- 
blesse, 171. 

Laval, Fran9ois-Xavier de, appointed 
bishop of Petrsea and vicar-apostoUc in 
New France (1659), 28; empowered 
to assist governor and intendant in en- 
forcing royal decree, 28 ; made bishop 
of Quebec (1674), 28; estimates in- 
creases in colonial population during 
year 1672, 72; exchanges Isle of 
Orleans for Isle Jisus, 165 ; work of, 
in accimiulating lands for the church, 
181 ; favors seigniorial system, 182 ; 
orders collection of tithe, 183; refuses 
consecration of seigniorial churches, 
185 ; on progress of ecclesiastical fiefs, 
186. Si€ also Church, Jesuits, St. Sul- 
pice. 

La Valterie (or La Valtrie), S^raphin 



Margane, Sieur de, officer of the royal 
forces, becomes a seignior in Canada, 

Law, English civil, introduced into Can- 
ada (1763), 193; unsatisfactory work- 
ing of, in relation to land tenures, 195 ; 
abolished as regards tenures and in- 
heritance to real property, 196 ; abol- 
ished by Quebec Act, 209 ; established 
in Upper Canada, 221. 

Law, English criminal, established in Can- 
ada (1763), 192; continued by Quebec 
Act (1774), 209; established in Upper 
Canada(i79i), 221. 

Law, French civil, replaced by Englbh 
law and procedure (1763), 193; aboli- 
tion of, causes difficulties, 195 ; restored 
in part (1766), 196; recommendations 
of Murray regarding, 198; compilation 
of, 198-199 ; abolition of, regarded by 
Carleton as an error, 199-200; entire 
restoration favored by Durleton, 201- 
202; restoration opposed by Masires, 
202 ; misunderstood by English judges, 
203-207 ; bewildering nature of, 208 ; 
entire restoration recommended by law 
officers of the crown (1773), 209; re- 
stored by Quebec Act (1774), 209; 
revision and recodification of, 251. See 
also Custom of Paris. 

Le Barroys, Mille-Edm6, agent of Com- 
pany of the West Indies, 32 ; submits 
proposals regarding method of granting 
seigniories, 34. 

Le Ber, Jacques, Sieur de Senneville, 
merchant of Montreal, purchases rank 
in the noblesse, 172. 

Le Due vs, Hainaut, case of, decided by 
military tribunal, 206. 

Le Gardeur de Repentigny, Jean-Baptiste, 
member of the noblesse of France, 171 ; 
poverty of, 171. 

Le Gardeur de Tilly, Charles, first seign- 
ior of St. Michel, 35 ; member of the 
French noblesse, 171 ; poverty of, 174. 

Le Moine, Sir J. M., on '< Tidbits of Feudal 
Customs in Canada," 143. 

Lemoyne, Charles, first seignior of Lon- 
gueuil, 167; family of, 168-169; recom- 
mended for rank in the noblesse, 
172; sons of, in raid on Schenectady, 
176. 



288 



INDEX. 



Lemoyne, Charles, the younger, Baron de 
Longneuilf obtains seigniory of Beloeil 
(17x3), 44; inherits father's estates, 
167; made first baron of Longueuil, 
168; descendanU of, 168. 

Lemoyne, Jean, obtains seigniory of Ste. 
Marie (1669), 35. 

Lemoyne de Bienville, Jean-Baptiste, 
brother of first baron of Longueuil, 
governor of Louisiana, 169; leader in 
Schenectady raid, 176. 

Lemoyne de Chateauguay, Louis, brother 
of first baron of Longueuil, killed at 
Fort Bourbon, 169. 

Lemoyne d'Iberville, Pierre, brother of 
first baron of Longueuil, founder of 
Louisiana, 169; takes part in Schenec- 
tady raid, 176. 

Lemoyne de SMgny, Joseph, brother of 
first baron of Longueuil, distinguished 
in French service, 169. 

Lemoyne de Ste. H6I^ne, Jacques, brother 
of first baron of Longueuil, takes part in 
Schenectady raid, 176. 

Leneuf de la Poterie, Jacques, acquires 
seigniory of Portneuf, 166-167; obtains 
lands at Three Rivers, 170; member of 
the noblesse of France, 171. 

Leneuf de la Valli^res (or ValU^), 
Michel, acquires father's lands at Three 
Rivers, 170. 

Lods et ventes, early history of, in France, 
4; rate of, in Custom of Paris, 96; rate 
of, in Canada, 96; when payable, 96- 
97; hampers transfers of land, 97; re- 
lation of droit de retrait to, 97-99; 
abolition of, 247; method of estimat- 
ing compensation for loss of, 246-247; 
opinion of Special Court on legal valid- 
ity of, 247. 

Longueuil, barony of, the fortified chAteau 
of, 66-67; created in favor of Charles 
Lemoyne the younger, 169; its exten- 
sive area, 169; its later history, 168- 
169. 5>^ tf/r^ Grant (Charles Colmore). 

Longueuil, seigniory of, stipulations in 
title-deed of, 60; granted to Charles 
Lemoyne, 167. See also Longueuil 
(barony of). 

Longueuil, town of, situated in barony, 169. 

Lotbini^re, family of, in the Canadian 
noblesse, 173. 



Louis XI, king of France (1461-1483)9 
views on compilation of the con- 
tumes, 7. 

Louis XII, king of France (1498-X515), 
codification of the coutumea during 
reign of; 7, 

Louis XIII, king of France (1610-1643)9 
charters Company of One Hundred 
Associates, 22. 

Louis XIV, king of France (1643-1715), 
death of, 47; policy in regard to 
subinfeudation of lands, 61-62; friendly 
attitude to feudalism, 155; interest in 
work of the church in Canada, 180. 

Louis XV, king of France (171 5-1 774), 
progress of seigniorial system under, 50U 

MAbane, Adam, opinion on workinga 
of seigniorial system, 217-218. 

McCallum vs. Gray, case of, 207. 

Maitland, F. W., on significance of seign- 
iorial justice, 145. 

Malbaie, seigniory oi^ granted to Captain 
John Nairn, 193. 

Manesse, L^ on evils of seigniorial absen- 
teeism in France, 12. 

Marie de Tlncarnation, M^re, opinion 
regarding character of female immi- 
grants, 72. 

Marly, Arrets of (1711), provisions oi; 
42-43; their significance, 44; evaded 
by seigniors, 47-48; provisions reiter- 
ated in Arrfit of Versailles (1732), 
49; intentions of the king as expressed 
in, 61-62; forbade exaction of bonus 
by seigniors, 89; did not make rate of 
cens uniform throughout the colony, 
89-92; generally disregarded by seign- 
iors after 1763, 203; held by English 
courts to have remained in force after 
the conquest, 220; report of the com- 
mission of 1843 regarding contemporary 
validity of, 240; failure of habitants to 
secure rights under, 240-241. 

Marquisates. See Dusabl6, Miscou. 

Mas^res, Francois, attorney-general of 
Quebec, on exodus of the noblesse 
after the conquest, 176-177; train- 
ing in English law, 202; draws up a 
plan of laws for the colony, 202; Carle- 
ton's opinion of, 202; views influence 
home authorities, 208. 



INDEX. 



289 



ManrepaSy Le Comte de, minister of 
marine, discusses evasion of royal de- 
crees by seigniors in Canada, 49. 

May-pole, to be planted at seignior's 
house, 159-160; description of cere- 
mony by De Gaspe, 160; habitants dis- 
charged by intendant from obligation, 
160. 

Mazarin, Cardinal, minister of Louis XIV, 
lack of interest in French colonies, 

14- 

Meulles, Jacques de, intendant of New 
France (1682-1686}, calb attention to 
poverty of the noblesse, 172-174. 

M^zy (or M6sy), Augustin Safirey de, 
governor of New France (i 663-1 665), 
empowered to regrant forfeited seign- 
iories, 28. 

Military rule, administration of justice 
during period of (1760- 1764), 158; 
divisions of colony under, 190; in- 
terpretation of seigniorial rights by 
military courts, 206. 

Military service, obligation of, in France, 
6; not mentioned in colonial title-deeds, 
64; emphasized in La Roche's charter, 
64; edict of 1 674 regulating, 65 ; pledged 
by oath of fealty and homage, 65-66; 
Carleton*s opinion as to existence of, 
66; frequent drill of habitants ordered 
by Frontenac, 66; proposal of Talon 
to insert obligation in title-deeds, 69; 
Maitland on importance of, as an in- 
cident of seigniorial tenure, 145; at- 
tempts of Carleton to enforce, during 
Revolutionary War, 21 z ; opposition of 
habitants to exaction of, 212; obliga- 
tion becomes obsolete, 213. 

Mille Isles, seigniory of, its early history, 
44; stipulations in title-deed of, 59; loss 
of banal rights in, 108. 

Mills, seigniorial, ownership of, on par- 
titions of seigniories, 82; provisions in 
Custom of Paris relating to, 102; ordi- 
nance of Lauzon relating to, 103; de- 
cree of council regarding abuses in, 
103; rate of toll fixed in, 103-104; 
right of royal judges to inspect, 104; 
Henrion de Pansey on basis of royal 
authority over, 104; slow increase of, 
in Canada, 105 ; decree of 1686 relating 
to erection of, 106; despatch of Raudot 



relating to, 106-107; forfeiture of rights 
for failure to erect, 108; windmills 
placed within category of, 108; regula- 
tions regarding patronage of, iio-iii; 
complaints regarding quality of flour 
produced by, 111-112; rude equip- 
ment of, 1 1 3-1 14; official attempts to 
improve^ 1 1 5-1 16; often built of stone 
and sometimes fortified, i z 6-1 1 7 ; some- 
times built by corvie labor, 117; charac- 
ter of grains ground by, 118-Z19; meth- 
ods of preventing competition with, 
1 19-120; service to advancement of 
agriculture, 125-126; compensation re- 
ceived by seigniors for, 246. See also 
Banality. 

Minville, seigniory of, its extent, 55. 

Minister of marine, obtains charge of 
colonial interests of France (1669), 14. 
See also Colbert, Maurepas, Pontchar- 
train. 

Miscou, marquisate of, given to Michel de 
Saint-Martin, 17a 

Mohawks, scourge the colony, 33; Carig- 
nan regiment sent to crush, 67; Riche- 
lieu district rendered safe against in- 
cursions of, 72. 

Mondelet, Judge, opinion regarding uni- 
formity of the cens, 90; on scope of 
seigniorial reservations, 137. 

Montcalm, Louis-Joseph, Marquis de, 
commander-in-chief of French forces 
in Canada, allows soldiers to cultivate 
their farms, 188. 

Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, Baron, 
on the source of seigniorial jurisdic- 
tion, 147. 

Montmorenci, Henri, Due de, viceroy of 
New France (i 620-1 624), makes first 
seigniorial grant (1623), 21. 

Montreal, capitulation of, guarantee of 
proprietary rights by, 189-190; pro- 
visions of, confirmed by Treaty of Paris, 
191. 

Montreal, district of, establishment of 
royal court for, 153-154. 

Montreal, island of, granted to the Semi- 
nary of St. Sulpice at Paris, 61 ; stipula- 
tions in title-deed of, 61 ; rate of lods et 
ventes in, 96. See also St. Sulpice. 

Morcellement, evil of, in France, 83; does 
not appear in Canada, 83-84. 



390 



INDEX. 



Mord de la Dunntaye, Olivier, officer of 
the Carignan-Saliires, receives a seign- 
iory in Canada, 70;. leader in expedi- 
tion to Fort Frontenac, 73. 

Morin, Charles, miller of Demaure, petition 
of. 109. 

Mount Murray, seigniory of, granted to 
Captain Fraser (1762), 193. 

Moyenne justice. See Justice (seignior- 
ial). 

Murray. General James, governor of Que- 
bec ( 1 764-1 768), accepts fealty and 
homage of Jean No81, 56-57; report 
of (176a), 191; makes seigniorial 
grants, 193; proclamation establishing 
civil government, 193; receives in- 
structions regarding land grants, 194; 
allows partial revival of French civil law, 
195-196; returns to England, 196; 
opinion of new English settlers, 197; de- 
scription of habitants, 197; on adminis- 
tration of justice after the conquest, 197. 

Murray Bay, seigniory of. See Malbate. 

Musseaux, Charles- Joseph d'Ailleboust de. 
See D'AiUeboust. 

Nairn, Captain John, granted seigniory 
of Malbaie (1762), 193. 

Nantes, Edict of, revoked (1598}, 18. 

Neuville, seigniory of, banal mills in, 113- 
114. 

Noblesse, members of the French, among 
Carignan officers, 67 ; in Fiance and in 
Canada compared, 161; La Roche and 
Company of One Hundred Associates 
empowered to create, 161-162; not a 
large body, 162; titled members of, 
162-170; Talon's memoir on, 171-172; 
various colonials recommended for rank 
in. 172; letters of, purchased by Le 
Ber, 172; dire poverty of, 172-174; 
some members of, in comfortable cir^ 
cumstances, 173; royal favors given to, 
175; take part in border raids, 176; 
Parkmanon« 176; relation to seigniorial 
system, 177; exodus after the con- 
quest, 176-177; views of Carleton and 
Mas^res on, 177; Murray's opinion of, 

197. 
Normans, strength of, in Canadian popu- 
lation, 9-10; especially strong in rural 
districts, 10; unfamiliar with Custom 



of F^ris, 10; prolific character o^ 
84; tendency to litigation among, 

»53. 
Notaries, oppose interference with seign- 
iorial system, 234; justified by Durham, 

Notre Dame des Anges, seigniory o^ 
granted to Jesuits (1626), 21; lands 
taken by Talon, 162-163; detached 
lands restored to, 165. 

Orleans, island of, granted to Jesuits, 
165; exchanged for Isle J€sus, 165; 
population in 1667, 186. See alto St. 
Laurent. 

Orsainville, countship of, established for 
Jean Talon, 164; its later history, 165. 

Ovens, seigniorial, right of seigniors to 
establish, 121 ; very few erected in 
Canada, 121; despatches of Raudot 
relating to, 122-124; instructions of 
Pontchartrain regarding, 122. See also 
Banality. 

Pachiriny, seigniory of, obtained by 
Jesuits (1634), 53; extent of, i8a 

Paris, Custom o^ See Custom of Paris. 

Paris, Treaty of, concluded in 1763, 191 ; 
provisions of, 193. 

Parishes, creation of, 182; distribution 
of, 183; relation to seigniories, 183. 

Parkman, Francis, attributes iniroduction 
of Canadian feudalism to Richelieu, 14; 
describes feudalism as ** effete and cum- 
brous," 19; on banalities, 125; on atti- 
tude of Louis XIV to feudalism, 155; 
on the noblesse in peace and war, 176. 

Parliament of Paris, its part in the gov- 
ernance of France, 14 ; Sovereign Coun- 
cil to follow procedure of, 29; decision 
as to scope of mill banality, 117. 

P6che. See Droit de pSche. 

Perri^re, Boucher de la, member of the 
noblesse, leader in Haverhill raid, 176. 

Perrot, Franpois-Marie, first seignior of 
Isle Perrot (1672), 70. 

Perwich, William, English agent in Paris, 
on nature of female inunigration to New 
France, 71. 

Petit, Jean, treasurer of the marine, given 
half interest in seigniory of Mille Isles 
(1714), 44- 



INDEX. 



291 



Petrsea, Fran^ois-Xavier de Laval, bishop 
of. See LavaL 

Peuvret, Dame, seignioress of Gaadar- 
ville, ordered to grant title-deeds to 
habitants, 90. 

Plot, dit Langloiserie, Gaspard. See Lan- 
gloLserie. 

Pobomcoup, barony of, in Acadia, granted 
to Philippe-Mius d'Entremont (1652), 
166. 

Pointe da Lac, seigniory of, granted with- 
out judicial rights, 147. 

Pontbriand, Henri-Marie Dubreil de, 
fourth bishop of Quebec (i 741-1760), 
views seigniorial system with favor, 182; 
endeavors to secure concord between 
cur6s and seigniors, 186. 

Pontchartrain, Fort, 79. 

Pontchartrain, Louis Phelypeaux de, min- 
ister of marine, desires uniformity of 
cens in Canada, 89; on exercise of droit 
de retrait, 98 ; instructions to Raudot 
regarding banal ovens, 122. 

Population, of New France, strength of 
Norman element in, 9-10 ; increases 
during period 1669-1673, 72 ; Front e- 
nac's estimate of, 72 ; disposition to 
litigiousness, 155 ; of Longueuil and 
Tremblay, 168 ; of Beaupr6 and island 
of Orleans, 186 ; drain on, caused by 
wars, 188 ; introduction of English ele- 
ment in, 192; increase in rural, between 
1 784 and 1826, 237. See also Habitants, 
Noblesse. 

Portneuf, barony of, created for Jacques 
Leneuf de la Poterie (1681), 167. 

Poterie, Jacques Leneuf de la, seignior of 
Portneuf, 166 ; made first baron of 
Portneuf (1681), 167. 

Pr6vdt6, court of the, at Quebec, deals 
with questions concerning seigniorial 
mills, 112, 114 ; first established, 145 ; 
hears appeals from seigniorial courts. 

Proclamation, of 1763, introduces English 
civil law, 193 ; right of governor to 
issue, 195 ; of 1775, calls for mili- 
tary service, 211. 

Prohibitions, royal, of trade with Indians, 
75 ; of tolls upon rivers, 75. 

Prohibitions, seigniorial, inserted in title- 
deeds of arri^re-fiefB, 78; inserted in 



title-deeds of en censive grants, 139- 
140 ; illegal, 140. 
Poulin, Maurice, Sieur de la Fontaine, 
first seignior of St. Maurice (1668), 

35. 
Poyrier, Vincent, ordered to be paid for 
timber taken from his lands, 74. 

Quint, nature and amount of, 62; rebate 
of one-third, 63; when payable, 63; 
amount after the conquest, 63 ; in 
arri^re-fiefe, 77 ; proceeds devoted 
to civil expenses, 222 ; abolished, 
247- 

Ramezay, Claude de, governor of Mont- 
real, obtains seigniory on river Ya- 
maska (i7i3)» 44- 

Ratification, of seigniorial grants by the 
^ii^gf 39 9 necessary within a year from 
date of grant, 75. 

Raudot, Jacques, intendant of New France 
( 1 705-1 711), directs attention of minis- 
ter to seigniorial abuses, 39-42 ; asks 
for uniform rate of cens, 89 ; discusses 
payment of rentes in money or kind, 
94 ; on abuses of droit de retrait, 97 ; 
explains non-publication of decree of 
1686, 106 ; protests against exaction of 
oven banality, 122^123; anxious that 
agriculture should be encouraged, 126; 
does not mention corv6e exactions, 127 ; 
explains frequency of lawsuits, 153. 

Rear fiefs. See Arri^re-fiefs. 

Reaume, Pierre, habitant at Detroit, re- 
ceives new title-deed, 92. 

RecoUets, lands held by, 181 ; excepted 
from certain guarantees in articles of 
capitulation, 190. 

Redevances, seigniorial, nature and 
amount of, in France, 4-6. See oho 
Cens et rentes, Lods et ventes. 

Regent, assumes direction of colonial 
affairs on death of Louis XIV (1715), 
47 ; council of, passes order relating 
to corvee labor in New France, 128. 

Relations, Jesuit, on progress of agricul- 
ture during Talon's administration, 
163. 

Relief, nature and amoimt of, 63 ; pro- 
vided for by rules of the French Vexin, 
63-64 \ evidently not collected after 



292 



INDEX. 



the conqaeBt, 64 ; opinion of Cognet 
on abrogation of, 64. 

Renauldon, J., on character of the seign- 
iorial bailifb in France, 12. 

Rentes, seigniorial, when and how pay- 
able, 93 ; usually paid in poultry and 
wheat, 93; table showing fluctuations 
in value of, 94 ; Casgrain on method 
of payment, 95 ; ordinance relating 
to payment, 95 ; method of estimat- 
ing compensation for loss of, 245 ; 
abolition of, 247. Set also Cens et 
rentes. 

Repentigny, Jean-Baptiste Le Gardeur de. 
Su Le Gardeur. 

Report, of Gideon de Catalogne on state 
of the seigniories in Canada, 45^7 ; 
of General Murray on Canadian affairs 
(1762), 191 ; on administration of 
justice (1766), 196-197 ; of Mas^res 
on a project of laws for Quebec, 202; 
of Council for Trade (1770), 203 ; of 
law officers of the crown on legal situa- 
tion in Canada (i 772-1 773), 209; So- 
ficitor-General Williams on the seignior- 
ial system (1790), 215-216 ; of attorney- 
general (1794)1 220 ; of Lord Durham 
on the i^airs of British North America 
(1839), 236-239 ; of commissioners of 
1843 on the seigniorial system, 240 ; 
committee of the legislature (1851), 

244. 

Requint, payment o( in France, 63. 

Reservations, royal, of lands for fortifica- 
tions, 74 ; of timber for use in royal 
navy, 74 ; of minerals, 74 ; of lands 
for public highways, 74; of fishing 
beaches, 75; of right of appeal to 
royal courts, 75 ; of right to withhold 
ratification of concessions, 78; pro- 
visions in instructions of 1763 relating 
to, 195 ; abolition of, 247. 

Reservations, seigniorial, of wood and 
stone, 134; of minerals, 138; of fish- 
ing rights, 139 ; of lands for seigniorial 
buildings, 139; illegal, 139; abolition 
of, 247. 

Retrait. See Droit de retrait 

Retrenchment, of uncleared seigniories 
(1672), 36 ; of the twentieth part of 
uncleared lands (1679), 38. See also 
Revocation. 



Revocation, of seigniories remaining on- 
cleared (1663), 28-30; of the char- 
ter of Company of the West Indies 
(1674), 37; provided for in first 
Arr6t of Marly '(1711), 43; of the 
grant of Mille Isles (I7i4}> 44; of 
en censive grants ( 1 731), 44; of twenty 
uncultivated seigniories (1741), 50; of 
judicial rights in ecclesiastical seignior- 
ies, 154 ; of the barony of Cap Tour- 
mente, 167; of patents of noblesse^ 
171. See also Retrenchment, Sur- 
render. 

Richelieu, Armand-Jean du Flessis, Car- 
dinal, minister of Louis XIII, com- 
monly regarded as having planted 
feuddism in Canada, 14; desires to 
establish a military colony, 22 ; organ- 
izes Company of One Hundred Associ- 
ates (1627), 22. 

Richelieu River, channel of Mohawk in- 
cursions, 69; Talon's plan to settle 
shores of, with soldiers, 69; route 
along, rendered safe by the disbanded 
Carignans, 7a 

Riottfol, M., on origin of the right of mill 
banality in France, loi. 

Rivers, seigniors forbidden to exact toll 
on, 75 ; rights of seigniors to establish 
ferries across, 141 ; rights of seigniors 
in unnavigable, 142. 

Roads, built by seigniors, 81 ; to seignior- 
ial mill, 1 14 ; corvee labor exacted for 
building of, 131 ; duties of grand voyer 
in construction of, 132. 

Robert, Louis, first intendant of New 
France (1663-1665), empowered to 
regrant forfeited seigniories, 28. 

Roberval, Jean-Francois de la Roque» 
Sieur de, expedition to New France, 

17. 

Robineau,Ren6,seignior of B^cancour,i67. 

Roche, Troillus du Mesgoiiets, Sieur de 
la, commission of, 18; powers of^ 
18-19; expedition to Sable Island, 
18; provisions regarding military ser- 
vice in commission of, 64 ; authorized 
to grant titles of honor, 161-162. 

Rochemonteix, C. de, on services of the 
Jesuits to agriculture, 186. 

Romans, military colonization of, takea 
as a precedent by Talon, 68. 



INDEX. 



293 



Koque, Chevalier, ensign in the Carignan 
regiment, obtains seigniory on the 
Richelieu, 70. 

Roture, grants in. Set Grants (en 
censive). 

Roturiers. See Habitants. 

Rouville, seigniory of. See Hertel de 
Rouville. 

Rowan, Major-General William, adminis- 
trator of Canada (1853-1854), receives 
last act of fealty and homage, 57. 

Saintd-Amie de la Parade, seigniory of, 
stipulations in title-deed of, 60; con- 
dition of seigniorial mill in, 113. 

Sainte-Anne des Monts, seigniory of, 
stipulations in title-deed of, 60. 

Sainte-H6Une, Lemoyne de. See Le- 
moyne de Ste. H€l^ne. 

Sainte-Marie (prH Batiscan), seigniory 
of, granted to Jean Le Moyne (or Le- 
moyne) in 1669, 35. 

Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Treaty of (1632), 
restores Quebec to France, 25. 

Saint-Jean, seigniory of, stipulations in 
title-deed of, 59 ; granted without ju- 
dicial rights, 147. 

Saint- Johns, town of, in barony of Lon- 
gueml, 169. 

Saint-Laurent, countship of, given to 
Fran9ois Berthelot, 165; erection of 

' seigniorial church in, 184. 

Saint-Martin, Michel de, marquis of 
Miscou, 170. 

Saint-Maurice, seigniory of, granted to 
Maurice Poulin, Sieur de la Fontaine 
(1668), 35. 

Saint-Michel, seigniory of, granted to Le 
Gardeur de TUly (1668), 35 ; without 
judicial rights, 147. 

Saint-Ours, Jean-Baptiste, Sieur d*Es- 
chaillons (or Deschaillons), leader in 
Haverhill raid ( 1 708) , 1 76. 

Saint-Ours, Pierre Roch de, ofBcer of the 
Carignan regiment, obtains a seigniory 
in Canada, 70; takes part in expedi- 
tion to Fort Frontenac, 73 ; poverty 
of, 173; receives royal assistance, 174. 

Saint-Paul's Island, seigniory of, becomes 
property of Jacques le Ber, 172. 

Saint-Sulpice, Seminary of, at Montreal, 
obtains seigniory of Lac des Deux- 



Montagnes (I7I4)» 61 ; excepted from 
provisions of act of 1854, 250. 

Saint-Sulpice, Seminary of, at Paris, ob- 
tains seigniory of island of Montreal, 
61 ; receives certain favors regarding 
lods et ventes, 96; fortified mill of, 
116-117; obtains demolition of rival 
mill, 120; allowed extension of reser- 
vations, 135 ; lands held by, 181 ; 
secures revocation of judicial powers, 
187 ; provisions in Treaty of Paris re- 
lating to, 190. 

Saint- Vallier, Jean-Baptiste de la Croix- 
Chevriires de, second bishop of Quebec 
(1684-1727), buys Talon's seigniory, 
165 ; on seigniorial right of ad vow- 
son, 181 ; looks with favor on seign- 
iorial system, 182 ; endeavors to secure 
concord between cur6s and seigniors, 
186. 

Sali^res, Colonel Henri de Chapelais, 
Sieur de, in command of the Carignan 
regiment, 67. See also Carignan-Sal- 
i^res. 

Sault au Matelot, seigniory of, granted to 
Louis Hebert (1623), 21. 

Saurd (or Sorel) Pierre de, ofl^er of the 
Carignan regiment, receives seigniory 
on the Richelieu, 70. 

Schenectady, noblesse in the raid on 
(1689-1690)* 176. 

Seigniories, population of, largely Nor- 
man, 10 ; La Roche authorized to make 
grants of, 18 ; number granted (1608- 
1627), 21 ; Company of One Hundred 
Associates empowered to concede, 24 ; 
number granted by company, 25-26; 
too large in extent, 28; royal desire 
to reduce size of, 28-29 > forfeiture of, 
for failure to cultivate, 30; Company 
of the West Indies empowered to make 
grants of, 31 ; Le Barroys instructed 
to concede, 32 ; surrender by company 
of its right to grant, 34; titles of, 
issued by Talon, 35 ; given to Carig- 
nan officers, 36; royal desire for re- 
trenchment of, 36 ; data regarding, to 
be prepared, 36-37 ; to be granted by 
governor and intendant jointly, 37; 
retrenchment of area ordered by the 
king, 38; increase in number of, 39; 
to be cleared forthwith, 43; few for* 



294 



INDEX, 



feited by the Arrets of Marly, 44 ; only 
five granted during the period 171 1- 
1 71 7, 44-45; '^y^ decision to grant 
no more, 45 ; report of Catalogne on 
the state of, 45 ; ownership of, 46 ; re- 
sumption of grants of, 47; forfeiture 
of twenty, 49-50 ; procedure to be fol- 
lowed in making grants of, 50 ; shape 
and area of, 55-56 ; given to Carignan 
officers, 67-70; grants en arri^re-fief 
within, 77-78; grants en censive 
within, 78--80 ; rules of succession to, 
82-83; of the church, 179-182; sale 
of, to Englishmen, 192; granted by 
Murray, 193 ; description of, in Dur- 
ham's report, 237-238; valuation of, 
248-25a 

Seigniors, powers in France, 4-5; hon- 
orary privileges in France, 12; rela- 
tion to dependents, 12 ; slow in 
clearing grants, 36; omit to give 
written titles to habitants, 39-40; 
forbidden to exact a bonus, 42-43 ; re- 
unite lands to their domains, 44 ; opin- 
ion of Catalogne on occupations and 
character of, 47 ; violate provisions of 
Axrdts of Marly, 48; obligations im- 
posed upon, 56-76 ; drawn from mili- 
tary element, 67-70; rights over sub- 
seigniors, 77-78; judicial powers of, 
147-152 ; honorary privileges of, 159- 
i6z ; relation to cur6s, 183-186; rights 
guaranteed in articles of capitulation, 
189; ordered to enrol habitants for 
military service, 21 1 ; allowed to com- 
mute tenures, 223-225 ; character of 
English, 223-224; dissatisfaction with 
terms of abolition, 251-252. 

Seminary, Jesuit, at Quebec, receives seign- 
iory of Isle aux Coudres, 61; lands 
held by, i8x. See also Jesuits. 

Seminary of St Sulpice. See St Sul- 
pice. 

Senneville, Monsieur de. See Le Ber. 

Seven Years* War, strength of New France 
In, 73; exhaustion of the colony by, 188; 
closed by Treaty of Paris, 191. 

Shelburne, Lord, secretary of state for the 
Southern Department (i 766-1 768), re- 
ceives report from Carleton on condi- 
tions in Canada, 196-197; compilation 
of laws sent to, 201. 



Shortt, Adam, on depreciation of card 
currency, 92. 

Sillery, seigniory of, revocation of judicial 
powexB in, 154. 

Smith, Goldwin, on extent of banal exac- 
tions in Canada, 125. 

Smith, Judge, opinion on uniformity of 
the cens in Canada, 90. 

SoreL See SaureL 

Soulanges, Pierre- Jacques de Joybert dc, 
officer of the troops, obtains a seigniory 
in Canada, 70. 

Sovereign CounciL See Council (Sov- 
ereign). 

Special Court of 1854, decisions on jeu 
de fief, 77; on uniformity of the cens, 
90; on scope of banal rights, 117; on 
seigniorial reservations, 137; on fishing 
rights, 139; on illegal practices of seign- 
iors, 139; on rights of seigniors in un- 
navigable waters, 142; provision in act 
of 1854 for creation of, 248; its com- 
position, 248; arguments of counsel 
heard by, 249; general decisions of, 
249; opinions of judges of, 249-250; 
relation of its decisions to compensation 
granted seigniors, 250. 

Statute, 14 Geo. Ill, c. %^, 210; 34 Geo. 
Ill, c. 6, 219; 31 Geo.111, c. 31, 221; 
3 Geo. IV, c. 119, 223; 6 Geo. IV, c 
59, 225; I & 2 Wm. IV, c 20^ 229; 
3&4Victc.35, 239;8Victc.42, 242; 
12 Vict. c. 49, 242; 18 Vict. C3, 245. 

Stuart vs. Bowman, case of, 195. 

Subinfeudation, articles in Custom of 
Paris relating to, 58-59; not made com- 
pulsory before 171 1, 59; relation of Ar- 
rets of Marly to, 61-62; provisions in 
draft arrSt of 171 7 regarding, 62; pro- 
cedure of, 77-78. 

Sub-seigniories. See Arri^re-fiefe. 

Succession to lands, rules of, by Custom 
of Paris, 82-83; to lands en seigneurie, 
82; to lands en censive, 83; to lands en 
franc aleu, 83; effect on division of 
lands, 83-84; consequences in rela- 
tion to agriculture, 83-84; still follow 
French law, 250-251. 

Sulpitians, lands held by, 181; excepted 
from certain provisions of the articles of 
capitulation^ 190. See also St. Sul- 
pice. 



INDEX. 



295 



Solte, Benjamin, on origin of French- 
Canadians, 9; on extirpation of Hurons, 
26; on history of the Carignan regi- 
ment in Canada, 67; on origin of the 
oblong shape of grants, 80; on nature 
of exodus after the conquest, 192. 

Superior Council. See Counctt (Sov- 
ereign). 

Surrender, of Quebec to Kirke (1629), 
25; of charter by Company of One 
Hundred Associates (1663), 27; of 
right to grant seigniories by Company 
of the West Indies, 34; of claims 
against Jesuits' estates by the Papal 
See, 250. 

Syndic, powers and duties of the, 3a 

Tach6, J. C, estimates per capita hold- 
ings of land in Canada, 85. 

Taine, H. A., on evils of seigniorial absen- 
teeism in France, 12. 

Talon, Jean, intendant of New France 
(1665-1668, 1670-1672), reports apathy 
of Company of the West Indies, 33; ac- 
cepts proposal of Le Barroys regarding 
land grants, 34; his liberal views, 35; 
returns to France for a two years' stay, 
35; returns to Canada, 36; his project 
of military colonization, 68; arranges 
for giants of seigniories to Carignan of- 
ficers, 69-70; asks for wives for settlers, 
71; aims to develop agriculture, 126; 
rebukes habitants for litigious disposi- 
tion, 153; establishes three villages 
near Quebec, 162; makes purchases of 
land, 163; receives title of Baron des 
Islets (1671), 163-164; gives up inten- 
dancy (1672), 164; receives title of 
Comte d'Orsainville (1675), 164; ser- 
vices to the colony, 165 ; family of, 165 ; 
asks for barony for Berthelot, 166; re- 
port on colonial noblesse (1665), 171; 
recommends patents of ennoblement for 
several prominent colonists, 172. 

Talon, Jean Fran9ois, inherits his uncle's 
estates in New France, 165; sells lands 
to Bishop St. Vallier, 165. 

Terrier. See Census. 

Thou, Christofle de, famous jurisconsult, 
supervises revision of Custom of Paris 
(1579-1580), 8. 

Tilly, Charles Le Gardeur de, first seign- 



ior of SL Michel (1668), 35; member 
of the French noblesse, 171 ; poverty 
of, 174. 

Tithe, ordered by Bishop Laval, 183; ob- 
ligation made permanent by royal or- 
ders, 182-183; amount of, and method 
of collection, 183; still exacted in Que- 
bec, 184; not collected on products 
other than grain, 234. 

Tocqueville, Alexis de, on merits and 
faults of the old regime, 15; on nature 
of tenure en franc aleu roturier, 53; 
estimate of profits of seigniorial juris- 
diction in France, 152. 

Toll, amount of, in seigniorial mills fixed 
by decree of 1667, 103-104; millers 
forbidden to take more than legal rate 
of, 105; to be reckoned upon cleaned 
grain, 116. 

Tracy, Alexandre de Prouville, Marquis 
de, lieutenant-general of the forces in 
New France (1665-1667), comes to 
Canada with Talon, 33; accepts pro- 
posal of Le Barroys regarding future 
land grants, 34; endorses Talon's pro- 
ject of military colonization, 68; recom- 
mends various coloniab for rank in the 
noblesse, 172. 

Treaty, of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1632), 
25 ; of Paris (1763), 142. 

Ursnlines, of Quebec, lands held by, 
181 ; of Three Rivers, receive seign- 
iorial grant (1727), 47; lands held by, 
181. 

Vallidres. See Leneuf de la Valli^res. 

Varennes, seigniory of, banal rights in, 108. 

Varennes, Rene Gaultier (or Gautier) de, 
officer of the Carignan regiment, ob- 
tains seigniory in New France, 7a 

Vaudreuil, Pierre-Francois Rigaud, Mar- 
quis de, governor of New France (1755- 
1760), signs capitulation of Montreal 
(1760), 189. 

Ventadour, Henri de L^vis, Due de, vice- 
roy of New France (1625-1627), con- 
firms first seigniorial grant (1626), 21. 

Verchires, Frangois Jarret de, officer of 
the Carignan-Sali^res, obtains seigniory 
in Canada, 70. 

Versailles, Arrdt of (1732), 49. 



296 



muEx. 



Venn, French (Vexin le Fratt9ais), nature 
off 63 ; provisions relating to relief, 
63 ; followed by Murray in seigniorial 
grants of 1762, 193. 

Victoria, queen of Great Britain and Ire- 
land (1837-1901), recognizes the Baron 
de Longueuil, 169. 

Victoria Park, at Quebec, formed from 
part of Talon's seigniory, 165. 

Vieuxpont, seigniory of, granted without 
judicial rights, 147. 

Vincelotte, seigniory of, complaints re- 
garding the seigniorial mill in, 112; 
erection of a banal oven in, 121. 

Voltaire (Francois-Marie Arouet), on 
the frequent revisions of coutumes in 
France, 11. 



Waton, navigable, rights of seigniors 
over, 141 ; unnavigable, rights of seign- 
iors over, 142. 

West Indies. See Company of the West 
Indies. 

Wheat, payment of rentes in, 93 ; table 
showing fluctuations in price of, 94. 

Wilcox vi, Wilcox, case of, 195. 

Williams, Solicitor-General J., opinion on 
rebates of lods et ventes, 96. 

Wolfe, Major-General James, beaeges 
Quebec (1758), 188. 

Wurtele, J. S. C, performs last act of 
fealty and homage (1854), 57. 

Yamaaka, seigniory of, given to Ramezmy 
(i7«3)» 44- 




UNIYERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return to desk from which borrowed. 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 



nFeb'52JK 


NOV 27 1957 




' ^^»b52Li; 


24'\oy'QVAK^ 




250ct'55Pw 


Rceo LD 

NOV 1 '^n /? 


DEC 13,963 


., ijOtf^'^ 


*«w«^^ 


28Jan'64MO 


KECD u:? 


n*^/^'*^ ' n 


REC C- t j 


p'^i '.P ^'^ 


Ri 


^fStb-j 




llOct'62(yjj^2 


3'64-5PM 


*ipai5flW»M)|»T7. 


16)476 


\ 


LD 2lA-40i»-ll/63 
(E16028l0)476B 




^^ ,G«iienaLibn 
Uairenify of OOJ 
Berlcelejr 


! 

. 

1 

- : 1 

foraia 1 



YC 88813 



.#r»; 




J^iV: X 



Alb- ■■,:, 



■ri 



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNU LIBRARY iV 



»♦ \.^