Skip to main content

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

See other formats 


HARVARD  HISTORICAL  STUDIES 

PUBLISHED  UNDER  THE  DIRECTION  OF 
THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  HISTORY 

FROM  THE  INCOME  OF 

THE   HENRY  WARREN  TORREY  FUND 
VOLUME  XIII 


HARVARD  HISTORICAL  STUDIES 


I.  The  Suppression  of  the  African  Slave-Trade 
to  the  United  States  of  America,  1638-1870. 
By  W.  E.  B.  DuBois,  Ph.D.,  Editor  of 
"  The  Crisis."    8vo.  $1.50  net. 

II.  The  Contest  over  the  Ratification  of  the 
Federal    Constitution    in    Massachusetts. 
By  S.  B.  Harding,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Euro- 
pean History  in  Indiana  University.    8vo. 

$1.35  net. 

III.  A  Critical  Study  of  Nullification  in  South 
Carolina.    By  D.  F.  Houston,  A.M.,  LL.D., 
Secretary  of  Agriculture.    8vo.     $1.25  net. 

IV.  Nominations  for  Elective  Office  in  the 
United  States.     By  Frederick  W.  Dallinger, 
A.M.,  late  Member  of  the  Massachusetts 
Senate.    8vo.  $1.50  net. 

V.  A  Bibliography  of  British  Municipal  His- 
tory.    Including  Gilds  and  Parliamentary 
Representation.     By  Charles  Gross,  Ph.D., 
late  Gurney  Professor  of  History  and  Politi- 
cal Science  in  Harvard  University.    8vo. 

$2.50  net 

VI.  The  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  Parties  in  the 
Northwest.      By  Theodore  Clarke  Smith, 
Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History  in  Williams 
College.    8vo.  $i.?S  net. 

VII.  The  Provincial  Governor  in  the  English 
Colonies  of  North  America.      By  Evarts 
Boutell  Greene,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History 
in  the  University  of  Illinois.    8vo. 

$1.50  net. 

VIII.  The  County  Palatine  of  Durham.     A 
Study    in    Constitutional    History.      By 
G.  T.  Lapsley,  Ph.D.,  Fellow  of  Trinity  Col- 
lege, Cambridge.    8vo.  $2.00  net. 

IX.  The  Anglican  Episcopate  and  the  Amer- 
ican Colonies.      By  Arthur  Lyon  Cross, 
Ph.D.,  Professor  of  European  History  in  the 
University  of  Michigan.    8vo.      $2.50  net. 

X.  The  Administration  of  the  American  Rev- 
olutionary Army.  By  Louis  Clinton  Hatch, 
Ph.D.    8vo.  $1.50  net. 

XL  The  Civil  Service  and  the  Patronage. 
By  Carl  Russell  Fish,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of 
American  History  in  the  University  of  Wis- 
consin. 8vo.  $2.00  net. 


XII.  The  Development  of  Freedom  of  the 
Press  in  Massachusetts.     By  C.  A.  Duni- 
way,  Ph.D.,  President  of  the  University  of 
Wyoming.    8vo.  $1.50  net. 

XIII.  The    Seigniorial    System    in    Canada. 
By  W.  B.  Munro,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Municipal  Government  in  Harvard  Uni- 
versity.   8vo.  $2.00  net. 

XIV.  The  Frankpledge  System.     By  William 
Alfred  Morris,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Professor 
of  English  History  in  the  University  of  Cal- 


ifornia.   8vo. 


$1.50  net. 


XV.  The  Public  Life  of  Joseph  Dudley.     By 
Everett  Kimball,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor 
of  History  in  Smith  College.    8vo. 

$2.00  net. 

XVI.  M&noire  de  Marie  Caroline,  Reine  de 
Naples.       Edited    by    Robert    Matteson 
Johnston,    A.M.,    Assistant    Professor    of 
Modern   History  in  Harvard   University. 
8vo.  $2.00  net. 

XVII.  The    Barrington-Bernard    Correspon- 
dence.      Edited    by    Edward    Channing, 
Ph.D.,  McLean  Professor  of  Ancient  and 
Modern  History  in  Harvard  University. 
8vo.  $2.00  net. 

XVin.  The  Government  of  the  Ottoman 
Empire  in  the  Time  of  Suleiman  the  Mag- 
nificent. By  Albert  Howe  Lybyer,  Ph.D., 
Associate  Professor  of  History  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Illinois.  8vo.  $2.00  net. 

XLX.  The  Granger  Movement.  By  S.  J. 
Buck,  Research  Associate  in  History  in  the 
University  of  Illinois.  8vo.  $2.00  net. 

XX.  Burgage  Tenure  in  Mediaeval  England. 
By  Morley  de  Wolf  Hemmeon,  Ph.D.,  some- 
time Austin  Teaching  Fellow  in  Harvard 
University.    8vo.  $1-50  net. 

XXI.  An  Abridgment  of  the  Indian  Affairs 
contained  in  four  folio  volumes,  transacted 
in  the  colony  of  New  York,  from  the  year 
1678  to  the  year  1751,  by  Peter  Wraxall. 
Edited  with  an  introduction  by  Charles 
Howard  Mcllwain,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Pro- 
fessor of  History  in  Harvard  University. 
8vo.  $2.00  net. 

XXII.  English  Field  Systems.    By  Howard 
Levi  Gray,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Professor  of 
History    in    Harvard   University.      8vo. 
In  press. 


HARVARD   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 

CAMBRIDGE,    MASS.,    U.S.A. 


THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM 
IN  CANADA 

A  STUDY  IN  FRENCH  COLONIAL  POLICY 


BY 


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

ASSISTANT  PROFESSOR  OF  GOVERNMENT  IN 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 


CAMBRIDGE 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON:  HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


TL 

M 


Copyright,  7907 
BY  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  FELLOWS  OF  HARVARD  COLLEGE 


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  on  others.  If  more  attention  is 
given  to  the  legal  than  to  the  economic  aspects  of  the 
system,  it  is  because  the  materials,  from  their  very 
nature,  deal  more  with  the  legal  relations  of  sovereign, 
seignior,  and  censitaire,  than  with  the  actual  working 
of  these  relations. 

Most  of  the  material  from  which  information  has 
been  gleaned  is  not  at  present  accessible  to  the  gen- 
eral reader;  much  of  it  is  still  in  manuscript,  while 
such  of  it  as  is  in  print  is  to  be  had,  for  the  most  part, 
only  in  government  publications  issued  in  limited  num- 
bers more  than  a  half-century  ago  and  now  not  easy  to 
obtain.  It  is  expected,  however,  that  during  the  coming 
year  the  more  important  documents  bearing  on  the 
seigniorial  tenure  will  be  published,  under  the  editorship 
of  the  present  writer,  by  the  Champlain  Society  of 
Canada. 

I  should  indeed  be  unmindful  of  the  many  obligations 
under  which  I  have  been  placed  in  the  preparation  of 
this  volume,  were  I  not  to  record  my  very  sincere  appre- 
ciation of  the  kind  assistance  cheerfully  tendered  me  from 
various  quarters.  More  particularly  must  I  thank  the 
Hon.  R.  W.  Scott,  secretary  of  state,  Dr.  A.  G.  Doughty, 
Dominion  archivist,  and  Mr.  Benjamin  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 


J 


THE  EUROPEAN   BACKGROUND.  > 

PACK 

LAND-TENURE  SYSTEMS  AND  NATIONAL  PROGRESS    .        .  .        i 

THE  ORIGINS  OF  FEUDALISM 2 

FEUDAL  AND  SEIGNIORIAL  TENURES 4 

SEIGNIORIAL  OBLIGATIONS  IN  FRANCE 5 

THE  COUTUMES 6 

CODIFICATION  OF  THE  COUTUMES 7 

THE  CUSTOM  OF  PARIS 8 

PROMULGATION  OF  THE  CUSTOM  OF  PARIS  IN  CANADA  o 

9        / 
O UNSUITABILITY  OF  THE  CUSTOM  TO  THE  NEEDS  OF  THE  COLONY      .      10— »  v 

©THE  DECAY  OF  SEIGNIORIALISM  IN  FRANCE 12 

CHAPTER  II.J 

EARLY   SEIGNIORIAL  GRANTS,   1598-1666.  -^ 

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  «~V 

SEIGNIORIAL  GRANTS  MADE  BY  THE  COMPANY,  1634-1663          .        .      2 

•^ESTABLISHMENT  OF  ROYAL  GOVERNMENT  IN  NEW  FRANCE        .        .  (27 


CHAPTER   III 


.y 


LATER   SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS,  1666-1760. 
SEIGNIORIAL  GRANTS  MADE  BY  THE  ROYAL  OFFICIALS 
REVOCATION  OF  GRANTS  REMAINING  UNCLEARED 
GROWTH  OF  SEIGNIORIAL  ABUSES 


25  ~ 
27) 


THE  COMPANY  OF  THE  WEST  INDIES 30 

ITS  SURRENDER  OF  THE  RIGHT  TO  MAKE  SEIGNIORIAL  GRANTS       .      34 


CONTENTS. 


'THE  ARRETS  OF  MARLY,  1711 

REFUSAL  OF  THE  KING  TO  MAKE  FURTHER  GRANTS 
REPORT  OF  CATALOGNE  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  SEIGNIORIES 

RENEWAL  OF  SEIGNIORIAL  GRANTS 

TFTT  PROGRESS  OF  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM 


J 


CHAPTER   IV 


THE   SEIGNIOR  AND   HIS   SUPERIORS. 

.FORMS  AND  CONDITIONS  OF  LAND  TENURE  IN  THE  COLONY 
GRANTS  EN  FRANC  ALEU  AND  EN  FRANCHE  AUMONE 
GRANTS  EN  FIEF  OR  EN  SEIGNEURIE     .... 
'OBLIGATIONS  OF  THE  SEIGNIOR  TO  THE  CROWN 

FEALTY  AND  HOMAGE 

AVEU  ET  DENOMBREMENT 

OBLIGATION  TO  SUBGRANT  LANDS  (JEU  DE  FIEF)  . 
ROYAL  POLICY  IN  REGARD  TO  SUBINFEUDATION 

QUINT  AND  RELIEF 

THE  OBLIGATION  OF  MILITARY  SERVICE    .... 
SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  CARIGNAN  REGIMENT  IN  THE  COLONY 
ROYAL  RESERVATIONS  IMPOSED  UPON  THE  SEIGNIORS 


J 


CHAPTER  V 


THE   SEIGNIOR  AND   HIS   DEPENDENTS. 

GRANTS  EN  ARRIERE  FIEF 

OBLIGATIONS  OF  SUB-SEIGNIORS  TO  SEIGNIORS   . 

GRANTS  EN  CENSIVE  OR  EN  ROTURE     .... 

NATURE  OF  THE  EN  CENSIVE  CONCESSIONS 

EVILS  ARISING  FROM  THE  SUBDIVISION  OF  SMALL  HOLDINGS 

OBLIGATIONS  OF  THE  HABITANT  TO  HIS  SEIGNIOR     . 

CENS  ET  RENTES 

NATURE  AND  AMOUNT  OF  THIS  PAYMENT  .... 
SEIGNIORIAL  EXACTIONS  AND  THE  ARRETS  OF  MARLY 
LODS  ET  VENTES,  THEIR  NATURE  AND  AMOUNT 
DROIT  DE  RETRAIT   . 


PAGE 
42 

47 

5° 


52- 

53 

54 

f 

57 
58 
61 
62 
64 
67 
73  - 


77 
78 

79 
80 
82 

85- 
86 

87 

89\ 


CONTENTS.  xi 


CHAPTER  VI. 
'"THE  BANALITIES.  «/ 

AND  NATURE  OF  THE  BANALITES  IN  FRANCE 

THE  RIGHT  OF  MILL  BANALITY  IN  CANADA 102 

OFFICIAL  REGULATIONS  RELATING  TO  THE  MILLS      .        .        .        .103 

PROGRESS  OF  THE  MILLING  INDUSTRY 105 

THE  ROYAL  DECREE  OF  1686 106 

THE  BANAL  OBLIGATION  IN  FRANCE  AND  IN  CANADA  .  .  .  in 
UNSATISFACTORY  CONDITION  OF  THE  COLONIAL  MILLS  .  .  .112 
OFFICIAL  INTERVENTION  IN  THE  INTEREST  OF  IMPROVEMENT  .  .  115 
QUESTIONS  AS  TO  THE  EXTENT  OF  THE  SEIGNIOR'S  BANAL  RIGHTS  117 

THE  OBLIGATION  OF  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  OF  THE  SEIGNIOR'S  RIGHTS  .  .  .  .128 

THE  "KING'S  CORVEE" 132 

SEIGNIORIAL  RESERVATIONS 133 

NATURE  AND  EXTENT  OF  THESE  RESERVATIONS  ....  134 

V^EIGNIORIAL  PROHIBITIONS 139**^. 

•VFlSHING  AND  HUNTING  RIGHTS I4O 

MINOR  SEIGNIORIAL  PRIVILEGES 141 A — 


VE 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

J 

SEIGNIORIAL  JUSTICE. 


EARLY  JUDICIAL  ADMINISTRATION  IN  NEW  FRANCE  ....     145- 

GRADATIONS  OF  SEIGNIORIAL  JURISDICTION 147 

HAUTE  JUSTICE 148 

MOYENNE  JUSTICE 150 

BASSE  JUSTICE 151 

INFREQUENT  USE  OF  JUDICIAL  POWERS  BY  SEIGNIORS       .        .        .152 


xii  CONTENTS. 

PAG 

RELATION  OF  SEIGNIORIAL  TO  ROYAL  COURTS 153 

>•  GENERAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  COLONIAL  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM      .        .    T^o 


IX. 


ET>V?f 


SEIGNIORIAL   NOBLESSE.^  _-r. 

HONORARY  RIGHTS  OF  SEIGNIORS 159 

/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  OF  LONGUEUIL 167 

THE  CHATELLENIE  OF  COULONGE 169 

THE  MARQUISATES  OF  SABLE  AND  Miscou 170 

THE  MINOR  NOBILITY 171 

"-"•^CHARACTER  AND  CONDITION  OF  THE  NOBLESSE         .        .        .        .173. 
THE  GENTILSHOMMES  AND  THE  FRONTIER  WARS      .        .        .        .176 
— DELATION  OF  THE  NOBLESSE  TO  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM      .        .    177  - 


r 


CHAPTER  X.     \ 
THE   SEIGNIORIAL   SYSTEM  AND   THE   CHURCH. 

ECONOMIC  AND  RELIGIOUS  MOTIVES  IN  FRENCH  COLONIZATION        .    178 
SUPPORT  GIVEN  TO  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM  BY  THE  CHURCH    .        -179 

SEIGNIORIES  OF  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 

HE  CHURCH  AS  A  BULWARK  OF  SEIGNIORIALISM  188 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE   SEIGNIORIAL   SYSTEM   UNDER  BRITISH 
ADMINISTRATION. 

ARTICLES  OF  CAPITULATION  AND  TENURE  OF  LANDS        .        .        .189 
THE  GUARANTEES  OF  THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS 191 


CONTENTS.  xiii 

PACK 

LAND-GRANTING  POLICY  OF  THE  NEW  ADMINISTRATION     .       .  .    194 

DIFFICULTIES  IN  THE  APPLICATION  OF  ENGLISH  LAW        .  '      .  .195 

VIEWS  OF  GOVERNOR  CARLETON         .        .        .        .    '    .        .  -199 

VIEWS  OF  MASERES     ......    1    .        .        .  .    202 

THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM  ADMINISTERED  IN  A  CHANGED  SPIRIT  .    204 
QUEBEC  ACT  OF  1775  ..........    209 

THE  AMERICAN  INVASION  AND  MILITARY  SERVICE    .        .        .  .211 

THE  LOYALISTS  AND  EXTENSION  OF  SOCAGE  TENURES      .        .  .214 

BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  MOVEMENT  FOR  COMMUTATION  .        .        .  .215 

LEGISLATIVE  INVESTIGATION  OF  1790          .        .        .        .        .  .216 

CONSTITUTIONAL  ACT  OF  1791     .        .        .        .        .        .        .  .221 

CHAPTER  XII.  \ 

ABOLITION  OF  THE   SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM. 

CANADA  TRADE  ACT  OF  1822     ........  224 

CANADA  TRADE  AND  TENURES  ACT  OF  1825      .....  225 

FACILITIES  FOR  VOLUNTARY  COMMUTATION  OF  TENURES  .  .  .  226 

DISSATISFACTION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  WITH  THIS  POLICY  ...  227 

RELATION  OF  THE  TENURE  SYSTEM  TO  POPULAR  DISCONTENT  .  233 

REBELLION  OF  1837-1838  .........  236 

O  DURHAM'S  REPORT  AND  ITS  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  SEIGNIORIES  .  237 

FURTHER  LEGISLATIVE  INVESTIGATIONS,  1843  .....  239 

GROWTH  OF  THE  MOVEMENT  FOR  ABOLITION  .....  242 

SEIGNIORIAL  TENURES  ABOLITION  ACT,  1854  .....  245 

o  THE  END  OF  SEIGNIORIALISM  IN  CANADA  ......  251 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX     .......    253 

ALPHABETICAL  LIST  OF  PRINTED  MATERIALS          .        .     267 


The  physiognomy  of  a  government  may  be  best 
judged  in  its  colonies,  for  there  its  features  are  magni- 
fied and  rendered  more  conspicuous.  When  I  wish  to 
study  the  merits  and  faults  of  the  administration  of 
Louis  XIV,  I  must  go  to  Canada;  its  deformity  is 
there  seen  as  through  a  microscope.  —  ALEXIS  DE 
TOCQUEVILLE,  The  Old  Regime  and  the  Revolution. 


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  \fa 
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.  _ 

jnto  jier  North  American  territories  France  introduced,  in 
theseventeenth  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  of  an  earlier  period,  the 
French  authorities  in  Canada  fostered  and  elaborated  for  more 
than  a  century,  modifying  it  to  suit  the  needs  of  pioneers 


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 ~UeveIopmerrFwere 
committed  to  the  somewhat  unsympathetic  care  of_the  new 
suzerains,  who  continued  it  in  existence  for  almost  a  century 
longer.  V  The  twilight  of  feudalism  wns~thtrs"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 ;  it  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. 

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  absence  of  a  strong 
central  power.  Such  absence  of  authority  cast  the  whole  burden 
of  preserving  order,  and  of  forestalling  a  reign  oifaustrecht,  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  enfeoffment  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 
than  that  of  any  other  nation ;  but  even  in  France  there  was 
at  every  stage  a  marked  absence  of  any  uniformity  or  homo- 
geneity. In  general,  however,  the  steady  growth  of  the 
central  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.  y 

Of  the  various  non-military  obligations  imposed  upon  all 
feudal  dependents,  one  of  the  earliest  and  most  general  was 
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  (banalite's),  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. 


THE  EUROPEAN  BACKGROUND.  5 

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  had  become  sources  of  emolument  to  the  French  seignior- 
ial magnate ; 1  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 
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 
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. 

1  On  the  origin  and  development  of  these  various  seigniorial  incidents,  see 
Renauldon,  Traite  Historique  et  Pratique  des  Droits  Seigneuriaux  (1765);  Achille 
Luchaire,  Manuel  des  Institutions  Franfaises  (1892);  Adhemar  Esmein,  Cours 
Elementaire  d' Histoire  du  Droit  Fran^ais  CI9°S);  and  E.  D.  Glasson,  Precis 
Elementaire  de  V Histoire  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- 
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  farit,  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  \hepays  de  droit  tent  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,1  known 
as  the  pays  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  differed  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.2 

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 

1  See  the  map  of  the  two  regions  in  J.  Brissaud,  Manuel  d'Histoire  du  Droit 
Franfais  (1904),  152. 

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


THE  EUROPEAN  BACKGROUND. 

throughout  the  kingdom.  It  was  to  obviate  the  formei 
defects  that  the  movement  for  the  redaction,  or  codificai. 
the  customs  was  begun.  Unofficial  codifications  began  to  app 
as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  but  tht 
seem  to  have  been  neither  exact  nor  complete ;  it  was  not  unti 
the  closing  years  of  the  century  that  the  first  compilations 
under  official  patronage  were  made.1  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.2  The  desirability  of  codifying  the  customs 
had,  however,  become  apparent;  and  in  1453  a  royal  ordinance 
of  Charles  VII  commanded  that  all  the  local  customs  should  be 
forthwith  collected  by  a  procedure  which  was  definitely  set  forth 
in  the  ordinance,  and  that  the  compilations  should  be  transmitted 
to  the  king  for  the  approval  of  his  parlement?  The  response  to 
this  ordinance  was  not  general,  however ;  and  Louis  XI,  who 
came  to  the  French  throne  a  few  years  later  (1461),  seems  to 
have  had  in  mind  the  desirability  of  a  single  coutume,  or  system 
of  common  law  for  the  whole  kingdom,  rather  than  a  continuance 
of  the  policy  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.6  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  les  Coutumes  (1837),  c^-  *• 

2  Viollet,  Histoire  du  Droit  Civil  Franfais,  142. 

8  Ordonnances  des  Rois  de  France  de  la  Troisieme  Race  (Paris,  1729-1849),  xiv. 
312-313.  Part  of  this  ordinance  is  as  follows  :  "  Nous  voulans  abreger  les  procez 
et  litiges  d'entre  nos  subjectz,  et  les  relever  de  mises  et  depens,  et  mettre  certainete' 
es  jugemens  tant  que  faire  se  pourra,  .  .  .  ordonnons  et  decernons,  declarons  et 
statuons :  que  les  coustumes,  usages,  et  stiles  de  tous  les  pays  de  nostre  royaume 
soyent  redigez  et  mis  en  escrit." 

4  Viollet,  Histoire  du  Droit  Civil  Franfais,  145. 

6  Isambert,  Recueil  General  des  Anciennes  Lois  Francoises,  xi.  458. 


THE  EUROPEAN  BACKGROUND. 

on  of  the  custom  of  the  viscounty  and  provostship  of 

as  accomplished,  in  1510,  though  before  that  date  there 

been  unofficial  and  incomplete  compilations  of  the  custom- 

j  law  of  this  jurisdiction.1  The  work  of  official  compilation 
vas  performed  by  commissioners  designated  by  the  king; 
and  their  work,  when  finished,  received  the  approval  of  the 
Parliament  of  Paris.2  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.3 

In  this  revision  a  number  of  important  changes  were  made, 
and  the  general  arranj^ejnent^f^the  custom  was  much  improved. 
As  thus  revised,  th^Qistorn  of  Paris  consists  of  sixteen  titles 
(titres)  or  divisions,  each  oF~~vdwcrTis  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  Coutume  de  Paris  aux  xiiie  et  xiv*  Siecles,  in 
Nouvelle  Revue  Historique,  viii.  45-86. 

2  Klimrath,  Etudes  sur  les  Coutumes,  ch.  i.  8  Ibid.  ch.  ii. 

4  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),  Guerin  (1634),  Brodeau  (1658),  Ricard 
(1661),  Ferriere  (1679),  Bobe  (1683),  Duplessis  (1699),  Lauriere  (1699),  Le 
Mattre  (1700),  Auzault  (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  arret  into  his  colony  of  New  France,1  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  3  npw  land  >  Furthermore,  the  population  of  the  colony 
upon  which  it  was  imposed  was  very  largely  of  Norman 
origin;2  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.3 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 

1  See  below,  p.  31;  also  Lareau,  Histoire  du  Droit  Canadien,  ch.  v. 

2  See   Suite,    Origin   of  the  French   Canadians,  in   Royal   Society   of  Canada, 
Proceedings,  1905,  Memoires,  sec.  ii.  99  ff. 

8  Ferland  (Cours  d'' Histoire  du  Canada,  i.  511-516)  has  traced  the  origin  of 
about  four  hundred  immigrants  to  Canada  during  the  period  1615-1666.  Of 
these  125  were  from  Normandy,  57  from  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  Coloni- 
sation de  la  Nouvelle-France  (1906),  112-113. 


10  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 
I583),1  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.2  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  considerably 
modified  by  the  authorities  or  entirely  set  aside ; 3  while  some 
others  were  tacitly  disregarded  by  the  Norman  agricultural 
population.4 

The  compilation  of  the  customs  under  official  auspices  in  the 

1  Klitnrath,  Etudes  sur  les  Coutumes,  22-23. 

8  For  example,  see  below,  p.  129. 

8  Below,  pp.  iio-in.  *  Below,  p.  139. 


THE  EUROPEAN  BACKGROUND.  1 1 

sixteenth  century  marks  an  important  epoch  in  the  history  oJ 
French  seigniorial  relations ;  for,  while  it  did  not  stereotype 
these  relations  in  any  strict  sense,  it  gave  them  a  degree  o1 
definiteness  which  they  had  not  hitherto  obtained.1  It  die 
not  in  any  way,  however,  produce  uniformity  in  the  relations  01 
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.2 
Some  seigniorial  privileges  were  recognized  in  almost  all  the 
customs,  as,  for  example,  the  right  to  the_  cens  et  rentes,  and  to 
the/W.r  et  ventes,  or  relief;  others,  like  the  right  to  demand  cor- 
ve"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.3 

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 

1  Klimrath,  Etudes  sur  les  Coutumes,  ch.  i. 

2  On  the  extent  of  this  variation,  see  Pardessus,  Memoires  sur  /'  Origine  du  Droit 
Coutwnier  en  France,  in  Memoires  de  I'Academie  des  Inscriptions,  x.  666-765  ; 
Laferriere,   Coutumes   de  France  dans  les   Diverses  Provinces,  in  his   Histoire   du 
Droit  Francois  (1858),  vol.  v;   Glasson,  Precis  Elementaire  de  I1  Histoire  du  Droit 
Franc,ais,  437-448. 

8  See  La  Grande  Encyclopedic,  under  "  Coutume." 


12  THE  EUROPEAN  BACKGROUND. 

b_uilt  upon  it.1    This  development  of  the  centra^  power  had 

fundamentally  altered  the  spirit  of  the  system,  even  though  the 
outer  shell  hflft  K^n  for  rtheTmost  partLJpreserveH  intact.  The 
seigniors,  for  example,  still  preserved  their  rightsjpf  private 
judicial  administration,  but  their  powers  in  this  domain  were  no 
longer  final :  the  growth  of  the  royal  courts  hadjjhoroughly 
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.2  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 

JFranrf   whn   had   never  visited   1;hein  ysfotes   in   the   lapsg_pf   a.  .. 

lifetime.3  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.4  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  See  the  list  of  decrees  in  Viollet,  Histoire  du  Droit  Civil  Franfais,  151-155. 

2  Manesse,  Les  Pay  sans  et  leurs  Seigneurs  avant  1789  (1895),  c^-  v"i- 

8  The  extent  and  evils  of  this  absenteeism  are  discussed  in  Taine,  L'Ancien 
Regime,  ch.  iii,  and  in  Manesse,  Les  Paysans  et  leurs  Seigneurs,  ch.  viii. 

4  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 
Fraiice"tb  the  IMeW  Woild.  Us  silriimlh  HaH  already  begun  to 
show  inherent  signs  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,  t   Wjththft  direct  perform!  rplat-inn  nf  spqgnjnr  \t\ 


ent,  with  the  ^prorm'n.enre  ffjvP"  *n  the  military 
with  the  comparative  paucity  and  simplicity  of  the  seigniorial._ 
rights  and  obligations,  the  land-tenure  system  of  French  CTnnndn 
bore  a  much  closer  resemblance  to  French  feudalism  of 
earlier  period  than  to  French  seigninrialism  nf  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. 

JWhen  France  undertook  the  planting  of  the  seigniorial  tenure 
^n  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  "  L'ttat 
c'est  moi  "  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.2 

1  See^elow,    especially  ch.  iv. 

2  Cheyney,  European  Background  of  American  History,  115-116. 


14  THE  EUROPEAN  BACKGROUND. 

In  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 


of  the  king  were  the  Royal  Council  (conseil  du  ?wV—  more  often 
"caTTecTthe  Council  of  State  (conseil  d  'etat  du  rot)  —  amlthfix,Par- 

_  ___  _  -  —  -  —  --         -  •  -  f  --  '  ---  *^»—  '     ****• 

liament  of  Paris  (parlement  de  Paris).  The  former  was  Jjie 
chief  executive  council  of  the  realm,  the  body  ..ia_which_theJdug, 
issued  his  arrets  and  ordinances  both  for  France  and  for  the 
'  colonies.  ^TjiisjounciTwas  further.-  brought  into  relation-  with. 
the  affairs  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  nitrusted, 
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  nntsgt^jn  the 
hands  of  the  chief  rm'm'gter  r>f  state — When  fbe  beginnings  of 
Settlement  in  New  France  were  made,  Cardinal  Richelieu  pos-. 
sessed  among  his  various  titles  that  of  "grand  master,  chief, 
md  superintendent-general  of  the  navigation  and  commerce  of 
'France,"  and  in   virtue  of   this  position   exercised    a   general 

Tm'cht  nf  colonial  affairs.  Indeed,  the  introduction  of  seign- 
iorialism  in  New  France  has  been  commonly  regarded  as  his 
personal  work.1  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,2  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 ). 

8  Petit,  Les  Colonies  Francoises  (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.1  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 
therefore  more  uniform  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  lacked  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  1 760,  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.2  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,  The  Old  Regime  and  the  Revolution,  299. 

2  By  statute  12  Charles  II.  c.  24  (1660). 


16  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 

1  See  below,  ch.  xi. 


CHAPTER    II. 

EARLY   SEIGNIORIAL    GRANTS. 
1598-1666. 

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  1534-1535  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- 
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  official  France  once  again  turning 
its  eyes  to  the  northwestward.  The  possibilities  of  the  St.  J^aw- 
rence  region  **  *  fflvonfrjf  field  for  fhp  exploitation  ol_the  fun 
trade  had  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Marquis^e  la  Roche,  a 
noblernanTbf  Brittany,  who  possessed  some  influence  at  the  royjl^ 
£ourt.  Some  years  previously  La  Roche  had  receivecTa  com- 
mission empowering  him  to  establish  a  colony  in  Newfoundland, 
but  misfortune  overtook  his  enterprise  even  before  his  vessels 
left  the  shores  of  France.1  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,  Newfoundland,  Labrador,  the  River  of 
the  Great  Bay,  Norembega,  and  of  the  countries  adjacent  to  the 
said  territories  and  rivers."  2 

Within  this  vaguely  defined  area  La  Roche  was  jn  vested 
with  almost  sovereign  powers  :  he_  might  make  war  and  pgace, 
maintain  an  army,  legislate,  punish  and  pardon, 


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,  chdtellenies,  countships,  viscount- 

1  Hakluyt,  Discourse  on  Western  Planting,  in  Maine  Historical  Society,  Collections, 
2d  series,  ii.  26. 

2  For  La  Roche's  commission,   January   12,   1598,  see   Edits   et   Ordonnances* 
iii.  7-10. 


EARLY  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS.  19 

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.1 

Armed  with  these  extensive  powers  and  privileges,  the  BretonCfo<LW 
nobleman  made  haste  to  assume  the  duties^)f  his  post._.JBy  the^ 
lerms""of  his  commission  he  was,  ,_however1.junder_pbligati[on  to 
tran££0jrt_sett:lgrs  t»  the  ne.w  territories  ^t  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  jie^btained  a  band  of  sixty  convicts  :  2  and  in 
due  time  the  expedition  bailed  for  trie  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 

than  a   Hnyprj  survivors..3 


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 
settlements  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- 

1  Parkman,  Pioneers  of  France  in  the  New  World  (Frontenac  ed.),  ii.  54. 

2  Biggar,  Early  Trading  Companies  of  New  France,  41. 

8  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  granted  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.1 

The  work  of  these  exploiters  was,  however,  not  altogether 
barren  ot  results ;  tor  it  was  undeTTn^auspTces  of  one  of  thenT,, 
that  Samuel  Champlain  was  sent  on  his  earlier  voyages  to . 
America.  He  it  was  who  first  secured  for  France  and  for 
FrencrTnie"n  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  jnen 

wjiom_Champlain  found  very  hard  to  control. Although  his 

legal  powers  weri  amplp  <*nmigrhf  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  fulj_authority 
tolirrange  for  grants  of  lands  to  settlers  on  such  terms  as_  he 
might  deem  fit : 2  and  yet  during  the  whole  period  intervening 

1  For  a  detailed  account  of  the  operations  of  these  various  m'onopplists  and  their 
relations  to  the  new  colony,  see  ~Bigga.t,~Earfy  Trading  Companies  of  New  France, 
chs.  iii-iv. 

2  "  Commission  de  Commandant  en  la  Nouvelle-France  ...  en  faveur  du  Sieur 
de  Champlain,"  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  1 1 . 


EARLY  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS.  21 

between  1608  and  1627  only  three  seigniorial  grants  appear  to 
Have  beerTmaHe  MostTof  those  who  came  ouL-tQ-  thp  ^ony 
during  this  interval  seem  to  have  ^hajdjitrie  Jnterest  in  agricul- 
tural pursuits  ;  they  sought  to  enrich  thein^ejv£s_j^rjou£h_the 
exploitation  of  the  fur  trade,  but  showed  no  desire  to  acquire 
Tands. 


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."  1  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."  2  Three  years  later 
Hebert  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.3 

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.4  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.5 

.    So  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  the^Jiu££_S[fiiaJtll£Jinjj[_g2^its 
.^jl^ty  ^**  Q111'hr'ri1'ie&in_France  downj£_i627.     Each  of  them 
appears  to  have  been  made  on  the  advice  of  Champlain  ;  and  the 
in  all  tkrafyof.  ^fj^jffl  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  Due  de  Ventadour.     See  Titres  des  Seign- 
euries,  373. 

2  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.  8  See  below,  p.  166. 

4  Titres  des  Seigneiiries,  53.  6  See  below,  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  his  influence  that 
the  change  was  decided  upon.  Flushed  with  his  victories  over 
the  Huguenots,  the  cardinal  conceived  the  plan  of  forming  a 
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.1  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.2 

The   preamble   of   this   charter   states   succinctly  the   royal 
motives   in  taking  this  step.     "Having  in  view,"  it   declares, 
*M:he  establishment  of  a  powerful  colony  in  order  thatjNewf 
France  with  all  its  dependencies  may,  once  for  alL  ^become  a^ 
Dependency  of   the   crown   without   any~danger   of   itsjbeing. 
seized  by  the  king's  enemies,  —  as  might  De  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  thejwjiflle- 
of  its  trade  the  country  has  been  left  uncultivated  agd_jilmost 


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  Absolue(  1884- 1890),  iii.  221-224. 

2  "  Acte  pour  1'etablissement  de  la  Compagnie  des  Cent  Associes  pour  le  com- 
merce du  Canada,  contenant   les  articles  accordes  a  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 
until  May  6,  1628  {Ibid.  19). 


EARLY  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS.  23 

"in  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 
marks.1  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.2 
"  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  grant  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."  3 

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."  4 
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."  5 

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.6  By  one  of  these  clauses  the  directors  of  the 

1  Article  iv.  2  Article  vii.  8  Article  v.  *  Article  i. 

5  Article  iii.  6  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  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."  l  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.2 

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 
half  of  whom  were  Parisians,  elected  a  board  of  twelve  direc- 
tors and  a  president.3 

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  Jaden  with  settlers,  cattle,  provisions,  and 
munitions  set  sail  from  Dieppe  for  Quebec ; 4  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  vii. 

2  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  \a\tjugerum. 

8  Biggar,  Early  Trading  Companies  of  New  France,  137. 
4  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.1  By 
these  events  the  operations  of  the  company  were  necessarily 
suspended  until  1632,  when  by  the  Treaty  of  St.  Germain-en- 
Laye  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 
Engr^li  traders,  the  French  king  granted  him  a  monopoly  of 
the  trade  for  a  year  in  order  to  recoup  himself.  The  operations 
of  the  Company  nf  Onq  ffnn^rWl  Acor^'at^c  Hjf|  \\ntf  therefore, 
bein  UP  HI 


Once  actually  in  possession,  it  was  not  long  before  the  direc- 
tors of  the  company  made  their  first  seigniorial  grant  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 
north  shore  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River  just  below  Quebec,  one 
league  in  length  by  one  and  one-half  leagues  in  depth,  in  "  full 
jurisdiction,  property,  and  seigniory."3  Just  a  month  later 
(February  15)  the  directors  made  to  the  Reverend  Fathers 
of  the  Society  and  Company  of  Jesus  a  grant  in  franche  aumdne, 
or  mortmain,  of  a  tract  of  land  comprising  about  six  hundred 
arpents,  situated  at  Three  Rivers  ;  4  and,  from  this  time  on, 
grants  were  made  with  considerable  frequency. 

All  together  the  Company  of  One  Hundred  Associates  made 
about  sixty  seigniorial  grants,5  most  of  them,  however,  with 
little  regard  to  the  ability  or  the  intention  of  the  grantees  to 
clear  and  develop  their  grants.  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  were 
ever  taken  possession  of  by  those  to  whom  they  were  made. 

1  Henry  Kirke,  The  first  English  Conquest  of  Canada  (1871). 

2  Charlevoix,  Histoire  de  la  Nouvclle-France,  i.  168-178. 

8  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  386.  The  depth  of  the  Beauport  seigniory  was  in  1653 
increased  to  four  leagues  (Ibid.  388). 

*  Ibid.  70. 

6  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- 
iors in  Lower  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." 1  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,2  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.3  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  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  32,  58,  375. 

2  Benjamin  Suite,  La  Guerre  des  Iroquois,  in  Royal  Society  of  Canada,  F  'oceed- 
ings,  1897,  Memoir  es,  sec.  i.  65-92. 

8  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. 

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." 1  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."  2 

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  pu" 

1  "  Deliberation  de  la  Compagnie  de  la  Nouvelle-France,"  Edits  et  Ordonnan 
i.  30.  2  iHcif  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  them, 
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  uncleared  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 
Me"zy,  governor,  the  Bishop  of  Petraea,1  and  M.  Robert,  inten- 
dant,2  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.3  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. 

1  Francois-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  Petrsea  in  Arabia.  In  1674  he  became 
bishop  of  Quebec.  See  Gosselin,  Vie  de  Laval  (Quebec,  1890). 

^     2  Louis  Robert  was  appointed  intendant  of  New  France,  probably  in  the  spring  of 
'63  ;   but,  so  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  he  never  assumed  the  duties  of  his  post. 
nur%e  W.  B.  Munro,  The  Office  of  Intendant  in  New  France,  in  American  Historical 
>t  October,  1906.  *  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  33. 


EARLY  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS. 

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.1  The  new 
council  was  empowered  "  to  take  cognizance  of  all  causes,  crimi- 
nal and  civil,  and  to  judge  supremely  (souverainemenf)  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.2 

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-granting  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  whjch,  however, 
no  further  extension  would  be  made  for  any  reason  whatever."  8 

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 

1  This  edict,  rather  curiously,  contains  no  mention  of  an  intendant 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  37. 

8  For  Gaudais's  instructions,  May  7,  1663,  see  Ibid.  iii.  23. 


30  EARLY  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS. 

ordinance,  the  council  directed  it  to  be  "  communicated  to  the 
syndic  of  the  inhabitants,"  l  in  order  that,  on  receipt  of  his 
answer,  directions  might  be  given  as  should  "  seem  advisable."  2 
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." 
i,  ,  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.3  ^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 
I  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.4 

1  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  Jesuites,  185),  Montreal  (see  Faillon,  Histoirede 
la  Colonie  Fran^aise,  ii.  547),  and  Three  Rivers  (see  Suite,  Chronique  Triftuvienne, 
216)  several  years  before  that  date.     The  post  soon  passed  out  of  existence  in  the 
colony.     See  Garneau,  Histoire  du  Canada,  i.  1 79. 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  18-19.  8  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  Colonialede  Colbert,  in  Annales  deTEcole  Libre  des  Sciences  Politiques,  1886. 


EARLY  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS.  31 

By  an  edict  dated  May,  I664,1  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.2  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,3 and  the  right  "  to  appoint  judges  and  officers  of  justice 
wherever  need  be  and  to  displace  and  dismiss  them  whenever 
found  necessary,"4  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  proper  to 
commute  such  rights  for  the  relief  of  the  said  inhabitants;  "5 
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." 6  It  provided, 
however,  that  the  Coutume  de  Paris  should  be  the  law  of  the 
colony,  "  without  its  being  lawful  to  introduce  any  other  cou- 
tume" 7  The  king  reserved  to  himself  in  the  grant  "  neither 
rights  nor  duties  except  those  of  fealty  and  homage,  which  the 
company  shall  be  bound  to  render  at  each  mutation  of  the 
(  crown,"  together  with  the  customary  nominal  tribute  of  thirty 
marks.8 

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  Ordonnances,  i.  40-48. 

2  To  the  Company  of  the  West  Indies  were  also  granted  Louisiana,  the  French 
West  Indies,  the  French  territories  in  South  America,  and  the  whole  of  the  African 
coast  from  Cape  Verde  to  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope. 

3  Article  xxvi.  *  Article  xxxi. 

6  Article  xxii.  6  Article  xxiii. 

7  Article  xxxiii.  8  Article  xx. 


32.  EARLY  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS. 

appear  to  have  exercised  this  right ; J  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."  2 

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  " ; 3  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  the  fact 
that  Mesy's  commission  bears  date  May  I,  1663  {Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  21),  and 
that  Robert  is  mentioned  as  holding  the  post  of  intendant  in  March,  1663  {Ibid.  i. 
33),  whereas  the  charter  of  the  company  was  not  granted  till  May,  1664. 

2  Chapais,  Jean  Talon,  49. 

8  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  36-37.  The  commission  of  M.  le  Barroys  is  dated 
April  8,  1665,  and  was  enregistered  at  Quebec  on  September  23  following  (Juge- 
ments  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." 1  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- 
Salieres  regiment.2  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.3 

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

1  Talon  to  Colbert,  October  4,  1665,  Correspondance  Generate,  ii.  248. 

2  For  the  previous  history  of  this  regiment,  see  Susane,  Histoire  de  VAncienne 
Infanterie  Fran<;aise  (8  vols.,  Paris,  1849-1853),  v.  236  ff.     Cf.  also  below,  pp.  36,  70. 

3  See  Tracy's  commission,  November  19,  1663,  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  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." J  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.2 

1  "  RequSte  de  M.  le  Barroys  a  Monseigneur  de  Tracy  concernant  les  Droits  de  la 
Compagnie,"  Edits  el  Ordonnances,  i.  51-60,  §  xxvi. 

a  In  some  few  cases  during  the  years  1673-1674,  however,  seigniorial  title-deeds 
were  issued  by  officers  of  the  company.  See  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  39,  40,  112. 


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- 
dajttt  particularly  now  fell  the  task  of  seeing  that  seigniorial 
holdings  were  provided  for  those  settlers  who  seemed  to  be 
entitled  to  them.  Talon  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- 
N  velopment."  1  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.2 

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.3  This  title  was  duly  forth- 

1  "  Projets  de  Reglemens  qui  semblent  Stre  utiles  en  Canada,  proposes  a  Mes- 
sieurs de  Tracy  et  de  Courcelle  par  M.  Talon,  January  24,  1667,"  Edits  et  Or  don- 
nances,  ii.  29—34. 

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

8  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  300  (January  3,  1669).  This  was  the  seigniory  of  Ste. 
Marie  pres  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.1 
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.2 

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.3  Accom- 
panying this  edict  was  a  royal  order  instructing  the  intendant 
that,  in  regranting  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.4 

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

1  Tilres  des  Seigneuries,  301  (November  3,  1672).         2  See  below,  pp.  67-70. 
'  "  Arr£t  du  Conseil  d'Etat  du  Roi  pour  retrancher  la  moitie  des  Concessions," 
June  14,  1672,  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  70-71. 

*  "Mandement  et  Ordre  du  Roi  sur  1'arrSt  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.1  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,2  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  (conjointement\  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  instructed  to  take  care  that 
all  seigniorial  grants  were  contiguous.3 

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

1  "Edit  du  Roi  portant  Revocation  de  laCompagnie  des  Indes-Occidentales,"  etc., 
Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  74  ff. 

2  R.  S.  Weir,  Administration  of  the  Old  Regime  in  Canada  (1897),  41* 
8  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  89. 


LATER  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS. 


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  great  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  seigniors  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."  x 

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,2  —  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.3 

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

2  Duchesneau  to  Minister,  October  i,  1679,  Corresponda.net  Generate,  v.  30-36. 
8  See  below,  p.  106. 


LATER  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS.  39 

In  spite  of  the  royal  opinion,  as  expressed  in  the  order, 
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,  and  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  jn  a  single  royal 
decree.1  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,2  stating  clearly  the 
boundaries  of  the  grants  and  the  conditions  incumbent  upon  the 
grantees  ;  but  this  practice  was  apparently  very  often  omitted,  fort 
the  habitants  frequently  took  lands  in  seigniories  without  firs* 
receiving  formal  written  deeds.  In  1/07  the  intendant,  Raudot, 
called  the  attention  of  the  minister  to  abuses  which  had  arisen 
in  this  connection.  "  Many  habitants,"  he  asserts,  "  have  p 
worked  to  a  considerable  extent  on  their  lands  merely  on  theA 
word  of  the  seigniors ;  others  on  simple  tickets  which  do 
express  precjsely_the  terms  upon  which  the  grants  are  made 
Hence  a  gr^at  abusejhas  arisen,  which  is  that  the  habitants  whj 
have  worked  without  safe  titles  have  been  subjected  to  vei 
heavy  rents  and  dues,  the  seigniors  refusing  to  grant  them  deed^ 
except  on  these  conditions,  which  they  are  obliged  to  accept 
because  otherwise  they  would  lose  their  labor.  As  a  conse-l 
quence  of  this,  the  dues  are  different  in  almost  every  seigniory:! 
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,  \.  262. 

2  The  dependents  of  the  seigniors  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. 


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  future  give  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." Raudot  points  out  that  the  habitants  are  entirely  ignorant 
of  their  rights,  and  tha.t  "  they  are  afraid  of  the  mildest  threats 
onthis  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,1  and  which 
was  moving  the  seigniors  to  take  advantage  of  legal  technicali- 
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."2 

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- 

1  "  L'esprit  d'affaires  qui  a  toujours,  comme  vous  savez,  beaucoup  plus  de  subtilite" 
et  de  chicane,  qu'il  n'a  de  ve"rite  et  de  droiture,  a  commence  a  s'introduire  ici  depuis 
quelque  temps  et  augmente  tous  les  jours  par  ses  deux  mauvais  endroits.     Si  Ton 
pouvait  les  retrancher,  cet  esprit  pourrait  Sire  bon  pour  1'avenir  ;   quoique  la  sim- 
plicite  dans  laquelle  on  y  vivait  autrefois  fftt  encore  meilleure." 

2  Raudot  to  Fontchartrain,  November  IO,  1707,   Correspondance  Generate,  xxvi. 
9-10. 


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.1  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.2 

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 (stir  la  parole  des  seigneurs].  Others  had  brief  memoranda 
(les  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.3  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. 

1  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. 

2  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-n. 
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). 

3  Raudot  to  Pontchartrain,  October  18,  1708,   Correspondance  Generale,  xxviii. 
17S-1*7- 


42  LATER  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS. 

Deshaguais  and  Daguesseau  had  not  yet  drawn  up  the  decree 
based  upon  the  desires  of  the  intendant  as  expressed  in  his  first 
communication.  In  fact  it  was  not  until  1717  that  the  draft 
was  ready  for  the  signatures  of  the  king  and  the  ministers.1 
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 
i  decree,  the  king  proceeded  to  correct  the  evils  in  his  own  time 
and  way.  ^ 

After  a  careful  consideration  of  the  measures  necessary,  His 
/  Majesty  issued,  on  Tuly  8.  I7.il.  two  of  the  most  important 
enactments  in  the  whole  history  of  the  colonial  land-tenure  sys- 
tem, the  Arrets  of  Marly.2  The  first  of  these  decrees  relates  to 
the  seigniorS7"Sndniore  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,  at  the 
expiration  of  a  year,  all  seigniors  who  should  have  shown  con- 
spicuous failure  in  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  Inlendants  of  Canada  relative  to  the  Seigniorial  Tenure, 
17-18. 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  324-326.     These  arr§ts  took  the  name  of  the  place  at 
which  the  royal  signature  was  appended. 


LATER  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS.  43 

tiers  whatever  lots  of  land  the  latter  may  demand  of  them,  at  a 
ground  rent  (d  iitre  de  redevance),  without  exacting  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  at  Quebec,  and  the  seigniors  shall  have  no  right  to 
claim  anything  whatever  from  them." 

%  The  second  arret  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  arret  ordained  that  all  those 
who  did  not  cultivate  and  inhabit  (tenirfeu  etlieii)  their  holdings 
within  the  space  of  one  year  should,  on  the  certificate  of  the 
cure  and  the  captain  of  the  militia x  to  this  effect,  forfeit  their 
lajids  to  the  seigniorial  domain  ;  such  forfeiture  to  be  made 
effective  by  order  of  the  governor  and  intendant. 

A,-     These  two  arrets,  as  will  be  seen  later,  had  very  important 

"(effect^.     They  formed  alike  a  means  of 


ants  against  extortion  on  the  part  of  the  seignior,  and  a  guar- 
antee to  the  seignior  against  the  acquisn^n"~oT"'hTs""lan3s  for 
speculative  purposes.  At  one  stroke  they  took  away  any  pro- 
prietary right  which  the  seignior  might  have  assumed  to  possess 
in  his  ungranted  lands,  and  placed  him,  as  regards  them, 
in  the  position  of  a  mere  trustee  for  the  crown.2  From  1711 

1  The  capitaine  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  perform  such  administrative  duties 
as  might  be  from  time  to  time  laid  upon  him  by  the  authorities  at  Quebec. 

2  Cf.  Doutre  and  Lareau,  Histoire  Generate  du  Droit  Civil  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 
1711  was  in   some  degree  effectjye.     Very  frequently  settlers 
souglit  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, 
I  being  mulcted  as  the  price  of  their  ignorance.1     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 
grants,  "by  reason    of   the   grantees   having   failed   to   reside 
thereon." 2     As   regards  the  forfeiture  of  seigniories  which  re- 
mained uncleared,  however,  the  arrets  seem  to  have  accomplished 
little  or  nothing.3 

During  the  six  years  following  the  issue  of  the  Arrets  of 
Marly  only  five  grants  of  seigniories  were  made,4  and  during 

1  See  below,  p.  48. 

2  Beauharnois  and   Hocquart   to    Maurepas,   October  3,    1731,    Correspondance 
Generate,  liv.  39. 

8  I  have  found  only  one  case  in  which  a  seignior  had  his  title  revoked  and  his 
lands  reunited  to  the  domain  of  the  crown  as  a  result  of  the  issue  of  these  arrets. 
On  March  I,  1714,  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  days 
after  it  was  taken  from  its  former  holder  (March  5,  1714,  Titres  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  et 
Ordonnanccs,  ii.  585-589). 

*  These  were  as  follows  :  Riviere  Yamaska  to  Ramezay,  and  Beloeil  to  Longue- 
uil,  March  24,  1713  {Titres  des  Seigneuries,  454-455);  Beaumont  to  Charles  Couil- 
lard  de  Beaumont,  April  10,  1713  (Ibid.  64);  Mille  Isles  to  Gaspard  Piot,  dit 
Langloiserie,  and  Sieur  Petit,  March  5,  1714  (Ibid.  59);  and  Lac  des  Deux-Mont- 
agnes  to  Messieurs  "Les  Ecclesiastiques  du  Seminaire  de  St.  Sulpice,  etablis  a  Mont- 


LATER  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS.  45 

the   ten  next  ensuing  years  (1717-1727)  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    Begon),   dated   May  23,    1719,   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 

1  not  to  grant  any  more  of  them,  which  policy  and  decision  His 

J  Majesty  communicated  to  the  Sieur  Vaudreuil  in  his  despatch 

f  of  June  15,   I7I6,1  .  .  .  and  in  consequence  of  which  he  does 

\  not  wish  to  make  any  grants  except  en  roture."  z 

Just  what  moved  the  minister  to  this  determination  in  1716 
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  Gedeon  de  Catalogne,3  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.4 

real,"  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. 

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

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

3  For  a  sketch  of  the  life  of  Catalogne,  see  Tanguay,  Etude  sur  une  Famille  Cana- 
dienne :  Famille  de    Catalogne,    in    Royal   Society  of  Canada,   Proceedings,    1884, 
M'emoires,  sec.  i.  7  ff. 

4  "Memoire  sur  les  Plans  des  Seigneuries  et  Habitations  de  Quebec,  les  Trois- 
Rivieres,  et  de    Montreal,  par    M.   de   Catalogne,  Ingenieur,"   November  9,   1712, 
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  officials.  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  their  occupation 
as  laborers.  Catalogne  remarked  that  in  most  of  the  seign- 
iories a  considerable  portion  of  the  land  was  still uncleared, 
•^L  and  tfiaT  the  habitants  were  usually 
of"wtTat-tlieyJigld. — 

Catalogne  complained  that  the  people  werecqmpelled  by  the 
rhiirph  tn  1pa ye  their  work_fpr  ihe  too  numerous  fetes,  a  circum- 
stance which  was  very  detrimental  to  the  proper  cultivation  of 
the  soil.  On  account  of  these  fetes,  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  /cus.1  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  off  to  the  western  wilderness  by  the  score  almost 
every  year. 

According  to  Catalogne's  report,  the  methods  ^f  agriculture 

1  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  tl\e.  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  wp.rp.  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.  ^A-s  jfoj^the  seigniors,  they, 
appeared  to him ito_  bg  lacking  \\\  pn^rgy  ^s^well  as  in_capital. 
Many  of  themj?eemejil  poorer  than  their  dependents,  and,  being 
''"often  men  of  lowjextraction,  were  frequently  unable  to  command 
"  the  respect  of  their  habitants.  V  S\ 

Taken  all  in  all,  the  report  of  M.  de  Catalogne  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  1715,  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,2  and  it  does  not  appear  that 
any  more  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  Arrets  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. 

2  The  Ursulines  of  Three  Rivers  had  acquired  by  purchase  and  otherwise  several 
small  parcels  of  land.     The  grant  of  1727  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 
1711,  which  prohibited  them  from  exacting  any  entrance  fee 
from  those  taking  up  uncleared  lands  within  the  seigniories, 
and  ordered  them  to  make  grants,  at  the  usual  terms,  to  all 
settlers  who  applied  for  them.  In  this  report,  complaint  is 
made  that  some  seigniors  "  reserve  considerable  domains  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 
arritre  fief  continue  to  exact  a  prix  cTentrte,  on  the  ground  that 
the  arret  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  for 
such  lands  (without  mentioning  the  fact  on  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  arret  of  1711; 
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  arret  of 
1711),  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.1 

1  Beauharnois   and   Hocquart    to    Maurepas,  October  10,  1730,  Correspondance 
Generale,  liv.  106  ff. 


LATER  SEIGNIORIAL   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  arrets  of  171 1."  J  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  lines.  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 
Y  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  Arrets 
of  Marly,  and  ordered  that  these  be  forthwith  "  enforced  accord- 
ing to  their  form  and  tenor."2 

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  I734,3they  continued  to  put  off  action; 
and  it  was  not  until  the  spring  of  1741  that  the  governor  and  in- 

1  Maurepas  to  Beauharnois  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  Correspondance  Generate, 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  531  (March  15,  1732). 

8  This  census  was,  it  is  believed,  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  180,868  arpents,  of  which  163,111  were  under  cultivation.  Since 
1721,  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. 


50  LATER  SEIGNIORIAL   GRANTS. 

tendant  finally  bestirred  themselves  to  the  work  of  enforcing  the 
royal  orders  in  the  case  of  tardy  seigniors.  On  May  10  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  their 
lands.1  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 
J  owners  by  grants  de  novo?  However,  the  issue  of  the  ordi- 
nance had  a  very  wholesome  effect  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  arret.  According  to 
the  terms  of  this  arret,  either  the  governor  or  the  intendant  might 
make  grants  in  the  absence  of  the  other  from  the  colony.  When 
the  two  officials  differed  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  arret,  to 
have  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  king.3 

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 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  555-561. 

2  For  example,  the  Sieur  Foucault  received  back  his  forfeited  seigniory  on  May  I, 
1743  (  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  204). 

8  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  L  572-574. 


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 
v,  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  aumone, 
or  frankalmoign,  (4)  en  fief,  or  en  seigneurie,  (5)  en  arricre 
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.1  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  under  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  1 634,2  the  other  of  Charlesbourg,  near  Quebec, 
in  i63/.3  The  reason  given  for  making  the  grants  in  this  form 
rather  than  en  seigneurie  was  that,  since  the  titles  of  all  lands 

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

8  This  tract  of  about  six  hundred  arpents  was  known  as  Pachiriny,  or  Pachirine. 
See  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  70  ;   also  below,  p.  180. 
8  Titres  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.1  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 

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.     It  was,  in  fact,  roughly  analogous  to  a  grant  in  free  and 
common  socage.     Lands  held  en  franc  aleu  retttrierwQTQ  subject 
to  no  dues  or  payments ;  indeed,  they  were  not  feudal  grants  at 
all.3  Only  a  few  of  them  were  made,  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  aumone,  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- 
•ier  and  its  relation  to  the  Feudal  and  other  forms  of  Tenure,  7. 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  102-105.     The  same  royal  favor  was  similarly  granted, 
it  various  times,  to  the  Re"collets,  the  Ursulines,  and  to  the  authorities  of  the  Hotel- 
Dieu  of  Quebec  (Ibid.  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  the  Revo- 
lution, 342). 


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.1  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."2  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."  3  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." 4  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.6 

4.  By  far  the_^e^ter  part  of  the  larger  land  grants  were  made 
en  fief  or(enseigneu^)  terms  which  were  used  synonymously 
in  the  colony.  The  few  concessions,  made  either  by  the  com- 

1  On  the  nature  of  tenure  enfranche  aumone,  see  Henrion  de  Pansey,  Disserta- 
tions Feodales,  ii.  54-149  ;  and  Viollet,  Histoire  du  Droit  Civil  Franfais,  702-708. 

2  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  344.  8  Ibid.  75. 

*  Cf.  Ibid.  11-43.  6  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. *The  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. 1  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  grant 
(  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, 
tisually  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 
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;2  and,  when  these  had  themselves  been 
vaguely  defined,  abundant  room  for  dispute  was  afforded.3 

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

2  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). 

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


56  THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  SUPERIORS. 

Whatever  the  area  of  the  seigniorial  grant,  however,  or  wher- 
ever its  location,  it  invariably  assumed  the  shape  of  a  parallelo- 
gram, with  the  shorter  side  fronting  on  the  river,  a  fact  which,  as 
will  be  seen  later,  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.1 

On  being  placed  in  possession  of  his  seigniorial  grant,  the 
seignior  was  put  under  certain  well-defined-obligations  toward 
the  company  or  the  crown  ^  ^nminant^pJfrm'nr.  First  among 
these  was  the  performance  of  the  ceremony  of  fealty  and  homage 
,  (foi-&t  Jjommap-e}.  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  Chateau  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.2  The  last  act  of  fealty  and  homage  was 

1  Below,  pp.  235-238. 

2  In  Actes  de  Foi  et  Hommage,  iv.  43,  is  found  a  detailed  description  of  this  cere- 
mony as  performed  by  one  of  the  seigniors  before  General  Murray,  the  first  British 
governor-general  :  "  In  the  year  1 760,  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  Noel,  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  Noel,  having  knocked  at  the  door,  there  immediately  came  a  servant,  of  His 
Excellency  James  Murray,  governor-general  of  Quebec,  and  the   said  Noel  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  fealty  and  homage,  the  seignior 
was  obliged,  within  the  space  of  forty  days  after  receiving  his 
grant,  to  deposit  with  the  proper  authorities  at  Quebec  an  aveu 
et  denombrement.  This  was  a  paper  comprising  two  separate 
documents,  —  the  aveu,  which  was  a  general  map  or  plan  of  the 
seigniory,  showing  its  location  in  the  colony,  its  boundaries,  and 
configuration,  and  the  denombrement,  which  was,  on  the  other  hand, 
a  detailed  description  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  of  tenure,  the  acreage  (arpentage) 
of  the  seigniory,  the  degree  or  degrees  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  dhiombrement 
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 
arriere  fief  or  en  censive,  the  number  of  settlers  on  each  grant, 
the  amount  of  produce  raised  by  these  settlers  in  the  last  year, 

government  house,  the  said  servant  said  that  His  Excellency  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  full  fief  of 
His  Britannic  Majesty,  which  fief  belonged  to  him  as  eldest  son  and  heir  of  the  late 
Philippe  Noel  his  father  .  .  .  which  faith  and  homage  His  Excellency  received  from 
the  said  Jean  Noel,  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  Noel  to  furnish  his  aveu  et  denombrement 
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  Noel  has  demanded  Acte  of  the  undersigned  notaries,  who  have 
granted  him  the  same  .  .  .  and  His  Excellency  has  signed,  also  the  said  Jean 
Noel.  .  .  . 

"  J.  MURRAY,  JEAN  NOEL,  BAROLET,  PANET." 


58  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.1 

In  many  of  the  title-deeds  the  stipulation  was  made  that  an 
aveu  et  denombrement  should  be  made  at  certain  specified  times 
whether  the  seigniory  changed  hands  or  not,2  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  agricultural  progress 
of  the  colony.  One  cannot  but  admire  the  facility  with  which 
the  colonial  officials  were  able  to  present  detailed  statements  of 
conditions  in  New  France  on  the  shortest  notice.  Requests  for 
such  statements  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  de"nom- 
brement  that  rendered  statistical  data  so  accessible. 

A  third  obligation  imposed  upon  the  seigniors  was  that  of 
subgranting  the  lands  within  their  seigniories,  or,  as  it  was 
officially  called,  ihejeu  defief.  This  obligation  has  an  especial 
interest  from  the  fact  that  it  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  Report  of  the  Solicitor-General 
to  the  Council,    1790,    Titles  and  Documents   relating  to  the  Seigniorial  Tenure, 
i.  27. 

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


THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  SUPERIORS,  59 

new  country  whose  most  pressing  need  was  an  influx  of  set- 
tlers. 

The  Custom  of  Paris,  which  was,  one  might  say,  the  common 
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.1 
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  1711  not  a  single 
seigniorial  title-deed  definitely  imposed  any  obligation  to  sub- 
grant  lands;  and  after  that  date  only  four  deeds  contained  any 
reference  to  such  condition.2  The  seignior  was  regarded  by  the 
crown,  not  as  a  mere  fideicommis,  but  as  having  a  dominium 
plenum  in  his  grant. 

It  was,  however,  as  has  been  already  noted,  the  earnest  desire 
of  the  French  crown  to  have  the  colony  settled  as  rapidly  as 
possible ;  and  it  was  not  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  unfavorable  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  tie  peut  demembrer  son  fief  au  prejudice  et  sans  le  consentement  de 
son  seigneur :  bien  se  peut  jouir  et  disposer  et  faire  son  profit  des  heritages,  rentes, 
ou  cens,  etant  du  dit  fief  sans  payer  profit  au  seigneur  dominant,  pourvu  que  1'alien- 
ation  n'excede  des  deux-tiers  et  qu'il  en  retienne  la  foi   entiere  et  quelque  droit 
seigneurial  et  domainal  sur  ce  qu'il  aliene  "  {Coutume  de  Paris,  article  li). 

2  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"  {Titres  des  Seigneuries,6^)  ;   Mille  Isles,  March  5,  1714,  the  grantee  "to 
concede  the  said  lands  subject  to  simple  dues"  {Ibid.  59) ;    Deux  Montagnes,  Octo- 
ber 17,  1717,  the  grantee  "to  concede  at  a  simple  rent  charge  ...  as  provided" 
{Ibid.  337);   St.  Jean,  April  18,  1727,  "subject  to  the  condition  .  .  .  not  to  concede 
the  said  lands  except  on  a  simple  rent  charge  "  {Brevets  de  Ratification,  84). 


60  THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  SUPERIORS. 

thus  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- 
iors to  subgrant  their  lands  appears  in  the  title-deed  of  the 
seigniory  of  Ste.  Anne  de  la  Perade,  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  (tenancitrs) 
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." 1  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  condition. 

From  1672  onward,  this  or  a  similar  clause  appears  in  a 
number  of  deeds.2  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. 3  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." 4  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.5  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.6 

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  Seigneurits,  275. 

2  For  example,  the  title-deed  of  Longueuil,  Ibid.  99.  8  Ibid.  12. 
4  Ibid.  329.                                   6  Ibid.  46.                                    «  Ibid.  85. 


THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  SUPERIORS.  6 1 

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."  1  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. 2 

In  the  face  of  these  facts,  it  can  hardly  be  maintained  that, 
down  to  1711  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  1711  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 
1711,  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 

1  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  356,  365.  2  Ibid.  322. 


62  THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  SUPERIORS. 

them  under  cultivation  by  placing  settlers  thereon."  1  The  un- 
equivocal language  of  this  arret  was  fully  understood  as  estab- 
lishing an  obligation  to  subgrant  lands ; z  for,  in  the  arret 
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."  3  Futhermore,  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  Arret  of  Versailles  (i/32),4  and  of  the  royal  declara- 
tion of  1 743,5  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  rights  to  settlers  that  the  king  empowered 
the  governor  and  intendant  to  make  the  grants  whenever  the 
seignior  should  show  an  indisposition  to  do  so.6  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 
everything  that  pertained  to  the  advantage  of  New  France. 
After  1711  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  crdwn.  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,7  was  one-fifth  of  the  muta- 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  324-325.  2  See  above,  pp.  42-43. 

8  See  above,  p.  42.  *  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  531. 

6  Ibid.  572.  6  See  above,  p.  43. 

7  Article  xxv. 


THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  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.1  In  several  other  French 
coutumes,  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  of 
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.2 Lineal  descendants  succeeding  to  seigniorial  lands 
were  thus  the  only  ones  exempt.  As  the  mutation  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.3 

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.4  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,  Traite  de  la  Loi  des  Fiefs,  II. 

2  Coutume  de  Paris,  articles  v-i,  xxiii.     Cf.  also  Cugnet,  Traite  de  la  Loi  des  Fiefs,  9. 
8  During  the  thirteen  years  1775-1788  the  amount  was  ^3148.  is.  4^.;   during  the 

period  1803-1841  it  was  .£7385.  gs.  a,d.     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  the  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  cTor)  should  be  paid  in  lieu  of  the 
relief.1 

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." 2  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 
payable.  In  general,  it  may  safely  be  said  that  the  payment 
either  of  the  quint  or  of  the  relief  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. 

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.3 

The  fact  is,  the  French  government  counted  upon  the  service 

1  For  example,  in  the  seigniory  of  Beauport.     See  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  386. 

2  Cugnet,  Traite  de  la  Loi  des  Fiefs,  5.  •  See  above,  pp.  18-19. 


THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  SUPERIORS.  6$ 

of  all  colonists,  whether  landholders  or  not.  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  arriere-fief  shall,  all  ex- 
cuses apart,  put  themselves  in  arms,  mounted  and  equipped, 
according  to  that  to  which  they  shall  be  held  bound,  and  shall 
be  present  on  the  days  and  at  the  places  fixed."1  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 
at  Quebec.2 

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  arriere-fiefs,"  he  promised  his  service  in  arms  when 
called  upon.3  In  explaining  to  the  home  authorities,  in  1768, 

1  "  Lettres-patentes  pour  la  convocation  du  ban  et  arriere-ban,"  August  n,  1674, 
in  Isambert.  Recueil  General  des  Anciennes  Lois  Franfaises,  xix.  138—144. 

2  This  question  is  discussed  at  length  in  Doutre  and  Lareau,  Histoire  Generate 
du  Droit  Civil  Canadien,  118-127. 

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


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." l  The  ob- 
ligation of  military  service  on  the  part  of  the  seigniors,  and 
through  them  on  the  part  of  those  holding  of  them,  was  thus 
regarded  as  having  full  force  and  effect,  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.2 

During  the  greater  part  of  the  French  re'gime  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.3  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 

1  Carleton  to  Shelburne,  April  12,  1768,  in  State  Paper  Office,  America  and  West 
Indies,  vol.  cccxxvi,  No.  33. 

2  Cf.  Weir,  Administration  of  the   Old  Regime  in   Canada,  67 ;    and  Parkman, 
The  Old  Regime  in  Canada,  ii.  42. 

8  In  1674  Frontenac  informed  the  minister  that  he  had  ordered  all  the  seigniors 
of  the  colony  to  drill  their  habitants  as  often  as  possible  {Documents  relating  to 
the  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  ix.  116). 


THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  SUPERIORS.  67 

flanking  fire.1  Its  resemblance  to  the  fortified  castles  of  France 
was  noted  by  Frontenac.2 

Another  way  in  which  the  seigniors  sought  to  strengthen 
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-Salieres  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  army.3 
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  Salieres  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-dozen  years  the  operations  against  the  Mohawks  and  other 
hostile  tribes  were  carried  to  a  successful  outcome,  and  a  per- 

1  Jodoin  and  Vincent,  Histoire  de  Longueuil,  296-297.     The  structure  was  170  by 
200  feet  in  area.     See  also  below,  p.  167. 

2  "  Son  fort  et  sa  maison  nous  donnent  une  idee  des  chateaux  de  France  fortifiez  " 
(Frontenac  to  Minister,  October  15,  1698,  Correspondance  Generate,  vol.  xvi). 

8  For  various  details  regarding  the  history  of  this  notable  regiment  both  in 
Europe  and  in  America,  see  Benjamin  Suite,  Le  Regiment  de  Carignan,  in  Royal 
Society  of  Canada,  Proceedings,  1902,  Memoires,  sec.  i.  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.1  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.2  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.3  The  discharged 
soldier  settled  in  New  France  would,  he  claimed,  develop  a 

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

2  "  Projets  de  Reglemens  qui  semblent  €tre  utiles  en  Canada,  proposes  .  .  .  par  M. 
Talon,"  January  24,  1667,  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  29-34. 

8  "  Cette  maniere  de  donner  un  pays  de  nouvelle  conquete  a  son  exemple  dans 
1'antiquite  romaine,  et  peut  repondre  a  celle  en  laquelle  on  donnoit  autrefois  chez  les 
memes  remains  les  champs  des  provinces  subjugees  qu'on  appeloit  prcedia  militaria  : 
la  pratique  de  ces  peuples  politiques  et  guerriers  peut  a  mon  sentiment  etre  judicieuse- 
ment  introduite,  dans  un  pays  eloigne  de  mille  lieues  de  son  monarque  et  du  corps 
de  Petal  dont  il  n'est  qu'un  membre  fort  detache,  qui  peut  se  voir  souvent  reduit  a  se 
soutenir  par  ses  propres  forces.  Elle  est  a  mon  sentiment  d'autant  plus  a  estimer 
qu'elle  fera  quelque  jour  au  roi,  un  corps  de  vieilles  troupes  qui  ne  seront  plus  a 
charge  a  Sa  Majeste,  et  cependant  capables  de  conserver  le  corps  de  cet  etat  naissant 
de  Canada  avec  tous  les  accroissemens  qu'il  peut  recevoir  centre  les  incursions  des 
sauvages  ou  les  violentes  invasions  des  europeens,  mSme  dans  les  besoins  pressants 
.de  1'ancienne  France,  fournir  un  secours  considerable  a  Sa  Majeste"  (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.1  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.2 

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 
seigniories  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  "  D'un  cote",  elle  epargnoit  les  finances  du  tresor  public,  et  que  de  1'autre,  elle 
interessoit  1'officier  et  le  soldat  en  la  conservation  du  pays,  comme  en  celle  de  son 
propre  heritage"  {Edits  et  Ordonnances.  ii.  33). 

2  "  Et  pour  le  benefice  qu'elles  [qu'ils]  re?oivent  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 
1'age  de  seize  ans,  qui  commengera  son  noviciat  dans  une  garnison  des  forts,  sans  qu'il 
puisse  pretendre  autre  solde  que  celle  de  sa  subsistance,  ou  celle  qui  lui  pourra  8tre 
ordonnee  par  les  etats  de  Sa  Majeste  durant  le  service  qu'il  rendra.    Cette  obligation 
n'ajoute  presque  rien  a  celle  qu'un  veritable  sujet  apporte  au  monde  avec  sa  nais- 
sance,  mais  il  semble  que  lorsque  cette  condition  est  stipulee,  elle  est  moins  rude 
quand  elle  est  exigee   que  lorsqu'il  n'en  est  rien  dit  dans  les  contrats  des  terres 
donnees  comme  se  donnent  toutes  celles  du  Canada  "  {Ibid.}. 


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,  Contrecceur,  Dugue, 
Varennes,  La  Valterie,  Vercheres,  Perrot,  Roque,  Morel  de 
la  Durantaye,  Berthier,  Chambly,  Lanaudiere,  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.1 

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.2  As  later 

1  See  Suite,  Le  Regiment  de  Carignan,  89. 

2  "  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.1  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.2  Lahontan  gives  a  racy  description  of  their 
arrival  and  distribution  among  applicants  ;3  but  his  picture  is 

colony  of  people  properly  qualified  to  fill  it  up  by  their  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  IO,  1670,  Correspondance  Generate,   iii.  86-87. 

2  William  Perwich,  English  agent  in  Paris,  wrote,  May  22,  1669:  "What  ye  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). 

3  Lahontan,  Nouveaux  Voyages  (1709),  i.  11—12. 


72  THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  SUPERIORS. 

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  Mere  Marie 
de  1' Incarnation  that  there  was  beaucoup  de  canaille  among  the 
arrivals.1  So  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  about  five  hundred 
women  were  sent  out  by  the  authorities  during  the  years  1669- 
1673,2  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  I6/2.3  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.* 

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.5  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  more  than  one  occasion 
the  Richelieu  seigniories  contributed  generously  toward  the 

1  Mere  Marie  de  1'Incarnation,  Lettres,  October,  1669. 

2  On  the  increase  of  population   during  this  period,  see  Chapais,  Jean   Talon, 
412-413. 

8  Colbert,  Lettres,  Instructions,  et  Memoir es  (ed.  Pierre  Clement),  iii.  pt.  ii. 
541.  *  Cf.  Chapais,  Jean  Talon,  418. 

6  Catalogne's  report  (above,  p.  45). 


THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  SUPERIORS. 

carrying  out  of  various  defensive  projects.  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  Carignans ;  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.1 

"It  is,  of  course,  true  that  the  colony  did  not  depend  for  i 
defence  upon  the  seigniorial  array  alone.  As  villages  and 
towns  grew  up,  an  official  known  as  the  captain  of  the  militia 
(capitaine  de  la  milice)  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 
huge  armed  camp.* 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  rents  and  dues,  the  holder  of 
lands  en  seigneurie  was  under  obligation  to  respect  certain 
royal  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  (mines,  minMs,  et  mintreanx],  (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 

1  Among  the  officers  of  the  expedition  were  Dugue,  St.  Ours,  Durantaye,  and 
others.  See  the  journal  of  the  expedition,  printed  in  Documents  relating  to  the 
Colonial  History  of  New  York,'na.  95-114;  also  Frontenac  to  Colbert,  November 
13,  1673,  Correspondance  Generalet  vol.  iv. 


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.1 

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 
permitted  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 
tar." 

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.  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, 

1  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  Ordonnances,  ii.  18. 


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.1 

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 

I  jurisdiction,  a  precaution   which,  as   will   be    seen   later,   was 

iscarcely  necessary.2 

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  given  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.3  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.4 

*In  addition  to  these  reservations,  there  were  several  prohibi- 
tions which  appeared  with  considerable  frequency  in  the  seign- 
iorial grants.  Of  these  the  most  common  was  the  provision  that 
the  seignior  should  not  carry  on  any  trade  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  collection  of  toll  from  vessels  navigating  the 
waters  of  the  seigniors,15 —  are  to  be  found  in  isolated  cases,  but 

1  Below,  p.  140.  2  Below,  ch.  ix. 

8  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  89-90.  *  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  obligations  —  of  rendering  fealty  and  homage,  of  fil- 
ing the  aveu  et  d^nombrement,  of  subinfeudating  the  seigniory,  of 
paying  the  quint  (or  relief),  of  rendering  military  service,  and 
;  of  observing  the  reservations  and  prohibitions  contained  in  the 
title-deeds  —  were  the  only  ones  imposed  upon  the  Canadian 
seignior.  Taken  together,  they  were  far  from  being  oppres- 
sive ;  in  fact,  they  can  hardly  be  called  unreasonable.  In  view 
dfme  numerous  rights  which  seiglllors  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,  thejypical  large  grarf  wa<?  thnt  ^f  a 
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  sub-seigniories,  or 
concessions  en  arrtire-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  their  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.1 The  only  difference  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  dhiombrement  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 

1  At  the  time  of  the  abolition  of  the  seigniorial  system  in  1854,  the  point  was 
raised  that  the  ArrSts  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  SEIGNIOR  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  take  their  lands,  not  en  arriere-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.0  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,  sometimes  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  tensive,  or  en  roture,  and  thus  became  technically  a  "censitaire" 
or  "roturier"  of  the  seignior.1  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  difference.  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 

1  Hallam  {Europe  during  the  Middle  Ages,  3d  ed.,  i.  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  1716,  ordered  all  grants  to  be  cancelled  and  new  titles 
to  be  issued  in  regular  form,1  a  command  which  was  executed 
some  years  later.2  These  two  cases  must  be  regarded  as  ex- 
ceptional ;  for,  as  a  rule,  incoming  settlers  were  compelled  to 
apply  to  the  seigniors  for  their  locations. 

In  extent,  grants  en  censive  varied  considerably.  Although 
in  "almi5sT~every  case~fHey"  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.3  In  making  subgrants, 
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. 
Frequently  a  settler  took  up  a  plot  of  land,  and,  having  decided 
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, 

1  Jugemcnts  et  Deliberations  du  Constil  Superieur  de  Quebec,  vi.  1213  (December 
I,  1716). 

2  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  173-175. 

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


80  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  of  the  difficulties  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  in  the  colony,  whether  en  seigneurie,  en  arriere-fief,  or 
en  censive.  Mr.  Suite  has  endeavored  to  determine  definitely 
the  origin  of  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.1  This  plan,  it  is  claimed,  gave  the 
seigniors  a  formula  which  they  followed  closely  in  making  their 
subgrants  both  en  arriere-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. 

2  See  Jean  Bourdon's  map  of  the  seigniories  on  the  Lower  St.  Lawrence  (1641), 
reproduced  in  Tanguay,  Dictionnaire  Genealogique  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 
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.1 
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. 
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."  2 

The  same  reasons  which  impelled  the  authorities  to  grant 
seigniories  in  this  shape  influenced  the  seigniors  to  make  en 
censive  grants  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  Ordonnances,  iii.  412-413. 

a  Durham,  Report  on  the  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 
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.1  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  (chateau  ou  manoir 
principal),  the  inner  yard  (basse  cour\  and  one  superficial  arpent 
of  land  adjoining  the  house,  which  was  supposed  to  include  the 
garden  (tin  arpent  de  terre  de  I'enclos  et  jardiri).  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'  ainesse,  or  principle  of  primo- 
geniture.2 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  (3)  when  there  were  no  male 

1  Coutume  de  Paris,  article  ccxcii.  2  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 ; 1  (4)  when  there  were  no  direct  heirs,  the  estate  went 
to  collaterals,  but  male  and  female  collaterals  did  not  share 
equally.2  * 

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.3  Lands 
held  en  franc  aleu  noble  followed  the  same  rules  as  lands  en 
seignemie,  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  morcellement,  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  value.  As 
his  house  and  barns  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  Coutume  de  Paris,  article  xix.  2  Ibid,  article  xxv.  8  Ibid,  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  ft";  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  I744-1 
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  was  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.2  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.3 

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 

1  Beauharnois  and  Hocquartto  Minister,  October  12,  1744,  Correspondancc  Gene- 
rale,  Ixxxi.  35  ff. 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  585-586.  8  Ibid.  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 ; x  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 
Parisj  but  the  provisions  of  this  custom  might  be,  and  frequently 
were,  altered  by  decrees  and  ordinances.  Though  the  obliga- 
tions weje  numerous,  they  may  be  grouped  intQ.th*€^ea HS^ries  : 
those  which  were  remunerative  or  were  a  source  of  profit  to  the 
seignior ;  those  connected  with  the  administration  of  seigniorial 
justice,  which  might  or  might  not  prove  remunerative  ;  and  those 
which  were  of  a  purely  honorary  or  ceremonial  character. 

First  in  logical  order  among  the  remunerative  obligations 
imposed  by  the  seignior  upon  his  habitants  was  that  of  paying 
the  annual  cens  et  rentes.  This  payment,  though  ordinarily  re- 
garded as  forming  a  single  due,  may  be  separated  into  two  parts, 
each  of  which  had  a  different  origin  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  "; 2  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. 

1  Tache,  A  Plan  for  the  Commutation  of  the  Seigniorial  Tenure,  Appendix.  In 
X739>  when  the  last  complete  census  of  the  French  period  was  taken,  the  area  of 
cleared  lands  was  180,768  arpents,  and  the  population  37,716,  —  or  five  arpents  of 
cleared  land  per  capita  (Censuses  of  Canada,  1665-1871,  p.  57  ;  also  below,  p.  237). 

'2  See  Dumoulin,  Coutumes  de  la  Prevote  et  Vicomte  de  Paris  (1681),  under 
;  Cens." 


86  THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  DEPENDENTS. 

nerve"  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.  He  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.1 
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  Herve 
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.2 

1  Herve,  Theorie  des  Matieres  Feodales  et  Censuelles,  v.  109-110. 

2  The  variations  in  the  value  of  the  silver  mark  in  terms  of  the  livre  and  its  frac- 
tions, by  centuries,  seem  to  have  been  as  follows  :  — 

1200-1300,  from  40  sols to  3  livres,  1 5  sols. 

1300-1400,  from  2  livres,  4  sols       ....  to  102  livres. 

1400-1500,  from  6  livres,  5  sols       .         .  .  to  26  livres. 

1500-1600,  from  II  livres  » to  19  livres. 

1600-1675,  from  20  livres to  33  livres,  16  sols. 

This  table  is  compiled  from  Le  Blanc's  Trait'e  Historique  des  Monnoyes  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.1  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.2 

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.3  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  discussed  in  Avenel, 
Histoire  Economique  de  la  Propriete,  des  Salaires,  des  Denrees,  et  de  tousles  Prix  en 
general  depuis  fan  1200  jitsqrt  en  Pan  1800  (4  vols.,  Paris,  1894-1898). 

1  This  seems  to  have  been  the  view  taken  by  the  colonial  authorities  :  "Une 
redevance  si  moHique,  qui  est  plutot  donnee  in  recognitionem  domini  et  pour  la 
marque  de  la  directe  seigneurie,  que  pour  faire  un  revenu  de  quelque  consideration 
au  seigneur"  {Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  489). 

2  Henrion  de  Pansey,  Dissertations  Feodales,  i.  269,  295. 

3  "  As  regards  the  amount  of  the  cens,  it  is  regulated  by  the  titles  if  such  there  be  ; 
and  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  reduits  en  Principes,  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  intervention  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 
rate.1 

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.2  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- 
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.  a  Cf.  above,  ch.  ii. 


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 
this  particular.  In  1707,  Raudot  addressed  Pontchartrain  very 
vigorously  on  the  point,  asking  that  an  arrdt  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."  l  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.2  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."3 

The  home  government,  however,  took  no  decisive  action  till 
1711.  In  the  first  Arret  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  arret  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.4  At  first  glance,  it 
might  be  thought  that  this  provision  of  the  Arret  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- 

1  Raudot  to  Pontchartrain,  November  10,  1 707,  Correspondance  Generate,  xxvi. 

7-34- 

2  Pontchartrain  to    Raudot,  June   13,  1708,  Correspondence  between  the  French 
Government  and  the  Governors  and  Intendants  of  Canada  relative  to  the  Seigniorial 
Tenure  (1853),  9  ff. 

8  Raudot  to  Pontchartrain, October  1 8,  1708,  Correspondance  Generale,~xx.v\\\.  175- 
187.  The  memorandum  referred  to  as  accompanying  this  despatch  has,  unfortu- 
nately, not  been  preserved. 

*  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  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."1  Solicitor-Gen- 
eral Williams,  in  his  report  on  the  nature  and  legal  bases  of 
seigniorial  rights,  made  in  1 790,  declared  that  the  rate  was  fixed 
at  "one  half-penny  for  every  acre  in  front  by  forty  in  depth."2 
Judge  Hay  decided  that  it  was  fixed  at  "one  penny  for  every 
superficial  arpent";3  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  arret  of  1711  intended  to  make  the  rate  of  cens  uniform 
throughout  the  colony.4 

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  amount  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."  5 

This  ordinance  would  at  first  sight  seem  to  indicate  that,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  intendant,  the  arret  of  1711  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 

1  Cugnet,  Traite  de  la  Loi  des  Fiefs,  44. 

2  This  report  may  be  found  in  full  in  Titles  and  Documents,  i.  27  ff. 

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

4  These  were  Judges  Smith  and  Mondelet.  See  Proceedings  of  the  Special  Seign- 
iorial Court  (1856),  6 1  ;  also  Judge  Smith's  Observations,  50,  and  Judge  Monde- 
let's  Observations,  5. 

6  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  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  a  matter  of  fact,  the  purpose  of  the 
Arret  of  Marly  was  to  keep  the  seigniors  from  stipulating  for 
an  unfair  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  1711, 
appears  to  have  been  to  allow  the  rate  to  be  fixed  by  the  seign- 
ior in  accordance  with  the  quality  and  situation  of  the  grant,1  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  subgrant  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  arret  of  1711,  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  1711 
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  egard  a  la  qualite  et  situation  des  heritages  au  temps  des  concessions " 
(Brevets  de  Ratification,  9). 


92  THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  DEPENDENTS. 

site  of  Detroit.1  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  1711  ;  but  out  of  the  scores  of  such 
deeds  executed  by  the  governors  and  intendants  from  1711  to 
1759  there  seem  to  be  only  four  in  which  the  rate  of  cens  which 
might  be  exacted  by  the  grantees  is  definitely  fixed,  and  in  each 
of  these  four  the  rate  allowed  is  a  different  one.2  It  may, 
then,  be  fairly  concluded  that  the  amount  of  the  cens  was  never 
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  1717,  of  a  royal  edict  providing  that,  unless  it 
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.8  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.4  The 
edict  of  1717  is  not  to  be  understood  as  giving  the  habitant 
the  option  of  paying  the  full  rate  in  colonial  currency  or 
three-fourths  of  the  rate  in  French  currency.  That,  to  be 

1  One  to  Pierre  Reaume,  April  i,  1750,  and  two  to  Douville  Dequindre,  June  12, 
1752,  and  May  16,  1753.     See  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  249,  251-252. 

2  For  copies  of  these  four  deeds,  see  Ibid.  59,  64,  84,  131.     In  all  the  others  the 
obligation,  when  it  appears  at  all,  is  that  grants  shall  be  made  "  at  the  customary 
rate." 

8  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  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. 

4  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  Bankers'  Association,  v.  271,  385,  vi.  I,  147,  233  (1898-1899). 


THE  SEIGNIOR  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.1 

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."2  The  amount  of 
the  rentes,  like  that  of  the  cens,  was  fixed  by  the  seignior 
at  the  time  the  grant  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  periods.  The 
rentes  was  no  nominal  due,  but  a  real  burden  on  the  habitant 
and  a  tangible  source  of  profit  to  the  seignior.  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,3  while  in  the 
title  of  a  grant  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.6 

1  Stevenson,  The  Card  Money  of  Canada,  in  Quebec  Literary  and  Historical  So- 
ciety, Transactions,  1873-1875,  pp.  84-112.     See  also  Lareau,  Monnaie  de  Cartes 
au  Canada,  in  Revue  de  Montreal,  ii.  433-438 ;   and  Dionne,  La  Monnaie  Cana- 
dienne  sous  le  Regime  Fran^ais,  in  Revue  Canadienne,  xxix.  30-32,  72—83. 

2  A  minot  was  the  equivalent  of  39  litres,  or  1.072  English  bushels. 
8  Cited  in  Lafontaine,  Observations,  1 78. 

4  Ibid.  190. 

6  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 

LlVRES 

SOLS 

YEAR 

LlVRES 

SOLS 

1729 

3 

1745 

3 

1730 

3 

1746 

2 

IO 

I73I 

2 

IO 

1747 

3 

1732 

3 

1748 

3 

1733 

2 

1749 

2 

IO 

1734 

2 

17S° 

3 

1735 

2 

1751 

5 

1736 

3 

IO 

1752 

4 

1737 

4 

1753 

3 

IO 

1738 

3 

1754 

3 

IO 

*739 

2 

1755 

3 

10 

1740 

2 

1756 

5 

1741 

2 

IO 

1757 

IO 

1742 

3 

10 

I758-] 

1743 

4 

5 

1759  }- 

Figures  not  obtainable. 

1744 

4 

1760  J 

In  drawing  up  the  deeds,  many  of  the  seigniors  took  care  to 
stipulate  strictly  as  to  the  quality  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- 
plained, in  1707,  on  the  ground  that  it  made  the  burden  upon 
the  habitants  unduly  heavy.  "These  dues,"  he  wrote,  "  are  paid 
to  the  seignior  either  in  kind  or  in  cash  at  the  seignior's  choice. 
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."1  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,  decreed 
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.2 

Payment  of  the  cens  et  rentes  took  place  once  a  year,  and 
usually  late  in  the  fall.  "  Every  autumn,"  writes  Casgrain,  "as 
Michaelmas  (November  n)  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  presbytere  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."  3  The  occasion  was  a  gala  day  for  the  seigniory. 
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  1714, 
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.5 

The  second  financial  obligation  under  which  lands  en  censive 
were  held  was  that  of  the  payment  of  a  mutation  fine,  known  as 

1  Raudot  to  Pontchartrain,  November   10,  1707,   Correspondence  Generale,  xxvi. 

7«. 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  512. 

3  H.  R.  Casgrain,  Une  Paroisse  Canadienne  au  xviie  Siecle,  173. 

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

5  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  440. 


96  THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  DEPENDENTS. 

the  lods  et  ventes,  which  became  due  and  payable  upon  the 
occasion  of  each  mutation  in  ownership  of  the  lands,  whether 
by  sale,  gift,  or  inheritance  other  than  in  direct  descent.1  In 
France  the  amount  kof  the  lods  et  ventes  varied  somewhat  in 
different  provinces,  amounting  sometimes  to  from  one-fourth 
to  one-sixth  of  the  mutation  price.2  In  Canada,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  amount  uniformly  exacted  was  that  fixed  by  the  Cus- 
tom of  Paris,  namely,  one-twelfth,  of  which  the  seignior  usually 
remitted  one-third,  although  he  was  under  no  legal  obligation  to 
do  so.3  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."  4 

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.5  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  ventes  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  the  king 
made  provision  that  this  exemption  should  not  apply  to  those 
en  censive  lands  which  had  been  granted  directly  by  the  crown ; 6 
and  some  time  later  the  Seminary  of  St.  Sulpice,  which  possessed 
the  seigniory  of  the  island  of  Montreal,  was  given  the  same 

1  Coutumc  de  Paris,  article  Ixxiii. 

2  Taine,  L'Anden  Regime,  536. 

8  Report  of  the  Commissioners,  1843,  Titles  and  Documents,  i.  51.  Solicitor- 
General  Williams,  in  his  report  of  1790,  states  that  "  a  fourth  of  the  fine  was  usually 
remitted  by  the  seignior  "  {Ibid.  30) ;  but  this  is  probably  an  error. 

4  Edits  et  Ordonnanccs,  ii.  75-76. 

6  Ibid.  64,  341. 

6  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.1 

In  the  earlier  period  of  the  French  regime  the  seigniorial 
profits  accruing  from  the  payment  of  the  lods  et  ventes  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  seigniorial  profits  became, 
in  consequence,  very  considerable.  Still,  the  payment  does  not 
seem  seriously  to  have  hampered  the  normal  course  of  land 
transfers  until  after  the  conquest,  when  it  became  one  of  the 
generally  accepted  evil  incidents  of  the  seigniorial  system,  by 
operating,  especially  in  the  case  of  valuable  lands,  as  an 
unwholesome  check  on  the  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  retrait  f/odal  (/us  retractum\z  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  they  granted  to 
their  habitants,  for  the  recognition  of  this  right.  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 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  342-346.  2  Coutume  de  Paris,  article  xx. 


98  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 
ftodal)  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.1 

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  ftodal  should  not  be  insisted  upon  by 
the  crown  unless  special  stipulation  therefor  had  been  made  in 
the  title-deeds  of  the  seigniories.2  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  ftodal  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 

1  Raudot  to  Pontchartrain,  November  10,  1707,   Correspondance  Generate,  xxvi. 
7  ft 

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


THE  SEIGNIOR  AND  HIS  DEPENDENTS.  99 

same  families." 1  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  B^gon 
decided  in  one  of  his  judgments  that  they  were  justified  in  so 
doing.2 

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 ;  but  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.4  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  made 
that  some  of  the  seigniors  were  asserting  their  right  to  purchase 
not  only  the  lands,  but  the  grain,  cattle,  and  even  the  personal 

1  Raudot  to  Pontchartrain,  October  18,   1708,  Correspondanct  Generate,  xxviii. 
175-187. 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  438. 

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

4  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  of  cheffa,  or  chefaa.  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 ; x  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  basis.  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  ventes  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. 

1  See  Glasson,  Precis  Elemtntaire  de  PHistoire  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,  banalit/s,  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  grist-mills,  cork-factories,  hemp- 
factories,  saw-mills,  bake-ovens,  wine-presses,  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.1  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.2  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,  L'Origine  et  rffistoire  des  Banalites  (1893). 

2  Henrion  de  Pansey,  Dissertations  Feodales,  i.  175. 


102  THE  BANALITIES. 

the  banal  rights  was,  at  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.1 , 

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  (moulin  a  vent}  cannot  be 
a  banal  mill,  nor  [when  a  seignior  possesses  such  only]  can 
neighboring  millers  be  hindered  from  soliciting  grist  within  the 
seigniory."  z 

In  New  France,  therefore,  after  the  introduction  of  the  Cus- 
tom of  Paris  in  i664,3  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  he 
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.4  As  will  be  seen,  however,  the 
provisions  of  the  Custom  of  Paris  requiring  that  a  title,  to  be 

1  Championniere,  De   la   Propriete  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. 

2  Articles  Ixxi-lxxii.     These  articles  were  not  in  the  Custom  of  Paris  as  drawn  up 
in  1510,  but  were  inserted  at  the  time  of  its  revision  in  1580. 

3  See  above,  p.  31. 

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


THE  BANALITIES.  103 

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.1 

The  first  mention,  sjDjEar^as  official  writings  are  concerned, 


of  the  existence  of  'anal^  noills  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,2  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, 
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 
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.  3  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  36. 


104  THE  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.1 

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.2 

Despite  the  assertion  of  the  seigniors  to  the  effect  that  they 
would  be  satisfied  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 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  39. 

2  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,'\.  215,  cited  in  Lafontaine,  Observations,  299). 


THE  BANALITIES.  105 

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.1 

Owing  to  the  comparative  poverty  of  many  of  the  seigniors, 
the  number  of  banal  mills  in  the  colony  increased  very  slowly 
during  the  last  quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century.2  The 
establishment  of  a  grist-mill  involved  considerable  expense; 
for,  with  the  exception  of  the  millstones,  which  were  quar- 
ried in  the  colony,  all  the  machinery  and  utensils  had  to  be 
imported  from  France,  and  the  cost  of  transportation  was 
very  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  grinding.  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,3  with  the  request  that  some  steps  be 
taken  to  compel  seigniors  to  provide  mills  for  the  use  of  their 
dependents  even  when  such  mills  would  be  sources  of  loss 
i  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 

1  "  Reglemens  Generaux  du  Conseil  Superieur  de  Quebec,  pour  la  Police,"  May 
II,  1676,  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  65-73,  §  xxxv. 

2  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,  1665-1871,  p.  41. 

8  Meulles  to  Minister,  November  12,  1684,  Correspondance  Generate,  vi.  145  ff. 


106  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." 1    The  tenor  of  this  decree  is  perfectly 

I  clear :  if  the  seignior  did  not  build  a  mill,  any  private  individual 

"\   might  build  one  and  become  possessed  of  the  banal  right  for  all 

Ltime. 
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.2  Strange  to 
say,  however,  this  required  publication  was  not  made  for  some 
twenty  years ; 3  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.  During  the  period  1686-1707  matters 
continued  just  as  they  were :  the  seigniors  built  their  mills  or 
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.  , 

*  Jugements  et  Deliberations  du  Conseil  Souverain  de  la  Nou-velle- France,  Hi.  87. 

8  See  the  note  appended  to  the  copy  of  the  arrSt  in  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  256. 


THE  BANALITIES.  IO/ 

[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  arret  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  arret  was  produced,  but  could  not  be 
used  to  advantage  by  one  of  the  parties  because  it  had  never 
been  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."  l 

In  the  foregoing  despatch  we  find  what  was,  in  all  probability, 
|  the  reason  why  many  of  the  royal  decrees,  sent  out  to  the  colony 
1  and  duly  enregistered,  were  never  put  in  force.     The  members 
^'  of  the  Superior  Council  were,  for  the  most  part,  owners  of  seign- 
I  lories,  and  hence  sought  to  negative,  in  every  possible  way,  any 
I  attempt  to  curtail  seigniorial  powers.     Raudot,  however,  was  a 
fearless  and  conscientious  official ;  and  as  soon  as  the  real  state 
of  affairs  came  to  his  notice,  he  issued  an  ordinance  commanding 
the  publication  of  the  arret  at  the  subordinate  jurisdictions  with- 
out delay.2     From  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 
so,  the  right  might  be  claimed  by  any  private  individual  who 
chose  to  provide  milling  facilities  for  the  seigniory. 

Within  a  few  months  of  the  promulgation  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    IO,  1707,  Correspondance  Generale,  xxvi. 

7-34- 

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


108  THE  BANALITIES. 

petition  from  "  all  the  habitants  of  the  seigniory  of  Mille  Isles," 
praying  that  the  Sieur  Dupre,  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."  1 

In  the  same  month  a  similar  enforcement  of  the  provisions 
of  the  royal  decree  was  obtained  by  the  habitants  of  the  seign- 
iory of  Varennes,2  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  I7O/-I72O.3  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.4  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 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  427.    The  name  Dupre  is  not  a  misprint  for  Dugue, 
as  Lafontaine  {Observations,  317)  supposes.     Dupre,  a  merchant  of  Montreal,  is 
mentioned  by  Catalogne  as  owner  of  the  fief  in  1712. 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  132. 

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

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


THE  BANALITIES.  109 

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 ; 1 
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 ; 2  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 
L,  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   praying   that  the   seignior 

1  See,  for  example,  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  448-449 ;   also  Lafontaine,  Observa- 
tions, 292  ff. 

2  See  above,  p.  102. 


HO  THE  BANALITIES. 

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  a  eau  soit  a  vent\  which  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.1 

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 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  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  ground  within  forty-eight  hours 
after  its  arrival  at  the  mill,  it  might  be  taken  to  the  water-mill 
of  some  neighboring  seigniory.1 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  by  the  early  years  of  the  eighteenth 
century  the  banal  right  in  Canada  had  become  differentiated  in 
three  particulars  from  that  existent  in  France  under  the  Custom 
gf  Paris  ;  ft\  the  Canadian  seignior  exercised  the  rignt  over 
every  holder  of  en  censive  lands  within  his  seigniory ,  —  no  one 
I  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 ;  C^h  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  1715,  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 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  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  (meme  de  punition  corporelli) 
from  "  wetting  the  grain  brought  to  them  in  order  to  render 
the  flour  thereof  heavier,"  —  apparently  a  common  trick  of  the 
millers.1 

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  1714  one  of  the  habitants  of  the  seigniory  of  Vincelotte, 
having  been  summoned  before  the  court  of  the  Prevot6  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.3 
The  latter  promptly  confirmed  the  action  of  the  court  of  the  Pr6- 
v6te,  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.4 

1 "  Arret  du  Conseil  Superieur  de  Quebec,  portant  Reglement  pour  les  Boulangers 
et  Meuniers,"  December  2,  1715,  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  169-170,  especially  §§  v-x. 

2  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- 
tions, 323,  note. 

8  The  Jugements  et  Deliberations  du  Conseil  Souverain  de  la  Nouvelle- France  does 
not  contain  the  records  of  the  council  proceedings  after  December,  1716.  The 
documents  in  this  contestation  have,  therefore,  not  been  printed;  but  reference  is 
made  to  them,  and  extracts  are  given,  in  Lafontaine,  Observations,  322. 

4  The  royal  despatch  was  dated  April  16,  1719,  and  was  enregistered  by  the  council 
on  October  2,  1720  {Ibid.  323). 


THE  BANALITIES.  113 

In  1728  a  number  of  residents  in  the  seigniory  of  Grondines 
set  forth,  in  a  petition  to  the  council,  that  "it  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. 1 

In  the  same  year  the  habitants  of  the  seigniory  of  Sainte- 
Anne  de  la  Perade  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.2 

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 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  241.  2  Ibid.  ii.  497-498. 


114  THE  BANALITIES. 

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." l  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  rude 
equipment  of  some  of  the  banal  mills.2 

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;3  and  in  an- 
other case,  in  which  the  seignior  refused  to  open  up  a  road,  the 
court  of  the  PreVote  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.4  Since  a  seigniory  frequently  comprised  from  fifty 

1  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  Sour  wherever  they 
chose.     See  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  340;  also  above,  p.  III. 

2  Ibid.  iii.  286-289.  8  Ibid.  210. 

4  Perrault,  Extraits  ou  Precedents  tires  des  Hegistres  de  la  Prevost'e  de  Quebec,  71. 


THE  BANALITIES.  115 

to  one  hundred  square  miles,  the  difficulty  of  transporting  grain 
to  the  banal  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. 

Apart  from  the  necessity  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  site.  If  he  saw  fit  to 
erect  it  upon  land  which  had  previously  been  granted  to  a  habit- 
ant, he  might,  on  application  to  the  council,  obtain  a  decree 
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.1 

Through  constant  pressure  upon  the  seigniors,  the  intendant 
Gilles  Hocquart  managed,  during  his  tenure  of  office,  to  improve 
very  noticeably  the  colonial  milling  industry.  Hocquart  hoped 
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 
modern  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 

1  See,  for  example,  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  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.1  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  fit  de  fer  a  la  fa$on 
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-a-la-Puce,  Petit-Pre,  Beauport,  Pointe 
de  LeVy,  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  given  back  to  the  habitant.2 

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.3  The  king  promised  to  send 
out  a  small  number  each  year  until  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- 

1  Hocquart  to  Minister,  October  4,  1731,  Correspondance  Generate,  liv.  43. 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  352-353. 

8  They  were  given,  one  each  to  the  mills  of  Lachine,  Isle  Jesus,  and  Isle  Ste. 
Helene,  and  two  to  the  mill  of  Terrebonne. 

4  Several  of  these  old  stone  windmills  are  still  standing. 


THE  BANALITIES.  117 

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  corvees  in  preparing  the  materials  and 
erecting  the  mills.  He  was  quite  at  liberty  to  have  the  ordi- 
nary annual  days  of  corv6e  applied  to  this  work  when  he  so 
desired,  but  apparently  he  could  not  exact  any  special  corvee 
for  the  purpose.1 

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 
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  1716,  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 

1  In  one  case,  however,  the  intendant  ordered  the  habitants  of  a  seigniory  to  give 
special  corvee  to  rebuild  a  bridge  leading  to  a  seigniorial  mill.  See  Edits  et  Ordon- 
nances,  iii.  459. 


H8  THE  BANALITIES, 

families  on  pain  of  paying  a  fine  of  ten  livres  to  the  church  of 
the  parish  of  the  said  seigniory."1  During  the  greater  ^art  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. 

The  second  question  was  whether  the  banal  right  extended  to 
all  kinds  of  grain,  or  to  wheat  alone.  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;2  but  other  authorities  of  equal  weight  declare 
that  the  right  could  be  legally  enforced  in  regard  to  wheat  alone.3 
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.5  The  fact  that,  so  far  as  can  be  ascertained, 

1  "  Grains  qu'ils  consomment  pour  la  subsistance  de  leurs  families  "  (Edits  et  Or- 
donnances,  ii.  452).     For  other  ordinances  in  which  precisely  the  same  words  are 
used,  see  Ibid.  i.  225,  ii.  497,  iii.  119. 

2  Dissertations  Feodales,  i.  89. 

*  See  the  authorities  cited  by  Judge  Caron  in  his  Observations,  38. 

*  Ibid.  39. 

6  See  ordinances  of  July  10,  1728,  and  July  ii,  1742,  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii. 
•497*  S^S  5  also  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  242-243. 


THE  BANALITIES.  119 

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  grain 
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 
to  grind  "  not  only  the  wheat  of  the  said  habitants  but  also  their 
other  grain  " ;  whereupon  the  intendant  ordered  that  "  their  other 
grain  be  ground  in  the  said  mill  as  well  as  their  wheat."1 
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  mill.2  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. 3 

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

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  324. 

2  Henrion  de  Pansey  {Dissertations  Feodales,  i.  191)  asserts  that  in  France  a  cen- 
sitaire  who  purchased  grain  elsewhere  than  within  the  limits  of  the  seigniory  might 
have  it  ground  elsewhere,  and  might  carry  the  flour  home  without  violating  the 
seignior's  right  of  banality. 

3  See  Caron,  Observations,  39-40. 


120  THE  BANALITIES. 


iory,  but  even  to  compel  the  demolition  of  such  after  they  had 
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  of  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.1 Another  case  was  that  of  the  Brethren  of  the  Hospital 
(Frtres  Charroit)  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.2  Several 
other  instances  of  the  exercise  of  this  right  of  demolition  are  on 
record.8 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  consideration  that  the 
obligation  of  mill  banality  did  not  bear  heavily  upon  the  habit- 
nts  so  long  as    the   country  was   sparsely  settled.     On   the 
ontrary,  the  presence  of  a  mill  within  the  limits  of  the  seign- 
iory was  a  great  convenience  to  the  habitant ;  and  the  amount 
<|f  toll  exacted  was  far  from  exorbitant,  especially  in  view  of  the 
limited  custom  which  the  mill  might  expect.     Throughout  the 
greater  part  of  the  French  era  the  burden,  such  as  it  was,  fell 
ather  upon  the  seignior,  who  was  obliged  by  the  authorities 
o  build  the  mill  and  work  it,  —  for  the  most  part,  at  a  loss,  —  on 
>ain  of  being  deprived  of  what  was  sure  to  become  in  time  a 
ery  valuable  right.     Moreover,  the  authorities  showed  them- 
elves  ready  at  all  times  to  listen  to  complaints  on  the  part  of 
he  habitants  as  to  the  inefficiency  of   the  seigniorial  milling 
acilities,  and  were  equally  ready,  when  these  complaints  ap- 
)eared  well  founded,  to  order  the  necessary  improvements  at  the 
eignior's    expense.     As   the    population    increased,    however, 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  145. 

2  This  ordinance  is  not  printed.      Its  authenticity  is  vouched  for,  however,  by 
Chief-Justice  Sir  L.  H.  Lafontaine,  in  his  Observations,  334. 

8  Cf.  Caron,  Observations,  40. 


THE  BANALITIES.  121 

toward  the  close  of  the  French  period  and  especially  with  the 
[British  acquisition  of  the  colony,  the  burden  shifted  from  the 
peignior  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 
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 
urb  any  unreasonable  pretensions  on  the  part  of  the  seigniors 
nd  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.1  At  the  most,  only  three  or  four 
seigniorial  ovens  were  ever  erected  in  Canada ;  but  a  clause  re- 
quiring the  habitants  to  bring  their  dough  to  a  banal  oven 
whenever  such  should  be  erected  appears  in  a  number  of 
title-deeds.2 

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

2  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.  Amiot's 
example  ;  but  it  is  unquestionably  misleading  to  speak  of  the  obligation  of  oven 
banality  as  having  been  imposed  in  any  such  general  fashion  as  was  that  of  mill 
banality.     Cf.  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  1 707 ;  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." 1 

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  arret  of  1686,  by 
which  that  matter  has  been  definitely  settled."2  The  minister, 
however,  was  here  clearly  in  error,  for  the  arre"t  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  mills,  or  stand  prepared 
to  lose  their  privilege.3  Did  the  minister  mean,  then,  that  the 
same  principle  should  be  applied  to  the  right  of  oven  banality, 

1  Raudot  to  Pontchartrain,  November  IO,  1707,    Correspondance   Generate,  xxvi. 
7-34- 

2  Pontchartrain  to  Raudot,  June  13, 1708,  Correspondence  between  the  French  Gov- 
ernment and  the  Governors  and  Intendants  of  Canada,  etc.,  9-10. 

8  See  above,  p.  105. 


THE  BANALITIES.  123 

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  ovens 
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  seignior'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 


124  THE  BANALITIES. 

who  has  not  an  oven  in  his  own  house  and  as  much  wood  as  he 
wants  to  heat  it."  1 

*  '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.  In  the  first 
place,  it  emphasizes~tiie-Qcca^ional  disposition onthe  part  of  the 
seigniors  to  stretch  their  legal  claims  to  the  point  of  interference 
with  the  normal  comfort  of  their  dependents,  and  tostipulate 
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  shows  the  zeal  with  which  the  colonial  authorities 
sought  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  18,  1708,  Correspondance  Generate,  xxvii. 
175-187. 


THE  BANALITIES.  125 

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. 

It  is  the  practice  of  most  writers  on  the  history  of  Canada  to 
look  upon  the  banalities  as  among  the  most  odious  incidents  of 
the  seigniorial  system ; 1  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- 
loriaT^proprietors.*  This  is  shown  bythe  issue  of  royal  edicts 
like  that  of  i686,2  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. 

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  the  Canadian 
Question,  72),  thinks  that  it  "  must  have  been  almost  a  dead  letter." 

2  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  agriculture  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  tog^th^r^^ontributjed 
substantially  to  increase  the  prestige,  power,  and  income  of  the 
seigniors.  Among  these  were  the  right  to  exact  a  certain  num- 
ber of  days  of  corvee,  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 
pecke,  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  corve"e.  By 
the  Custom  of  Paris  the  seignior's  right  to  exact  days  of  corvee 
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  when  he  had  stipulated  for  it  in  the  title-deeds  of 
granted  lands.1  It  would  seem  that,  during  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  corve"e  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  retraitvn.  his  list  of  "vexatious  exactions."2 

1  "  Nul  seigneur  ne  peut  contraindre  ses  sujets  .  .  .  faire  corvees,  s'il  n'en  a  litre 
valable,  ou  aveu  et  denombryment  ancien"  (Coutume  de  Paris,  article  Ixxi). 

2  See  above,  p.  98. 

127 


128  THE  CORVEE  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  corvee 
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.1  In  1716  the  in- 
tendant  Begon,  in  a  despatch  to  the  French  minister,  complained 
that  many  of  the  seigniors  induced  their  habitants  to  render 
corvee  in  clearing  the  timber  off  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.  Begon,  therefore,  asked  for  an  ordinance  forbid- 
ding the  exaction  of  corvee,  —  and  particularly  upon  such  pre- 
texts as  those  mentioned,  —  except  in  such  cases  as  the  Custom 
of  Paris  permitted.2 

In  the  spring  of  the  following  year  (1717)  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  arret,  which  was  drafted  in  May,  1717,  for  the  reform 
of  the  whole  seigniorial  system  in  the  colony,  a  clause  was  in- 
serted explicitly  forbidding  the  exaction  of  corv6e  "  under  any 
pretence  whatever."  Had  this  arret  received  the  royal  assent 
and  been  promulgated  in  Canada,  the  end  sought  by  Begon^rouM 
have  been  attained ;  but,  as  has  already  been  shown,3  it  never 
received  the  assent  of  the  authorities,  and  affairs  remained  just 

1  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. 

2  Begon  to  Minister,  February,  1716,   Correspondancc  Generale,  xxvi.  90.     This 
despatch  does  not  bear  the  day  of  the  month. 

8  See  above,  p.  42.    This  unsigned  arrSt  is  printed  in  Titles  and  Documents,  i.  18-19. 


THE  CORVEE  AND   OTHER  EXACTIONS.  129 

as  they  were  before  Begon  brought  the  matter  to  the  notice 
of  his  superiors. 

The  unsigned  arret  of  May,  1717,  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 
corvee  clause. 

In  1714,  for  example,  certain  habitants  of  the  seigniory  of 
Desjordy  presented  to  the  intendant  a  petition  complaining  that 
the  seignior  sought  to  exact  days  of  corvee  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  corve"e  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  corvee  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  corvee 
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."  1 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  exaction  was  enforced  because  it 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  437. 


130  THE  CORVEE  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  corve"e  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,  1716)  a  petition  was  pre- 
sented to  the  intendant  by  Francois  de  Chavigny,1  who  styled 
himself  "  seignior  of  the  fief  and  seigniory  of  La  Chevrotiere," 
complaining  that  some  of  his  habitants  had  refused  to  perform 
the  days  of  corvee  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 
1710,  and  that  in  this  case  the  decision  had  been  in  the  seign- 
ior's favor.2  He  therefore  ordered  that  the  habitants  of  La  Chev- 
rotiere 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  Chevrotiere 
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  corvtes)  on  pain  of  nullity."  3  It 
seems  strange  that,  if  the  intendant  had  in  mind  a  general  inter- 

1  In  the  Edits  et  Ordonnancts  this  name  is  erroneously  spelled  "  Champigny." 

2  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,  1716,  which  shows  that  it  was  rendered 
in  favor  of  M.  Robineau,  seignior  of  Portneuf,  on  June  4,  1710.     See  Edits  et  Ordon- 
nances,  ii.  444. 

8  Ibid.  445. 


THE  CORVEE  AND   OTHER  EXACTIONS.  131 

diction  of  future  stipulations  for  corvee  labor  in  the  title-deeds 
of  subgrants,  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  B6gon,  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.1  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.2  There  is  also  evidence  that  many  of  them  took  occasion 
to  insert  the  stipulation  in  concessions  made  after  1716;  but  it 
does  not  appear  that  they  successfully  sought  the  support  of  the 
authorities  in  this  procedure. 

Extra  days  of  corv6e  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. 

2  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."     Begon's  judgment  of  January  22,  1716, 
was  therefore  held  not  to  have  established  a  general  prohibition. 


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.1 

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  voyer.  The  duties  of  this  official, 
as  set  forth  in  an  ordinance  of  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  corvee 
for  this  purpose  whenever  necessary."2  This  corv6e,  exacted 
for  the  construction  of  public  works  under  authority  of  the 
royal  officials  at  Quebec,  was  commonly  known  as  the  "  king's 
corvee"  to  distinguish  it  from  the  ordinary  annual  corvee 
exacted  by  the  seigniors  for  work  upon  their  own  domains. 

The  amount  both  of  seigniorial  and  of  royal  corvee  exacted 
from  the  habitants  varied  in  different  sections  and  at  different 
periods.  Usually,  but  not  always,  the  amount  of  seigniorial 
corvee  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  corvee  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 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  459.  a  Ibid.  ii.  137,  §  viii. 


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.1  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.2  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  corvee  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  (titres  nou- 
vels)  were  executed,  to  insert  obligations  of  corvee  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  corve'e  as  "hateful,  odious,  humiliating,  and  a  badge  of 
servitude."3 

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- 

1  See,  for  example,  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  176,  197,  216,  217,  284,  436,  etc. 

2  In  response  to  a  petition  presented  by  certain  habitants  of  the  seigniory  of  La 
Chevrotiere  in  1716,  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"   (Jbid.  ii.  449-450). 

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


134  THE  CORVEE  AND   OTHER  EXACTIONS. 

quently  as  properly  to  be  termed  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  reservation  of  wood  and  stone  was  the  most  common 
of  the  four ;  it  appears  in  so  large  a  number  of  the  title-deeds 
of  subgrants  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,1 
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  arriere-fief  or  en  censive. 

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 
stone  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  "  ;2  and  in  1714  a  further  ordi- 

1  Above,  ch.  iv.  2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  Hi.  130. 


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.1  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.2  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  B6gon,  in  his  long  despatch 
of  1716,  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."  3 

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  draft  arret  of  1717  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  Ordonnances,  iii.  166. 

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

8  Begon  to  Minister,  February,  1716,  Correspondance  Generate,  xxvi.  124. 
4  Printed  in   Correspondence  between  the  French   Government  and  the  Governors 
and  Intendants  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.1  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"  2 

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- 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  471.  z  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."  1  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."  a 
In  the  same  year  a  further  ordinance  summarily  reserved  a 
quantity  of  standing  red  pine  in  the  seigniory  of  Sorei  as  being 
suitable  for  mastings  for  the  navy;3  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  crown  in  regard  to  the  preservation  of  suitable 
standing  timber.5  The  practice,  therefore,  of  reserving  fire- 
wood, stone,  sand,  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.     2  Ibid.  382.    8  Ibid.  iii.  447.     *  Ibid.  469. 

6  "  All  reserves  must  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 
observance  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  Court,  1856, 
p.  82).  From  this  decision  the  Hon.  Mr.  Justice  Mondelet  dissented,  for  reasons 
given  in  his  Observations,  50-52. 


138  THE  CORVEE  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  subgranted 
lands.1  As  there  appear  to  have  been  no  important  discoveries 
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,2 
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.3 

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. 

2  In  1723  the  seignior  of  Portneuf,  as  we  are  told,  leased  his  fishing  rights  for  the 
consideration  of  "  four  hogsheads  of  eels  (quatrt  barriques  d'anguille)   per  year  " 
(Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  205). 

8  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),  ii.  253-254. 


THE  CORVEE  AND   OTHER  EXACTIONS.  139 

the  rights  of  the  seigniors  extended  "  to  high  water  mark  only." 1 
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  pfahe? 

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  inv  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.3 

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.4 

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- 
>  bition  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. 

2  See  below,  p.  140.  8  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  468. 
4  Proceedings  of  the  Special  Seigniorial  Court,  79-80. 


140  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  cote.  It  may  well  be  doubted,  however,  whether  the 
prohibition  availed  much  in  the  long  run ;  for,  when  the  habit- 
mts  were  forbidden  to  do  a  little  trading  in  their  spare  time, 
icy  not  uncommonly  abandoned  their  farms  and  took  them- 
selves off  to  the  wilderness  to  become  coureurs-de-bois,  beyond 
reach  of  both  the  royal  and  the  seigniorial  authorities. 

Again,  many  seigniors  inserted  clauses  in  the  deeds  of  their 
^pendents  forbidding  them  to  sell  marketable  timber,  to  saw 
deals,  to  erect  any  mills,  factories,  or  other  works  (iisines)  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  droit  de  peche, 
or  thejright  of  the  seignior  to  one  fish  in  every  eleven  caught  by 
his  dependents.1  Some  writers  have  mentioned  this  as  a  gen- 
eral and  important  exaction,2  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 
peche? 

1  On  the  origin,  nature,  and  extent  of  this  right  in  France,  see  Dufresnoy,  His- 
toire  du  Droit  de  Peche  dans  FAnden  Droit  Francois  (1896). 

2  For  example,  Parkman,  The  Old  Regime  in  Canada,  ii.  48. 

8  Of  certain  habitants  in  one  seigniory  who  were  engaged  in  the  porpoise-fishing 
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 
the  right  of  the  seignior  to  hunt  over  the  lands  of  his  depend- 
ents.1 Those  who  are  familiar  with  the  historical  literature  of 
the  old  regime  in  France  need  not  be  reminded  of  the  un- 
reasonable and  often  outrageous  way  in  which  many  French 
seigniors  were  accustomed  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  the  privilege  as  an  honorary  right  (droit 
honorifique) ;  but  no  one  seems  to  have  availed  himself  of  it  in 
such  a  way  as  to  give  his  habitants  just  ground  for  complaint. 
The  chase-loving  Canadian  seignior  could,  of  course,  find  abun- 
dant scope  on  the  often  too-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 
enjoining  the  habitants  not  to  hunt  on  the  unconceded  lands 
without  the  seignior's  express  permission.2 

Some  of  the  seigniors  claimed  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.  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  seigniors  had  jurisdiction  to  the 
middle  of  the  waterway.  On  the  foregoing  points  the  authori- 

1  L.  Moyat,  Etude  Historique,  Critique,  et  Comparee  sur  le  Droit  de  Chasse  (1900). 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  73,  384,  428;  iii.  1 60,  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 
seigniorship ;  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,2  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.3 

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.  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;4 the  droit  de  jamb  age,  or  marital  right;  and  various  other 

1  See  the  authorities  cited  in  Mondelet,  Observations,  34  ff.     2  See  below,  p.  191. 

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

4  The  droit  de  colombier  was,  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  franfats,  712. 


THE  CORVEE  AND   OTHER  EXACTIONS.  143 

privileges.1  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.2  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_aac£xe__faF— from 
onerous.  To  declare  that  they  were  "more  nominal  than  real"  3 
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  various  rights  in  France,  cf.  Tocqueville,  The  Old 
Regime  and  the  Revolution,  326  ff. 

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

3  Thwaites,  France  in  America,  132. 

4  Hocquart  to  Minister, November  8, 1737,  Correspondancc  Generale,vo\,  Ixvii.  40  ff. 


144  THE  CORVEE  AND   OTHER  EXACTIONS. 

cleanly.1  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."2  ^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),  ii.  241-242.     Kalm  visited  New 
France  in  1749. 

2  Lahontan,  New  Voyages  (ed.  Thwaites),  i.  35. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

SEIGNIORIAL  JUSTICE. 
I 
"OF  all  the  phenomena  of  feudalism,"  writes  Professor  F. 

W.  Maitland,  "none  seems  more  essential  than  seigniorial  jus- 
tice ; " 1  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.2  * 

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  Cham  plain  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- 
v6te  at  Quebec,3  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. 

2  On  the  administration  of  feudal  justice  in  France,  see  Fustel  de  Coulanges  on 
"  La  Justice  dans  la  Societe  Feodale,"  in  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  xcii.  274-298 
(March,  1871). 

3  On  the  composition  and  powers  of  this  court,  see  Doutre  and  Lareau,  Histoire 
Generate  du  Droit  Civil  Canadien,  15  ff. 

145 


146  SEIGNIORIAL  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.1 

During  the  supremacy  of  the  Company  of  One  Hundred 
Associates,  from  1627  to  1663,  the  court  of  the  Prevot6  con- 
tinued in  existence  ;  but  in  1647  a  council,  commonly  known  as 
the  Old  Council  (Tancien  conseil),  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.2 
What  is  more  important  for  our  purpose,  however,  is  the  fact 
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.3  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  PreVote.  It  was  in  this  interval,  therefore,  that 
the  colonial  hierarchy^  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  Prev6t6, 
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  remainder  only  a  few  seem  to  have 
taken  possession  of  their  lands. 

1  Cf.  Titres  des  Seigneur  its,  89,  343,  412. 

2  It   is  highly  probable  that  these  registers  were  destroyed  by  the  fire  which 
burned  the  intendant's  palace  at  Quebec  in  1713.     See  Chauveau,  Notice  sur  la  Pub- 
lication des  Registres  du  Conseil  Souverain  de  Quebec  (1885),  6l. 

8  See  above,  ch.  ii. 


SEIGNIORIAL  JUSTICE.  147 

A 

It  is  not  till  after  1663  that  one  encounters  definite  evidence 

•* 

\  that  seigniorial  jurisdiction  was  being  exercised.  Most  of  those 
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  ipso  facto  an  evi- 

~  dence  of  private  judicial  authority.1  In  France,  as  various 
writers  have  pointed  out,  property  and  jurisdiction  were  usually, 
during  the  feudal  era,  inseparable;2  although  several  of  the 
contumes  explicitly  declare  that  judicial  powers  were  not  nec- 
essary incidents  of  the  possession  of  a  fief.3  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 

/»  basse  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.4  It  should  be  made 
clear  that  the  degree  of  jurisdiction  was  not  proportioned  to 
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- 

1  A  close  examination  of  the  seigniorial  titles  seems  to  confirm  the  statement  of 
Garneau  (JJistoire  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  World, 
236)  that  "  in  some  few  cases  "  judicial  powers  were  possessed  by  the  seigniors  of 
Canada.     Among  seigniories  sans  justice  may  be  mentioned  those  of  Gentilly,  Vieux- 
pont,  Jacques  Cartier,  Isle  St.  Joseph,  Pointe  du  Lac,  Boucher  (adjoining  Labadie), 
St.  Michel,  and  St.  Jean.     See  Titres  des  Seigneur ies,  12,  85,  88,  103,  1 20,  344. 

2  "The  administration  of  justice  both  in  the  old  and  new  fiefs,  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). 

8  "  Fief,  ressort,  et  justice  n'ont  rien  de  commun  ensemble."  On  this  point,  see 
Loisel,  Institutes  Coutumieres,  ii.  271;  and  Viollet,  Histoiredu  Droit  Civil  Fran^ais, 
646. 

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


148  SEIGNIORIAL  JUSTICE. 

stowed.  In  some  cases  the  seigniorial  grant  was  first  made 
without  any  judicial  rights  whatever,  these  being  given  subse- 
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  grants 
appear  to  have  been  made  "  in  full  property  and  seigniory, 
with  the  rights  of  high,  middle,  and  low  jurisdiction"  (en  toute 
propriett  et  seigneurie,  avec  les  droits  de  haute,  moyenne,  et 
basse  justice).  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  (Jiaute  justice) 
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  property* 
These  were  such  crimes  as  lese  majeste"  divine  et  humaine, 
treason,  counterfeiting  the  royal  signature,  seal,  or  coinage, 
unlawfully  bearing  arms,  or  taking  part  in  seditious  enterprises 
i  or  assemblies.  •  In  civil  cases  the  authority  of  the  seignior 
J  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 


I 


SEIGNIORIAL  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 "  (gui  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,  on 
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  arriere-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  or1  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  finder  was  rewarded  with  one-third  of 
the  value,  and  the  seignior  took  the  rest.  Furthermore,  as 
has  been  pointed  out, 1  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  grant  of  high  jurisdiction  conveyed  very 
extensive  judicial  rights  upon  those  seigniors  who  obtained  it. 

1  Above,  p.  142. 


150  SEIGNIORIAL  JUSTICE. 

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  sixty  sols  parisis?- 
and  of  all  criminal  causes  in  which  the  awardable  penalty  did 
not  exceed  the  same  sdm.  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  non 
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  {faire  mesurer  et  arpenter\ 
and  to  determine  the  boundaries  (bornage)  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 
rases  could  award  a  penalty  not  exceeding  ten  sols.  The  pos- 

1  That  is,  in  money  of  France  (see  above,  p.  92). 


SEIGNIORIAL  JUSTICE.  151 

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.1 

These  distinctions  in  degree  of  jurisdiction  were  of  little  or 
no  importance  in  Canada,  for  the  reason  that  in  the  great  ma- 
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.2  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.3  After  the  conquest, 
Governor  Carleton  declared  that  under  the  French  rule  no 
seigniorial  justice  could  be  appointed  without  the  approval  of 
the  royal  authorities.4  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.5  If  the 
sanction  of  the  council  was  given  to  all  seigniorial  judicial 

1  The  precise  limits  of  the  three  degrees  of  jurisdiction  are  very  clearly  set  forth  in 
Doutre  and  Lareau,  Histoire  Generate  du  Droit  Civil  Canadien,  133-136. 

2  Ibid.  135.  8  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  118. 

4  See  below,  p.  157.  6  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  23,  566. 


152  SEIGNIORIAL  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.1 

Still,  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,  frequently,  with  the  division  of  per- 
sonal property  among  heirs.  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  initio.  Al- 
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  gross  revenue  of  the  seigniory.2  *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  full  paraphernalia  of  jurisdiction,  — 

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


SEIGNIORIAL  JUSTICE.  153 

a  court-room,  jail,  officials,  and  so  on,  —  he  would  certainly 
have  found  himself  exercising  jurisdiction  at  a  loss1.  It  was  not 
that  the  people  were  disinclined  to  litigation ;  on  the  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,1  and  the  long 
winters  afforded  him  plenty  of  leisure  to  indulge  in  his  com- 
bative proclivities.2  Moreover,  the  loose  way  in  which  land 
boundaries  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.3  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.4 
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. 

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  finally  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  intere'ts  privees,  et  de  calme  dans  celle  des  interets  publics " 
(Bouchette,  British  Dominions  in  North  America,  \.  414,  note). 

2  Gaspe  (Les  Anciens  Canadiens)  gives  some  interesting  portrayals  of  French- 
Canadian  life  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

8  See  above,  p.  40. 

*  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  30. 


154  SEIGNIORIAL  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  Prevote  at  Quebec,  to 
the  said  Prev6te,  and  from  the  said  Prev6t£  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  Prevote  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."  J 
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.2 

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  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  lowest  one  was  ac- 
cordingly issued.3  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.4 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  \.  237,  §  viii.  2  Ibid.  242. 

8  Ibid.  342-346  (July,  1714). 

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


SEIGNIORIAL  JUSTICE.  155 

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." 1 

Although  the  records  of  cases  heard  in  the  various  seigniorial 
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  the  most  trivial.2 
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  seigniorial  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,  Introduction. 

2  Some  of  these  are  printed  in  Perrault,  Extraits  ou  Precedents  tires  des  Registres 
de  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,1  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.2  Again,  in  1678  an  edict  was  promulgated 
fixing  definitely  the  amount  of  charges  which  might  be  exacted 
by  judicial  officials  for  any  service.3  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.4  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.  xiii. 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  22  ff. 

*  Ibid.  i.  99  ff.  *  Ibid.  iii.  118. 


SEIGNIORIAL  JUSTICE.  157 

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." 1 
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  grants," 
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."2 

1  Lahontan,   Nouveaux    Voyages   (1705),   i.   21,   cited  by  Parkman,   The    Old 
Regime  in  Canada,  ii.  68. 

2  Carleton  to  Shelburne,  April  12,  1768,  in  State  Paper  Office,  America  and  West 
Indies,  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." 1 

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.2  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.3  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   1714;  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. 

2  Suite,  Le  Regime  Militaire,  1760-1764,  in  Royal  Society  of  Canada,  Proceedings, 
1905,  Appendix  A. 

8  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.1  Again,  on  the  first  day  of 

1  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 
Ordonnances,  ii.  595).  An  excellent  description  of  the  ceremony  is  given  in  William 
Kirby's  Chien  d'1  Or.  See  also  above,  pp.  56-57. 


160  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  in 
dancing  and  games,  while  the  seignior  showed  his  appreciation 
of  the  honor  by  a  liberal  dispensation  of  refreshments.1  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.2 

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  cure'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  fetes  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  cure.  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 

1  An  interesting  description  of  the  May-pole  ceremony  is  given  by  Gaspe  in  his 
Lts  Anciens  Canadiens,  ch.  xvii. 

2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  132. 


THE  SEIGNIORIAL  NOBLESSE.  l6l 

accorded  to  the  wife  and  children  of  a  seignior  were  also  mi- 
nutely specified,  to  the  end  that  no  future  misunderstandings 
might  arise.1 

Finally,  the  seignior  was  entitled  to  the  general  deference  and 
respect  of  his  dependents,  who  were  supposed  to  salute  him  re- 
spectfully on  meeting  him,  to  give  his  vehicle  the  right  of  way, 
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. 

x-   Although  it  has  been  the  custom  of  some  writers  to  use  the 
terms  "seigniors"  and  "noblesse"  interchangeably,2  it  should 
Jbe  emphasized  at  this  point  that  not  all  the  Canadian  seigniors 
I  were  members  of  the  aristocracy.     In  speaking  of  France  it  is 
\  approximately  correct  to  say  that  a  seignior  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- 
jiory,  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  1598 
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 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  ii.  154—156. 

2  E.g.,  Coffin,  The  Province  of  Quebec  and  the  Early  American  Revolution,  ch.  i; 
Thwaites,  France  in  America,  133. 


1 62  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  NOBLESSE. 

Associates  may  deem  proper";1  but  neither  La  Roche  nor  the 
company  seems  to  have  exercised  any  of  these  rights.  Patents 
conferring  rank  in  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  nobility 
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 
seignior.2  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  Frangois  Berthelot,  Comte  de  St. 
Laurent.  Talon,  the  first  active  intendant  of  New  France, 
came  to  the  colony  in  September,  i665,3  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.4  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.5  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 

1  See  above,  ch.  ii. 

2  There  were,  of  course,  several  members  of  the  French  noblesse  who  served  in 
Canada  as  officers  of  the  forces,  and  who  were  not  seigniors. 

8  Chapais,  Jean  Talon,  62.  4  Ibid.  92. 

5  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  53.  A  copy  of  the  Jesuit  protest,  together  with  the  in- 
tendant's reply,  is  printed  in  Chapais,  Jean  Talon,  Appendix. 


THE  SEIGNIORIAL  NOBLESSE.  163 

uncleared  and  uncultivated.1  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.2 

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  barns 
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.3  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,  i.  33. 

2  "  On  [I??]  a  formes  aux  environs  de  Quebec,  tant  pour  le  fortifier,  en  peuplant 
son  voisinage,  que  pour  y  recevoir  les  families  venues  de  France,  et  auxquelles  on 
distribue  des  terres  deja  mises  en  culture,  et  dont  quelques-unes  ont  etc  cette  annee 
chargees  de  ble,  pour  faire  le  premier  fonds  de  leur  subsistance"  (Relation  of  1667, 
in  Thwaites,  Jesuit  Relations  and  Allied  Documents,  1.  244) . 

3  The  census  of  1667  gave  the  area  of  cultivated  lands  as  11,448  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  Generate,  Hi.  76. 


1 64  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  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.1 

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;2 
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."8 

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 

1  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  348  ;   see  also  fugements  et  Deliberations  du   Conseil 
Souverain  de  la  Nouvelle- France,  i.  692. 

2  Chapais,  Jean  Talon,  454.  8  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  348. 


THE  SEIGNIORIAL  NOBLESSE.  165 

consultation  concerning  matters  of  policy  in  New  France.1  By 
his  last  will  and  testament  he  bequeathed  the  countship  of  Or- 
sainville  to  his  nephew  Jean  Francois  Talon,2  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.3  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  general  de  1'artillerie,  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.4 

1  Regis  Roy,  Les  Intendants  de  la  Nouvelle- France,  in  Royal  Society  of  Canada, 
Proceedings,  1903,  Memoir es,  sec.  i.  69—73. 

2  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. 

8  Chapais,  Jean  Talon,  494-500. 

4  Dunkin,  Address  at  the  Bar  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  Canada,  Appendix, 


1 66  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  Guillaume  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.1  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 
1651  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.2  The  third  barony  was  that  al- 
ready mentioned  as  having  been  created  for  Jean  Talon  in 
1 67 1.3  The  fourth  barony,  that  of  Portneuf,  was  erected  by 
letters  patent  from  the  king  in  1681.  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.  148.  Two  years  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,  Corrcspondancc  Generate,  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). 

1  Moreau  de  St.  Mery,  Lois  et  Constitutions  des  Colonies  Franfaises  de  FAmerique, 
i.  48  ff. 

2  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-Pere,  Une  Colonie 
Feodale  en  Am'erique  (1889),  412-413. 

8  See  above,  p.  164. 


THE  SEIGNIORIAL  NOBLESSE.  l6/ 

in  I636.1  In  1671  Jacques  Leneuf  gave  the  seigniory  to  his 
daughter,  Marie-Anne,  who  had,  in  1652,  married  Rene"  Robi- 
neau,  sometime  seignior  of  Becancour.2  Robineau  proved  him- 
self a  very  progressive  seignior.  During  the  years  following  the 
establishment  of  royal  government  he  was  so  prominent  a  figure 
in  New  France  that  in  1681  the  king  recognized  his  services  by 
elevating  the  seigniory  to  the  "  title  and  dignity  of  a  barony,  " 
and  Robineau  became  Baron  de  Portneuf.3  One  of  his  sons, 
who  had  taken  possession  of  his  father's  former  seigniory  of 
Becancour,  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  Baron  de  Becancour ; 
but  this  appellation  is  entirely  unwarranted,  as  Becancour  was 
never  made  a  barony.4 

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.5  Lemoyne  de  Longueuil  also  erected  a  well-equipped 

1  See  below,  p.  170.    The  family  of  Leneuf  de  la  Poterie  must  not  be  confused 
with  that  of  Bacqueville  de  la  Potherie,  the  historian. 

2  Tanguay,  Dictionnaire  Genealogique,  i.  523. 

8  The  patent  is  printed  in  Gatien,  Histoire  de  la  Paroisse  du  Cap-Sante,  367  ff. 

4  Suite,  Histoire  des  Canadiens-Fran$ais,  v.  106. 

5  See  above,  p.  66.    The  original  building  was  gutted  by  fire  in  1782 ;  but  a  part 


1 68  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  NOBLESSE. 

seigniorial  mill,  built  good  roads  throughout  his  seigniory,  and 
in  general  made  it  a  model  seigniorial  property.1  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.2 

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  Lemoyne  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.3  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. 

1  The  population  of  Longueuil  and  Tremblay  is  placed  by  the  census  of  1698  at 
223.     Cf.  Censuses  of  Canada,  1665-1871,  p.  40. 

2  The  honor  was  conferred  by  the  king  in  response  to  a  request  made  by  the  Sieur 
de  Longueuil,  through  the  governor  and  intendant,  two  years  previously  (see  Fron- 
tenac and Champigny  to  Minister,October  15, 1698,  Correspondance  Generale,\o\t\\\). 
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  Jugements  el  Delibera- 
tions du  Conseil  Souverain  de  la  Nouvelle- France,  iv.  492. 

8  The  first  Baron  de  Longueuil,  born  in  1656,  died  governor  of  Montreal  in  1729. 
His  son  Charles,  second  baron,  born  in  1687,  was  for  a  time  administrator  of  the 
colony,  and  died  in  January,  1755.  The  third  baron  was  Charles  Jacques  Lemoyne 
(1724-1755),  who,  after  distinguishing  himself  on  the  Monongahela,  was  killed  at 
Lake  George  a  few  months  after  his  father's  death.  As  the  third  baron  had  no  sons, 
the  barony  passed  to  his  only  daughter,  Marie,  who  in  1781  married  Captain  David 
Alexander  Grant  of  the  94th  Regiment.  Their  son,  Charles  William  Grant,  as- 
sumed the  title  of  fifth  baron  in  1841,  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  his  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,  Lanaudiere,  Gaspe,  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.1 

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.2 

Among  the  noble  holdings  in  New  France  only  one  chatel- 
lenie  is  numbered,  that  of  Coulonge,  which  was  given  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  Gazette,  December  7,  1880).    The 
Baron  de  Longueuil  is  not,  however,  entitled  as  such  to  a  seat  in  the  House  of 
Lords. 

2  Among  the  brothers  of  the  first  Baron  de  Longueuil  were  Jacques  Lemoyne 
de  Ste.  Helene,  who  fell  at  the  siege  of  Quebec  in  1690  ;   Pierre  Lemoyne  d'Iberville 
and  Jean  Baptiste  Lemoyne  de  Bienville,  founders  of  Louisiana,  and  the  latter  gov- 
ernor of  that  colony  ;  Joseph  Lemoyne  de  Serigny,  naval  officer  and  later  governor  of 
Rochefort ;  and  Louis  Lemoyne  de  Chiteauguay,  killed  in  action  at  Fort  Bourbon 
on  Hudson's  Bay. 


I/O  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  NOBLESSE. 

into  a  chatellenie  as  a  mark  of  appreciation  of  his  efficient 
services.1 

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.2 
This  grant  passed  later  into  the  hands  of  his  son,  Michel 
Leneuf  de  la  Vallieres,  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  Sable."3  No  trace  of  any 
patent  creating  this  marquisate  has  been  found,  however,  nor 
does  any  Marquis  de  Sable  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.4  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.5 
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  des  Seigneuries,  but  may  be  found  in  the 
Rapport  du  Ministre  des  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. 

2  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  392. 

8  Suite,  Histoire  des  Canadien~Franfais,  v.  IO2. 

4  Ibid.  1 10. 

6 "  On  distinguait  plusieurs  especes  de  noblesse  :  la  noblesse  hereditaire  et  la 
noblesse  accordee  par  les  rois,  la  noblesse  d'epee  et  la  noblesse  de  robe  "  (Cheruel, 
Dictionnaire  Historique  des  Institutions  de  la  France,  ii.  858). 


THE  SEIGNIORIAL  NOBLESSE.  1 71 

possessed  all  the  attributes  and  privileges  of  nobility,  and  trans- 
mitted their  quality  and  status  to  their  posterity.1 

"Some  of  the  emigrants  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.2 '  As  early  as  1667,  Talon,  in  his 
"  M6moire  sur  1'Etat  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." 3  The  first  four  to  whom 
the  intendant  referred  were  probably  the  families  of  Jacques 
Leneuf  de  la  Poterie,4  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  1661  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.5  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 

1  Strictly  speaking,  the  term  "  gentilshommes "    included   only  the   hereditary 
noblesse   (Cheruel,  Dictionnaire  Historique,  i.  486);    but  in  New  France   it  seems 
to  have  been  applied  to  all  the  untitled  noblesse,  whether  hereditary  or  not. 

2  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. 

8  This  "  Memoire,"  which  bears  date  of  October  27,  1667,  may  be  found  in  the 
Correspondance  Generate,  ii.  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- 
vember 8,  1737,  Ibid,  vol.  Ixvii). 

4  On  the  matter  of  Leneuf's  claim  to  rank  in  the  noblesse,  see  Jugements  et  De- 
liberations du  Conseil  Souverain  de  la  Nouvelle- France,  i.  997. 

5  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,  Kecucil  General  des  Anciennes  Lois  Fran$aises,  xviii.  73. 


\ 


1  72  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  ;  l  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  Fert6.2  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;3  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.4  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."  6  The  intendant  Meulles  was  disgusted  with  the  spirit  : 
"  Every  one  in  the  colony,"  he  wrote,  "  begins  by  calling  himself 
an  6cuyer,  and  ends  by  thinking  himself  a  gentilhomme.'i6 

Many  of  this  class  of  gentilshommes,  genuine  and  bogus,  be- 

1  See  Talon's  "  Memoire"  of  October  27,  1667,  cited  above. 

2  See  Tracy's  "  Memoire  sur  le  Canada,"  1667,  a  copy  of  which  may  be  found  in 
the  Parkman  Papers,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society. 

8  Duchesneau  to  Minister,  November  10,  1679,  Correspondance  Generals,  v.  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  (  Titres 
des  Seigneuries,  130). 

6  Denonville  to  Minister,  November  IO,  1686,  Correspondance  Generale,  viii.  2i<x 

6  Meulles  to  Minister,  November  4,  1683,  Ibid.  vi.  323. 


THE  SEIGNIORIAL  NOBLESSE  173 

came  so  conspicuous  by  their  "  pride,  sloth,  and  poverty,"  l  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,  and  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."  2 

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."3 
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.4 

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-Salieres  regiment ;  and  he 
requested  the  king  to  afford  some  monetary  assistance  to  them.5 

1  Champigny  to  Minister,  August  26,  1687,  Correspondance  Generate,  ix.  144. 

2  Duchesneau  to  Minister,  November  10,  1679,  Ibid.  v.  62. 
8  Denonville  to  Minister,  November  13,  1685,  Ibid.  vii.  55. 

4  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,  Lotbiniere,  Saurel,  and  several  others. 

6  An  interesting  sidelight  on  the  abject  poverty  of  the  noblesse  is  thrown  by  the 
correspondence  which  passed  between  Governor  Frontenac  and  the  minister  during 


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."  l 

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  seigniorial  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.2 

the  years  1690-1698,  regarding  various  recommendations  made  by  the  governor  in 
favor  of  certain  seigniors.  In  1690  Frontenac  asked  that  letters  of  noblesse  be  given 
to  Fran£ois  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  qualite.  Sa  Majeste" 
ne  les  auroit  pas  accorde  sy  elle  avoit  este  informe  de  sa  pauvrete,  estant  certain  que 
cela  ne  serviroit  qu'  a  jeter  ses  enfans  dans  le  desordre  qui  auroient  pu  s'addonner  a 
des  travaux  qui  ne  conviennent  point  a  des  gentilshommes  "  ("  Memoire  du  Roy  aux 
SieursComte  de  Frontenac  et  de  Champigny,"  May  21,  1698,  Collection  de  Manu- 
scrits  relatifs  a  la  Nouvelle- France,  ii.  301).  The  language  and  expression  are 
somewhat  peculiar,  but  the  point  intended  to  be  made  is  clear  enough. 

1  Denonville  to  Minister,  November  10,1686,  Correspondance  Generale,-v\\\.  192-266. 

8  "  C'est  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  conge"  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." 1  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 

qu'ils  ont,  passer  tout  1'este  avec  la  simple  chemise  et  leurs  femmes  et  leurs  filles  tra- 
vailler  a  la  terre"  (Champigny  to  Minister,  August  26,  1687,  Correspondance  Gen- 
erale,  ix.  144-147). 

1  Champigny  to  Minister,  May  10,  1691,  Ibid.  xi.  351. 


176  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  d'Iberville  was  in  command,  and  with  him  were  his  two 
adventurous  brothers,  Lemoyne  de  St.  Helene  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  Perriere,  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."  1 
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.  Maseres  estimated  that  after  the 

1  Parkman,  The  Old  Regime  in  Canada,  ii.  61. 


THE  SEIGNIORIAL  NOBLESSE. 

treaty  was  signed  in  1763  only  twenty-two  noble  families  re- 
mained in  Canada ; l  and  four  years  later  a  table  submitted 
to  the  home  authorities  by  Governor  Carleton  showed  how 
badly  the  hegira  had  depleted  their  ranks.2  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  efforts  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 
J     in   favor  of   any  class  of  the  people.     The  seigniors  and  the 
i     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- 
i  tration.     Nevertheless,    like   the   attempt  to   foster    a    system 
Vof   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  elite  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  Maseres,  Additional  Papers  concerning  the  Province  of  Quebec,  164-168,  171. 

2  This  table  is  printed  in  the  Report  on  Canadian  Archives  for  1888,  p.  41  ff.        ; 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE   SEIGNIORIAL   SYSTEM  AND   THE   CHURCH. 

0 

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 ; l  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. 

With  agriculture,  however,  religion  was  on  much  better  terms. 
Men  who  remained  on  the  land  and  tilled  the  soil  were  well 

1  "  Acte  pour  1'etablissement  de  la  Compagnie  des  Cent  Associes,"  April  29,  1627, 
Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  5. 

I78 


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- 
ern 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  given  by  the  crown  to  the  church 
and  its  subsidiary  organizations.* 

Foremost  among  these  dependent  organizations  was  that 
known  as  the  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.  Before  the  close  of  the  French  period  it  had 
become  by  far  the  largest  landholder  in  the  country ;  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 


1 80        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.1 

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 :  — 

Charlesbourg 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,  1781-1788,"  printed  in  Thwaites, 
Jesuit  Relations  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  in 
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  R6collets,  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  Recollets.  Various 
other  orders  and  institutions  —  as,  for  instance,  the  Ursulines  of 
Three  Rivers,  the  General  Hospitals  at  Quebec  and  Montreal, 
the  Hotel  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  Jesuits.1  As 
all  of  these  orders  (including  the  Jesuits)  were  either  directly 

1  The  areas  of  the  holdings  were  as  follows  :  — 

Bishop  and  Seminary  of  Quebec 693,324  arpents 

Sulpitians ..........     250,191  arpents 

Ursulines  of  Quebec 164,616  arpents 

Les  Soeurs  Crises 42»336  arpents 

General  Hospital  at  Quebec 28,497  arpents 

Ursulines  of  Three  Rivers 30,909  arpents 

Hotel  Dieu  at  Quebec 14,112  arpents 

Recollets 945  arpents 

General  Hospital  at  Montreal . 404  arpents 

1,225,334  arpents 
Jesuits 880,705  arpents 

Grand  Total  2,106,039 


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  seign- 
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.1 

Both  the  seigniorial  system  and  the  parochial  were  strength- 
ened by  the  fact  that  the  boundaries  of  the  seigniories  were  in 
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,2  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. 

1  The  church  lands  had,  for  the  most  part,  been  freed  from  the  usual  obligations 
"to  the  crown.     See  above,  p.  52. 

2  Catalogue,  in  his  report  (see  above,  p.  45),  makes  frequent   reference  to   this 
practice. 


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  cur6  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  manor- 
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  Abb6  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." 1 

It  was  not,  however,  obligatory  upon  the  seignior  to  provide 
for  the  sustenance  of  the  cur6,  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.2  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 

1  H.  R.  Casgrain,  Une  Paroisse  Canadienne  au  xviie  Siede,  40-41. 

2  Mandements  des  Eveques  de  Quebec,  i.  44-46  (March  26,  1663);   Jugements  et 
Deliberations  du   Conseil  Souvtrain  de  la  Nouvelle-France,  i.   18-19  (October  10, 
1663). 


1 84        THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM  AND   THE  CHURCH. 

perpetual  right  to  exact  one  twenty-sixth.1  The  returns  from 
this  source  were  not  large,  however  ;  as  late  as  1 700  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  cur6  or  by  persons  ap- 
pointed by  the  parishioners  for  the  purpose,  the  proceeds  being 
delivered  at  the  parish  presbytery.2  The  curd  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  Council.  That  body  promptly  decided  against  the 
clerical  pretensions,3  and  from  this  decision  an  appeal  was  taken 
to  the  king,  who  two  years  later  confirmed  the  action  of  the 
council.4 

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."6  Having  done  this,  they  were,  by 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  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. 

2  Ibid.  ii.  434.  »  November  18,  1705,  Ibid.    133. 
*  July  12,  1707,  Ibid.  i.  305.                              6  Ibid.  iii.  284. 


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  cur6  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.1 

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.2  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  cure\  Down  to  1681 
only  two  stone  churches  were  built  by  lay  seigniors.3 

Those  of  the  seigniors  who  had  erected  wooden  churches 
objected  strongly  1;o  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  arret 
giving  him  power  to  proceed  with  the  erection  of  stone  churches 
in  any  seigniories  in  which  such  had  not  already  been  erected, 

1  Cf.  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  iii.  205,  216,  217,  303,  etc. 

2  Ibid.  i.  232,  §§  vi-vii. 

8  "  Every  one  here  is  puffed  up  with  the  greatest  vanity;  there  is  not  one  but  pre- 
tends to  be  a  patron,  and  wants  a  cure  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  Bishop,  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  t6  consecrate  any  buildings  ex- 
cept such  as  are  solid  and  durable"  (Duchesneau  to  Seignelay,  November  13,  1681, 
Correspondance  Generale,  v.  275). 


1 86        THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM  AND   THE  CHURCH. 

and  to  assume  the  right  of  patronage  in  regard  to  these.1  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  cur6  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  cur6,  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.2 
As  early  as  1667,  Laval  was  able  to  point  with  pride  to  the  fact 
that  his  seigniories  of  Beaupr6  and  Isle  d'Orleans  contained 
more  than  one-fourth  of  the  colony's  total  population ; 3  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  manage^.4  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 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  279. 

2  On  the  services  of  the  Jesuits  in  the  agricultural  development  of  the  colony,  see 
Faillon,  Hisloire  de  la  Colonie  Franfaise  en  Canada,\.  161-164;   and  Rochemon- 
teix,  Les  Jesuites,  i.  154-157. 

8  In  the  census  of  1667,  the  total  population  of  the  colony  was  found  to  be  3,918. 
Of  this  number  the  seigniory  of  Beaupre  contained  667,  and  that  of  the  Isle  d'Orleans 
426.  Cf.  Censuses  of  Canada,  1665-1871,  p.  6. 

4  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.  T,he 
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 ; l  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  how  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.2 
I  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,  or  the 
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 

*  See  the  grant  of  the  fief  of  Sillery  to  the  Jesuits  in  1697,  Titres  des  Seigneuries,  51. 
2  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  i.  276. 


1 88        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  given  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  tp  return  to  their  farms  during  the 
seeding  and  harvest  seasons*  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   XI. 

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.1  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  lrr~airTherr"TrpYivilege^7~ngrits,  honors, 
and  ^ernpfions." *  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  wEetHer  settled  in  or  trading  to  the  colony,  and  all  other 
persons  "  were  guaranteed  in  the  "  entire  and  peaceable  posses- 
sion oT^their  property  whether  en  seigneurie  or  en  roture  \en 
censive~\"  They  were  not  to  be  molested  under  any  pretext 

1  "  Articles  de  Capitulation,"  in  State  Paper  Office,  America  and  West  Indies, 
xciii.  561-592. 

2  Article  xxxiv  :    "  Toutes  les  Communautes,  Et  tous  les  Prestres  Conserveront 
Leurs  Meubles,  La  Propriete,  Et  L'Usufruit  des  Seigneuries,  Et  autres  biens  que  les 
uns  et  les  autres  possedent  dans  la  Colonie,  de  quelque  Nature  qu'ils  soient   Et  Les 
•d.  biens  seront  Conserves  dans  leurs  Privileges,  droits,  honneurs,  et  Exemptions." 

189 


190  BRITISH  ADMINISTRATION. 

whatever.1  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  privileges. 

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.2 

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  on 

1  Article  xxxvii :  "  Les  Seigneurs  de  Terres,  Les  Officiers  militaires  Et  de  Justice, 
Les  Canadiens,  Tant  des  Villes  que  des  Catnpagnes  Les  francois  Etablis  ou  Commer- 
cant  dans  toute  L'Etendue  de  la  Colonie  du  Canada  Et  Toutes  Autres  Personnes  que 
ce  puisse  Estre,  Conserveront  L'Entire  paisible  propriete  et  possession  de  leurs  biens 
Seigneuriaux  et  Roturiers.  ...     II  n'y  sera  point  touche  ni  fait  le  moindre  domage, 
sous  quelque  pretexte  que  ce  soit." 

It  has  sometimes  been  said  (e.g.,  by  Bourinot,  Constitution  of  Canada,  f)  that 
the  Jesuits,  Recollets,  and  Sulpitians  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. 

2  Kegne  Militaire  en  Canada,  ou  Administration  Judiciaire  de  ce  Pays  par  les 
Anglais  du  8  Septembre  1760  au  10  Aout  1764  (published  by  the  Montreal  Historical 
Society,  1872).     Cf.  also  Suite,  Le  Regime  Militaire,  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." 1 

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."2 

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, 

1  This  report  of  June  5,    1762,  though  in  many  ways  very   interesting,    shows 
rather  scant  knowledge  of  the  real  condition  of  affairs  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,  Histoire  Generate  du  Droit 
Civil  Canadien,  520  ff. 

2  Treaty  of  Paris,  article  iv.     The  full  text  of  this  treaty  may  be  found  in  George 
Chalmers,  A  Collection  of  Treaties  between  Great  Britain  and  other  Powers  (London, 
1790),  i.  467-483- 


1 92  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 ; 1  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 

1  On  the  extent  and  nature  of  the  exodus,  compare  the  widely  divergent  views  of 
Garneau  {Histoire  du  Canada,  ii.  393  fi.)  and  Suite  {Le  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.1 

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  I76o.2  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, 

1  "  I  do  hereby  give,  grant,  and  concede  unto  the  said  Captain  John  Nairn,  his 
heirs,  executors  and  administrators  forever,  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  byway  of  acknowl- 
edgment a  piece  of  gold  of  the  value  of  ten  shillings  with  one  year's  rent  of  the 
domain  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  Seigneuries,   but  a  copy  of  it  will  be  found  in   Troisieme 
Rapport  et  Deliberations  du   Comite  Special de  V  Assemblee  Legislative  (1851),  95-96. 

2  This  proclamation  will  be  found  at  full  length  in  Doutre  and  Lareau,  Histoire 
Generate  du  Droit  Civil  Canadien,  330  ff. 


194  BRITISH  ADMINISTRATION. 

he  was,  presumably,  to  make  such  grants  in  free  and  common 
socage  and  not  en  seigneurie  or  en  censive. 

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.1  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- 
v^eral,  that,  since  great  inconveniences  had  "  arisen  in  many  of 
tV  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,  witlTarTadditionaTntty  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. 

1  "  Instructions  to  Our  trusty  and  well-beloved  James  Murray,  Esquire,  Our  Cap- 
tain-General and  Governor-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  Generale,  etc.,  552~572»  an(l 
in  the  Report  on  Canadian  Archives  for  1904,  pp.  193—210. 


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  to 
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.1 
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 
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.2  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. 

1  See  above,  p.  74. 

2  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. 


I96  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  hi  1 766  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." 1 

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 
Shelburne,  who  as  secretary  of  state  for  the  Southern  Depart- 
ment had  charge  of  colonial  affairs,  a  comprehensive  report 

1  "  Instructions  to  the  Honble-  James  Murray,  governor  of  Canada,"  June  24, 
1 766,  in  State  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 
1763-1766.  "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. l 

Even  before  Murray's  report  was  made  the  colonial  office 
had  undertaken  an   investigation   of   the  causes  of   legal   dis- 

1  Murray  to  Shelburne,  August  20,  1766,  Canadian  Archives,  Haldimand  Collec- 
tion, B.  8,  pp.  1-128. 


198  BRITISH  ADMINISTRATION. 

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." 1 

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.2 

1  Report  of  Attorney-General  Yorke  and  Solicitor-General  de  Grey,  April  14, 
1766,  in  Smith,  History  of  Canada,  ii.  35  ff. 

2  The  compilation,  when  finished,  was  issued  in  four  parts,  three  of  them  "  drawn 
up  by  a  Select  Committee  of  Canadian  Gentlemen  well  skilled  in  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  ADMINISTRATION".  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  cblony ;  and  it  was  with  this  end  in  view  that  on 
Christmas  Eve,  1767,  he  despatched  to  the  Earl  of  Shelburne  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  unauthorized  in  the 

Abstract  of  the  Criminal  Laws  that  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-general  and  Intendants  of  the  said  Province, 
during  the  same  Period.  The  last  part  was  prepared  by  "  Francis  Joseph  Cugnet, 
Esquire,  Secretary  to  the  Governour  and  Council  of  the  said  Province,  for  the  French 
Language."  All  four  parts  were  published  in  London  in  1772-1773.  After  the 
reestablishment  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  all  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," 1  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  first  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.2  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 

1  Carleton  to   Shelburne,  December  24,  1767,  in  State  Paper  Office,  Board  of 
Trade,  Canada,  vol.  vi,  No.  23. 

2  This  draft  accompanies  Carleton's  despatch  in  the  State  Paper  Office. 


BRITISH  ADMINISTRATION.  2OI 

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  ADMINISTRATION. 

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.1 

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  Maseres,  the  attor- 
ney-general. Maseres  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  Maseres,  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,  Maseres'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  Maseres  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.2  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."  8 

1  Carleton  to  Shelburne,  April  12,  1768,  in  State  Paper  Office,  America  and  West 
Indies,  vol.  cccxxvi,  No.  33. 

2  Francois  Maseres,  Drattght  of  an  Act  .  .  .  for  settling  the  Laws  of  Quebec  (Lon- 
don [1771]). 

8  Carleton  to  Hillsborough,  October  3,  1 769,  in  State  Paper  Office,  America  and 
West  Indies,  vol.  cccxxvii. 


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  Arret  of  Marly  (1711)  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.1  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- 

1  Report  of  the  Council  for  Trade  to  the  King,  April  24,  1770,  in  State  Paper 
•Office,  Board  of  Trade,  Canada,  vol.  xvi. 


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." x 

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  affairs  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.2  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  even 
to  try  to  grasp,  the  peculiarities  of  the  juristic  system  which 
they  sought  to  supersede,  whether  such  had  to  do  with  the  pre- 

1  Additional  Instructions  for  Governor  Carleton,  June  27,  1771,  in  State  Paper 
Office,  Board  of  Trade,  Canada,  vol.  vii.     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. 

2  This  seems  to  be  shown  by  subsequent  events,  despite  the  fact  that,  as  Judge 
Baby  has  pointed  out  (L'Exode  des   Classes  Dirigeantes  a  la   Cession  du   Canada, 
Montreal,  1899),  a  very  considerable  portion  of  the  official  class  remained  in  Canada.. 


BRITISH  ADMINISTRATION.  205 

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.1 

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  "coutume"  served  to  mis- 

1  See  Raudot  to  Pontchartrain,  November  IO,  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.1  The  rights  and  respon- 
sibilities of  seignior  and  habitant  respectively,  however,  were 
regulated,  not  by  any  local  seigniorial  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.2  Again  and  again  seigniors  were 

1  See  above,  p.  89. 

2  Precedents  had  been  set  for  the  judges  by  the  decisions  of  the  military  courts 
which  were  established  during  the  period  of  military  rule,  1759-1763.    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  1 762. 
By  the  deed  of  certain  en  censive  lands  in  the  seigniory  of  Isle  Perrot,  executed  in 
1718,  the  defendant  Hunaut  had  been  placed  under  obligation  to  pay  the  seignior 
Le  Due  "  one  half  minot  of  wheat  and  ten  sols  per  year  for  each  superficial  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  is,  one  sol   for  each    superficial    arpent  and  one 
half  minot    of  wheat  for    each  arpent  in  front  by  twenty  in  depth  "  {Register  of 
Arrets  of  the  Military  Council  of  Montreal,  April  20,  1 762) .     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  1711,  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,  2O/ 

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 
embodying  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.1  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  guaranteeing  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, 
\.  66).  This  exception  was  the  case  of  McCallum  vs.  Grey,  King's  Bench,  April  18, 
1828. 


208  BRITISH  ADMINISTRATION. 

their  vested  rights,  the  retention  of  the  old  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.  Cramahe\  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  the  opinion  of  Maseres  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 ; l  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  1772-1773,  were  practically  at  one  in  recommending 
the  reestablishment,  substantially  intact,  of  the  whole  of  the  old 
civil  code.2  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." 

1  The  general  history  of  this  movement  is  traced  in  Christie,  History  of  the  Late 
Province  of  Lower  Canada,  vol.  i,  and  in  Kingsford,  History  of  Canada,  vol.  v. 

2  The  reports  of  Solicitor-General  Wedderburn  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,  i.  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  Generate,  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.1  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  througn 
Parliament  and  became  law,  going  into  operation  on  the  first 
day  of  May,  I775-2  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 
fiad  faileH  miserably,  and  the  endeavor  to  retain  partlTof  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  Cavendish,  Debates  of  the  House  of  Commons  in  the  year  1774,  on  the  Bill  for  .  .  . 
the  Government  of  the  Province  of  Quebec  (ed.  J.  Wright,  London,  1839). 

2  14  George  III,  c.  83,  printed  in  Houston,  Constitutional  Documents,  90-96. 


BRITISH  ADMINISTRATION.  211 

would  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,  duringjhe  French 
period,  that  the  governor  might  call  upon  the  seigniors  of  the 

inter- 


ests  of  the  crown.  No  such  stipulation,  it  is  true,  was  ever  in- 
serted in  any  of  trie  title-deeds  of  grants  within  the  colony  ;  * 
but  the  rights  of^  the  crown  in  this  respect  seem  never  to  have 
been_nuestioned.  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,  17/5,  called  upon  the  seigniors  to  muster  their  habitants 
>tp_j"ggel  tfie  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 
and  that  of  their  dependents,  promptly  conveyed  the  orders  of 
the  governor  to  their  habitantsl"T)uf~triey  met  with"  very  little 
Tavorable  response,  for  in  tnanyclLses  the  Habitants  took  the 


ground  that,  with  the  cession  of  the  colony,  their  obligation  to 
dqj3iIitary-6er-¥JG6  -had_pas^ed__Ql^  °f  existence.  Some  of  the" 
seigniors  pointed  out  to  them  that  refusal  to  serve  would  entail 

1  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.1  It  ap- 

1  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  tumultuous  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  Maseres  in  his  Additional  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  hommage,  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  Corne,  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  accompanied  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  ADMINISTRATION.  213 

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  1 775-1 776,  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.1  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  cttnombrements 
had  to  accompany  the  performance  of  fealty  and  homage,  and 
since  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  I779-2 

be  sent  against  them.  Through  the  discretion  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  burn  his  house  and  his  barn,  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. 

1  State  Paper  Office,  Board  of  Trade,  Canada,  vol.  xx,  August  28,  1777. 

2  Ibid.  November  30,  1778. 


214  BRITISH  ADMINISTRATION". 

Meanwhile  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  Lanaudiere,  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." l  Lanaudiere'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  Lanaudiere  on  his  petition, 
and  that  it  should,  furthermore,  "  investigate  and  report  a  state- 
1  Minutes  of  the  Council,  August  25,  1790,  Titles  and  Documents,  i.  25-26. 


BRITISH  ADMINISTRATION,  215 

raent  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.1  Through 

1  The  questions  (which  may  be  found  in  Titles  and  Documents,  i.  27  ff.)  were  as 
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  compel  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  benefits  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 
subfeudatory  ;  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.1 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.2  On  the  whole,  however,  the  report,  considering 
the  haste  with  which  it  was  prepared,  gave  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- 
naudiere  himself  to  present  answers  to  the  same  queries.  Ac- 
cordingly, a  week  or  two  after  the  solicitor-general  made  his 
report,  Lanaudiere  submitted  his  replies  to  the  first  seven  of  the 
eleven  questions,  his  answers  agreeing  in  the  main  with  those 
given  by  the  solicitor-general.3 

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  unconceded  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  ?  " 

10.  "  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  ? " 

11.  "By  what  mode  may  such  conversion  of  tenure  be  accomplished  ?" 

1  "  Report  of  the  Solicitor-General  to  the  Honorable  Members  of  the  Council," 
October  5,  1790,  Titles  and  Documents,  i.  27-35. 

2  For  example,  in  declaring  that  the  cens  et  rentes  was  uniform  in  amount.    Cf. 
above,  p.  92. 

8  Titles  and  Documents,  i.  35-39  (October  17,  1790). 


BRITISH  ADMINISTRATION.  2I/ 

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.1 

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  Council,  Titles  and  Documents,  \.  39-43. 


218  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  ungranted  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  council's  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."1 

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 

1  "  Mr.  Mabane's  Reasons  of  Dissent  from  the  Resolutions  and  Motion  of  the 
Chief  Justice  adopted  by  the  Committee  [of  the  Whole  Council],"  Titles  and  Docu- 
ments, \.  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.1  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.2  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.3  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  Prev6t6,  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."  4  From  the  wording  of  the  statute  it  would 
appear  that  the  administrative  as  well  as  the  judicial  au- 

1  See  Dunkin,  Address  at  the  Bar,  etc.,  Appendix. 

2  See  above,  p.  205.  8  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  1711  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  ; 1  but  in  no  case  did  it  assume  to  follow 
up  this  opinion  by  making  such  a  grant  when  the  seignior 
refused  to  do  so.2  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  seigniorial  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.3  The  situation 

1  See,  for  example,  Langlois  vs.  Mattel,  2  Lower  Canada  Reports,  51. 

2  Meredith,  Observations,  113. 

8  "  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.1  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.2 

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  1816,  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,  February  27,  1794,  Titles  and  Documents,  i.  93-95). 

1  31  George  III,  c.  31.    This  act  may  be  conveniently  found  in  Houston's  Con- 
stitutional Documents,  112—133. 

2  Ibid.   §xliii. 


222  BRITISH  ADMINISTRATION1. 

cepting  a  surrender  of  lands  holden  en  seigneurie  and  regranting 
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.1 

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  de 
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  ? z  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  changing 
the  tenure  of  lands.3 

One  other  question,  though  not  so  important,  is  of  interest  as 
showing  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  effecting  a  commutation  of 

1  Bathurst  to  Sherbrooke,  February  6,  1817,  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- 
uary 22,  1817,  and  is  signed  by  the  Hon.  W.  Caron,  attorney-general,  and  the  Hon.  J. 
Shepherd,  solicitor-general. 

2  Sherbrooke  to  Bathurst,  May  20,  1817,  Ibid.  21. 

8  Bathurst  to  Sherbrooke,  August  31,  1817,  Ibid.  21-23.  This  despatch  is  accom- 
panied by  an  opinion  on  the  question,  dated  August  I,  1817,  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.1  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.2 

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." 3  This  enactment,  which  is  commonly 
known  as  the  Canada  Trade  Act,  contained  two  important 
sections  embodying  the  first  legislative  step  toward  the  abo- 
lition of  the  feudal  system  in  Canada.4 

1  31  George  III,  c.  31,  §  xxxvi.  2  Cf.  below,  p.  224. 

8  3  George  IV,  c.  119.  The  sections  of  this  act  relating  to  the  commutation  of 
land  tenure  are  printed  in  Edicts,  Ordinances,  Declarations,  and  Decrees  relative  to 
the  Seigniorial  Tenure  (Quebec,  1852),  290-291. 

4  Sections  xxxi-xxxii. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

ABOLITION    OF  THE    SEIGNIORIAL   SYSTEM. 

IT  was  the  design  of  the  Canada  Trade  Act  of  1822  to  make 
possible  the  voluntary  commutation  of  the  tenure  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.1 

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,1  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 
seignior  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  titre  de  fief,  en  arriere-fief,  or  a  titre  de  cens,  to  consent  to 
grant  to  such  censitaires  "a  commutation,  release,  and  extin- 
guishment of  and  from  tne  droit  de  quint  ...  or  droit  de  lods 
et  ventes"  as  the  case  might  be,  and  from  "  all  other  feudal 
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."  z  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  seigniors  to  carry  into  effect  a 
change  of  tenure  from  which  considerable  public  advantage" 
might  be  anticipated.3 

1  "  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Extinction  of  Feudal  and  Seigniorial  Rights  and 
Burdens  on  Lands  held  a  titre  de  Jief&nd  a  titre  de  cens,  in  the  Province  of  Lower 
Canada  ;    and  for  the   gradual   Conversion  of  those  Tenures  into   the    Tenure  of 
Free  and  Common  Socage;   and  for  other  purposes  relating  to  the  said  Province" 
(6  George  IV,  c.  59). 

2  Section  iii. 

8  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  seigniors  might  take  ad- 
vantage of  these  provisions  on  very  liberal  terms.1  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  few 
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.2 

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  and  the  Governors  of  Canada  relative  to  the  Seigniorial  and  Feudal  Tenure 
(1853),  24-25. 

1  Quebec  Official  Gazette,  April  20,  1826,  p.  380. 

2  Dalhousie  to  Bathurst,  June  19,  1826,  Correspondence  between  the  Colonial  Office 
and  the  Governors  of  Canada,  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.1  In  response,  instructions  were  given  that  a 
double  rate  —  ten  per  cent  on  the  gross  value  of  the  lots  — 
should  be  exacted  in  commuting  the  dues  of  lands  lying  within 
the  limits  of  municipalities.2 

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.3  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  Dalhousie  to  Bathurst,  June  19,  1826,  Correspondence,  etc.,  27. 

2  Bathurst  to  Dalhousie,  August  31,  1826,  Ibid. 
8  October  30,  1826,  Ibid.  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.1 

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."  2 

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 


1  Aylmer  to  Murray,  December  19,  1830,  Correspondence,  etc.,  28-29. 

2  Goderich  to  Aylmer,  March  13,  1831,  Ibid.  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."  l 

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.2  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 
desirable.3  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, 
1831,  the  lower  house  proceeded  to  action  as  if  the  imperial 

1  Lower  Canada,  Assembly  Journals,  March  24,  1831. 

2  Aylmer  to  Goderich,  April  7,  1831,  Correspondence,  etc.,  30. 

8  I&2  William  IV,  c.  20.  This  act  was  passed  on  March  30,  1831,  and  was 
officially  promulgated  in  the  Quebec  Gazette  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  1791,  in  all  of  which  the  inhabitants  had  been 
assured  of  "  a  right  to  grants  of  sufficient  portions  of  wild  lands 
held  from  the  crown  a  titre  de  fief,  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  circumstances,  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." x 

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  a  titre  de  fief 'and  a  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.2  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.3 

1  Lower  Canada,  Assembly  Journals,  January  28,  1832. 

2  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. 

3  Lower  Canada,  Council  Journals,  February  12,  1832. 


ABOLITION  OF  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM,  231 

Baffled  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.1  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."  2  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."3  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." 4  These  returns,  which  were  duly  forthcoming 
in  the  spring  of  i833,5  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.6 

In  the  early  part  of  1834,  however,  the  assembly  adopted  the 

1  Lower  Canada,  Assembly  Journals,  February  16,  1832. 

2  Ibid.  February  25,  1832.  8  Ibid.  December  7,  1832. 
*  Ibid.  November  24,  1832. 

6  Ibid.  March  22,  1833. 

6  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.1  Seven  of  these  resolutions  were  devoted 
to  a  condemnation  of  the  existing  policy  in  relation  to  land  ten- 
ure.2 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."3  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,4  and  passed  a  bill 
similar  to  that  which  had  been  thrown  out  by  the  Legislative 
Council  in  i832.5 

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  will  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  titles  and 
advantages  acquired  under  either  of  the  acts  are  to  be  held 
valid."6 

This  report  was  undoubtedly  right  in  declaring  that  the  main 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  a  proper  settlement  of  the  whole  ques- 

1  These  resolutions  are  printed  in  Kingsford,  History  of  Canada,  ix.  544-554. 

2  Resolutions  56-62.  8  Resolution  62. 

4  January  28,  1832.     See  above,  p.  229.  6  Assembly  Journals,  March  I,  1836. 

6  Report  of  the  Commissioners,  1836,  ch.  ii.  §  xx. 


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.1  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.2 

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  discussion  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- Government  in  Canada,  chs.  ii— iv. 

2  See  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  great 
weight  with  the  people,  especially  since  they  insisted  that  the 
new  law  was  all  in  the  seignior's  favor.  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.1  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.1 

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  off  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 

1  Cf.  Bradshaw,  Self-  Government  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.1 

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  eminently 
to  qualify  him  for  the  work  in  hand.  Durham  arrived  in  the 

1  For  the  course  of  events  during  the  year  1837-38,  see  Christie,  History  of  Lower 
Canada,  vol.  iv  ;  Kingsford,  History  of  Canada,  vol.  ix  ;  Dent,  The  Upper  Canadian 
Rebellion;  Lindsey,  William  Lyon  Mackenzie;  Richardson,  Eight  Years  in 
Canada;  Theller,  Canada  in  1837-1838;  Read,  Rebellion  0/1837. 


ABOLITION  OF  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  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.1  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."  2 

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  1826;  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 

1  The  only  biography  of  Lord  Durham  is  by  Stuart  J.  Reid,  The  Life  and  Letters 
of  the  First  Earl  of  Durham  (2  vols.,  London,  1906). 

2  Report  on  the  Affairs  of  British  North  America  (London,  1839),  "  by  the  Earl 
of  Durham,  Her  Majesty's  High  Commissioner,"  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  Buller,  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 
this  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.1  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.2  To  this  request  Governor  Bagot 
acceded,  naming  Messrs.  Buchanan,  Taschereau,  and  Smith 
as  members  of  the  commission  desired.3  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's   Con- 
stitutional Documents,  149-173. 

2  Canada,  Assembly  Journals,  September  7,  1841. 

3  The  governor  first  appointed  Messrs.  Vanfelson,  McCord,  and  Doucet ;  but  for 
some  reason  these  gentlemen  declined  to  serve. 


240  ABOLITION  OF  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM. 

amount  of  interesting  and  valuable  information  relating  to  the 
subject  of  their  inquiry.1 

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  Arrets  of  Marly  (i/n)  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 
arretsof  1711  .  .  .  by  which  seigniors  are  bound  to  grant  lands 
to  such  persons  as  apply  for  them,  subject  only  to  the  accus- 
tomed rates  and  dues."2 

1  "  Report  of  the  Commissioners  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  state  of  the  laws 
and  other  circumstances  connected  with  the  Seigniorial  Tenure,"  1843,  Titles  and 
Documents,  \.  45-91.     A  number  of  interesting  documents  are  printed  as  an  appendix 
to  this  report  {Ibid.  92-210). 

2  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's 
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. 


ABOLITION  OF  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM.          241 

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  1 843  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  SYSTEM. 

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. 
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  facilitate  optional  Com- 
mutation of  the  Tenure  of  Lands  en  roture  in  the  Seigniories 
and  Fiefs  of  Lower  Canada,  into  that  si  franc  aleu  roturier"  1 
Some  four  years  later  this  act  was  amended  in  a  few  slight  par- 
ticulars.2 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.  3  Ibid.  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.1  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  corv6e,  which  in  many  cases  had  not  been  exacted  for 
several  years ;  the  right  vifour  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  seigniors  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  commutations  were  as  follows  :  Ste.  Anne  de  la  Perade,  December  28, 
1830  ;  Beauharnois,  March  10,  1833;  Lotbiniere,  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-Etang, 
February  4,  1846.  This  list  is  printed  in  Correspondence  between  the  Colonial  Office 
and  the  Governors  of  Canada,  etc.(i853),  37. 


244  ABOLITION  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.1 

That  a  plan  of  commutation  might  be  drafted  along  these 
lines,  the  assembly  in  the  spring  of  1851  appointed  a  special 
committee  to  which  it  delegated  this  task.2  The  committee, 
after  a  number  of  sessions  and  hearings,  presented  its  report,3 
together  with  the  draft  of  a  bill ; 4  but  the  legislation  outlined 
was  not  regarded  as  satisfactory  by  the  leaders  of  the  house, 
and  action  upon  it  was  accordingly  postponed.6  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.6 

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 

1  Canada,  Assembly  Journals,  June  26,  1850. 

2  The  members  of  this  committee  were  the  Hon.  L.  T.  Drummond,  chairman,  and 
Messrs.  Armstrong,  Badgley,  Boutillier,  La  Terriere,  and  Lemieux. 

8  Troisieme  Rapport  et  Deliberations  du  Comite  Special  de  I'Assemblee  Legislative 
.  .  .  au  Sujet  de  la  Tenure  Seigneuriale  (1851). 

*  "  Acte  pour  definir  certains  droits  des  seigneurs  et  des  censitaires  dans  le  Bas-- 
Canada,  et  pour  en  faciliter  Pexercice,"  Ibid.  Appendix  A. 

6  Cf.  The  Seigniorial  Question :  its  present  Position  (1854),  "by  a  member  of  the 
Legislative  Assembly  from  Upper  Canada"  [Sir  Francis  Hincks]. 

6  Canada,  Assembly  Journals,  February  14  to  June  14,  1853,  passim. 


ABOLITION  OF  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM.          245 

power.1  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,  1854.2* 

In  the  first  place,  the  act  of  1854  repealed  entirely  the  acts 
of  1845  and  i849,3  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.4 

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,  1849  to  1859;  Dent,   The   Last  Forty 
Years,  vol.  ii,  chs.  xxix-xxxvi  ;    David,  L?  Union  des  Deux  Canadas  ;  and  Turcotte, 
Le  Canada  sous  F  Union,  vol.  ii. 

2  18  Victoria,  c.  3. 

3  8  Victoria,  c.  42,  and  12  Victoria,  c.  49.     See  above,  p.  242. 
*  Sections  ii-v. 


246  ABOLITION1  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.1  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  ventes,  or  alienation  fines.2 
In  determining  the  value  of  the  banal  rights,  they  were  to 
"estimate  the  probable  decrease  (if  any)  in  the  net  yearly 
income  of  the  seignior  arising  from  the  loss  of  such  rights." 3 
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  agree 
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  Sundays,"  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.4 

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.5  The  governor- 

1  Section  vi.  I.  2  Section  vi.  2.  8  Section  vi.  5. 

4  Sections  vii-ix.  6  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.1 

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.2  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  banalite", 
droit  de  retrait,  and  other  feudal  or  seigniorial  dues,  except  the 
rente  constitute,  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  franc  aleu  roturier  ... 
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."  3 

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.4 

1  Section  xii.  2  Section  xiii.  *  Section  xiv.  *  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  filed.1 

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.2  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. 

1  Section  xvi. 

2  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. 


ABOLITION  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.1  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.2 
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,  the  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.3  A  careful  reading  of  these  opinions 

1  Among  the  counsel  were,  in  addition  to  the  attorney-general  (who  was,  unfortu- 
nately, prevented  by  illness  from  attending  most  of  the  sessions),  Messrs.  F.   R. 
Angers,  E.  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. 

2  These  are  printed  as  Proceedings  of  the  Special  Seigniorial  Court  held  under  the 
authority  of  the  Seigniorial  Act  of  1854  (Quebec,  1856). 

8  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.1  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.2 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.3  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). 

2  In  some  cases,  however,  the  amounts  were  not  paid  over  to  the  seigniors  until 
as  late  as  1864. 

8  Act  of  1854,  §xxxv. 

4  After  the  suppression  of  the  Jesuit  order  by  Pope  Clement  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  1814,  the  order  was  reestablished  by  Pope  Pius 
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 
still  held.  See  Thwaites,y<r.r«jV  Relations  and  Allied  Documents,  Ixxi.  392-393. 


ABOLITION  OF  THE  SEIGNIORIAL  SYSTEM.          251 

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  the  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  constitute  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  Generate.  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 
Ministere  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 


254  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX. 

As  yet  but  a  very  small  portion  of  this  Correspondance  Generate  has  been 
rendered  available  in  printed  form.  Extracts  from  a  large  number  of  the 
documents  have  been  printed  in  the  Collection  de  Manuscrits  contenani 
Lettres,  Memoires,  et  autres  Documents  Historiques  relatifs  a  la  Nouvelle- 
France,  recueillis  aux  archives  de  la  Province  de  Quebec,  ou  copies  a 
retranger  (4  vols.,  Quebec,  1883-1885)  ;  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  Memoirs  inedits, 
pour  servir  a  rHistoire  de  la  France  dans  les  Pays  d"1  Outre  Mer,  tires 
des  archives  du  Ministere  de  la  Marine  et  des  Colonies  (Paris,  1865), 
and  in  his  Decouvertes  et  Etablissements  des  Fran$ais  dans  I"1  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  a  rHistoire  .  .  .  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  Fernow,  15  vols.,  New  York,  1853-1883). 

In  1851  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 betuieen  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.  IQ  I^5I  tne  Legislative 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  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  Generale  is  the  collec- 
tion of  Edits,  Ordonnances  Royaitx,  Declarations,  et  Arrets  du  Conseil 
d"1  Etat  du  Roi  concernant  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  of  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  Reglements  du  Conseil  Superieur  de  Quebec,  and  the  Ordonnances  et 
Jugements  des  Intendants  du  Canada,  the  latter  comprising  the  period 
1705-1759  only.  The  third  volume,  which  is  entitled  Complement  des 
Ordonnances  et  Jugements  des  Gouverneurs  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  1851  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  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX. 

1716  have  been  printed  \r\Jugements  et  Deliberations  du  Conseil  Souve- 
rain  de  la  Nouvelle- France  (6  vols.,  Quebec,  1885-1891),  a  compilation 
which  is  a  model  of  scholarly  editing.  The  registers  of  the  royal  court 
of  the  Pr£vot6  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 
Pr£vot£  at  Quebec  may  be  found  in  J.  F.  Perrault's  Extraits  ou  Prece- 
dents, tires  des  Registres  de  la  Prevoste  de  Quebec  (Quebec,  1824). 
It  is  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the  Old  Council  (fancien  conseil}, 
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 
1713.  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  1791,  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  passed  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  very  important  publication  appeared, 
entitled  Pieces  et  Documents  relatifs  a  la  Tenure  Seigneuriale  (2  vols., 
Quebec).  An  English  edition  containing  substantially  the  same  mate- 
rial, but  differently  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  Canada  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  title-deeds  of  over  three  hundred  of  the  most  important 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX. 

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  Hom- 
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  of  the  Censuses  of  Canada, 
1665-1871  (Ottawa,  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  abreges  des  Seigneuries  du  District 
de  Quebec,  2  vols. ;  Cadastres  abreges  des  Seigneuries  du  District  de 
Montreal,  3  vols. ;  Cadastres  abreges  des  Seigneuries  des  Trois-Rivieres, 
i  vol. ;  Cadastres  abreges  des  Seigneuries  appartenant  a  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,  1831),  and  the  same  writer's  earlier  volume,  Description  Topo- 
graphique  de  la  Province  du  B as- Canada  (London,  1815). 

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  1772-1773  (see  above,  p. 
198,  note).  F.  J.  Cugnet's  Traite  de  la  Lot  des  Fiefs  (Quebec,  1775) 
and  Traite  de  la  Police  (Quebec,  1 7  75 )  are  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  Maseres'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  Maseres,  —  A  Collection  of  several  Commis- 
sions and  other  public  Instruments  .  .  .  relating  to  the  State  of  the 
Province  of  Quebec  (London,  1772),  Additional  Papers  concerning  the 


258  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX. 

Province  of  Quebec  (London,  1776),  and  An  Account  of  the  Proceed- 
ings of  the  British  and  other  Inhabitants  of  Quebec  (London,  1775). 
Mention  may  also  be  made  of  James  Marriott's  Plan  of  a  Code  of  Laws 
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,  1792-1837  (53 
vols.)  ;  and  the  proceedings  of  the  Legislative  Council  relating  to  the 
same  subject  are  on  record  in  Journals  of  the  Legislative  Council  of 
Lower  Canada,  1792-1837  (25  vols.).  The  parliamentary  proceedings 
leading  toward  the  abolition  of  the  seigniorial  tenure  in  1854  are 
printed  in  full  vs.  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 
r Assembles  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  (1834-1837)  ;  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  VAssemblee  Legislative- 
(Quebec,  1851),  which  handles  well  some  details  of  the  seigniorial 
system.  The  famous  Report  on  the  Affairs  of  British  North  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  every  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,  1841-1866  ;  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  cursory  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,  1817)  ;  John  Martin's  Travels  in  Canada 
(London,  1824);  and  Sir  Francis  Head's  Emigrant  (London,  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.  Tache',  A  Plan  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,  Quelques  Avis  d'un 
Cultivateur  aux  Censitaires  du  Bas-  Canada  au  sujetde  la  Lot  d'' Abolition 
de  la  Tenure  Seigneuriale  (Quebec,  1855)  ;  Paie,  Pauvre  Peuple,  Paie  ! 
"parle  Frere  de  Jean-Baptiste  "  (Quebec,  1855);  and  the  pamphlet 
containing  the  proceedings  of  La  Convention  Anti- Seigneuriale  de  Mon- 
treal (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  behalf  of  certain  Seigniors  in  Lower 


260  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX. 

Canada,  against  the  Second  Reading  of  the  Bill  for  the  Abolition  of  the 
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  arretof  1711  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.  249),  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),  and  C.  S.  Cherrier,  Memoire  contenant  un  Resume  du 
Plaidoyer  .  .  .  sur  les  Questions  soumises  a  la  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),  and  by  F.  R.  Angers, 
Resume  de  la  Plaidoirie  .  .  .  a  FAppui  des  Propositions  soumises  a  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 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  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  Lelievre  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  most 
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  facts  has  seemed  to  compel  divergence. 

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  fact  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  Observations,  various 
phases  of  the  questions  at  varying  lengths ;  but  on  the  whole  these  dis- 
cussions add  surprisingly  little  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, 
Caron,  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  fact  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  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  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  Canadiens-Frangais  (8  vols.,  Montreal,  1882- 
1884)  ;  while  works  of  prime  value  on  the  genealogy  of  the  seigniors  and 
the  noblesse  in  New  France  are  Francois  Daniel's  Histoire  des  Grandes 
Families  Frangaises  du  Canada  (Montreal,  1867),  and  Cyprien  Tanguay's 
Dictionnaire  Genealogique  des  Families  Canadiennes  depuis  la  Fondation 
de  la  Colonie  jusqu*  a  no s  jours  (7  vols.,  Montreal,  1871-1890).  Tan- 
guay's Repertoire  General  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  jusqu1  a  nos  jours  (2  vols.,  Montreal,  1888-1889)  ;  Doutre  and 
Lareau's  Histoire  Generale  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  FAncien  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  The 
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  Generale 
de  la  Nouvelle- France  (ed.  J.  G.  Shea,  6  vols.,  New  York,  1866-1872)  ; 
Gabriel  Sagard's  Histoire  du  Canada  (ed.  E.  Tross,  4  vols.,  Paris,  1865- 
1866)  ;  and  Nicholas  Denys's  Description  Geographique  et  Historique 
des  Cosies  dePAmerique  Septentrionale  (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  North 
America  (2  vols.,  London,  1772). 

The  later  historians  have  paid  very  little  attention  to  the  seigniorial 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX.  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,  1815),  containing  a  number 
of  documents  not  elsewhere  published;  F.  X.  Garneau'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  The  Last  Forty 
Years  (2  vols.,  Toronto,  1881)  ;  Sir  Francis  Hincks's  Reminiscences 
(Montreal,  1884)  ;  and  F.  Bradshaw's  Self -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  Le  Comte 
de  Frontenac  (Paris,  1895)  ;  Thomas  Chapais's  Jean  Talon  (Quebec, 
1904)  ;  Gabriel  Gravier'sZa  Salle  (Paris,  1871)  ;  and  Auguste  Gosselin's 
Vie  de  Laval  (2  vols.,  Quebec,  1890)  zx&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  Litteraires  (Montreal,  1871)  a 
short  chapter  entitled  "  De  la  Fe'odalite'  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  Encyclopedia  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,  1889);  F.  X.  Gatien's  Histoire  de  la  Paroisse 


264  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX. 

du  Cap-Sante  (Quebec,  1884);  Benjamin  Suite's  Chronique  Trifluvienne 
(Montreal,  1879)  ;  and  Robert  Sellar's  History  of  Huntingdon,  Chateau- 
gay,  and  Beauharnois  (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 
Gaspers  Les  Anciens  Canadiens  (Quebec,  1863)  ;  H.  R.  Casgrain's 
Une  Paroisse  Canadienne  au  xviie  Siecle  (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  are 
"  La  Tenure  Seigneuriale  "  by  Benjamin  Suite,  in  Revue  Canadienne, 
July-August,  1882  ;  "The  French  Canadian  Peasantry"  by  Prosper 
lender,  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,  May-September,  1885;  "The  Droit 
de  Banalit^  during  the  French  Regime  in  Canada"  by  W.  B.  Munro,  in 
American  Historical  Association,  Report  tot  1899;  and  "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  Bibliotheque  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  Ferriere,  Corps  et  Compilation  de  tous  les  Commentateurs 
Anciens  et  Modernes  sur  la  Coutume  de  Paris  (4  vols.,  Paris,  1714)  ; 
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  PAncienne  Coutume  de  Paris"  by  H.  Buche, 
in  the  Nouvelle  Revue  Historique  du  Droit  Fran$ais,  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  Traite  Historique  et  Pratique  des  Droits  Seigneuriaux 
(Paris,  1765)  ;  F.  Boutaric's  Traite  des  Seigneuries  et  des  Matieres 
Feodales  (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  Franc,ais  (Paris,  1893),  and  the  same  author's  Histoire 
des  Institutions  Politiques  et  Administratives  de  la  France  (3  vols.,  Paris, 
1890-1903);  Achille  Luchaire's  Manuel  des  Institutions  Francises 
(Paris,  1 89 2)  ;  Adh£mar  Esmein's  Cours  Elementaire  d 'Histoire  du  Droit 
Franc,ais  (Paris,  1905);  Jean  Brissaud's  Manuel  d1  Histoire  du  Droit 
Fran$ais  (Paris,  1898  and  1904)  ;  and  E.  D.  Glasson's  Precis  Elementaire 
de  r Histoire  du  Droit  Fran$ais  (Paris,  1904).  On  the  various  incidents 
of  French  seigniorialism,  important  sources  of  detailed  information  are 
Herve's  Theorie  des  Matieres  Feodales  et  Censuelles  (8  vols.,  Paris,  1785- 
1788);  Henrion  de  Pansey's  Dissertations  Feodales  (2  vols.,  Paris, 
1789);  Championniere's  De  la  Propriete  des  Eaux  Courantes  (Paris, 
1846)  ;  Nicholas  Brussel's  Nouvel  Examen  de  r  Usage  General  des  Fiefs 
en  France  (2  vols.,  Paris,  1727)  ;  and  Salvaing  de  Boissieu's  De  P  Usage 
des  Fiefs  et  autres  Dro its  Seigneuriaux  (Grenoble,  1731). 

The  ordinances  of  the  French  kings  may  be  found  in  Ordonnances  des 
Rois  de  France  de  la  Troisieme  Race  (22  vols.,  Paris,  1729-1849),  and 
in  Isambert's  Recueil  General  des  Anciennes  Lois  Frangaises  depuis  Van 
42ojusqu''a  la  Revolution  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   MATERIALS. 

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- 
^rnours-general  and  Intendants  of  the  said  Province,  during  the  same  Period. 
By  "  Francis  Joseph  Cugnet,  Esquire,  Secretary  to  the  Governour  and  Council 
of  the  said  Province,  for  the  French  Language."  4  parts  in  i  vol.  London, 
1772-1773. 

ANGERS,  F.  R.  Re'sume*  de  la  Plaidoirie  ...  a  1'Appui  des  Propositions 
soumises  a  la  Cour  par  le  Procureur-Ge'ne'ral.  Montreal,  1855. 

AVENEL,  G.  D'.  Histoire  Economique  de  la  Proprie'te',  des  Salaires,  des 
Denrees,  et  de  tous  les  Prix  en  ge'ne'ral  depuis  1'an  1200  jusqu'en  Pan  1800. 
4  vols.  Paris,  1894-1898. 

AVENEL,  G.  D'.  Richelieu  et  la  Monarchic  Absolue.  4  vols.  Paris,  1884- 
1890. 

BABY,  JUDGE.  L'Exode  des  Classes  Dirigeantes  a  la  Cession  du  Canada. 
Montreal,  1899. 

BENDER,  P.  The  French-Canadian  Peasantry.  Magazine  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  1'Usage  des  Fiefs  et  autres  Droits  Seigneuriaux. 
Grenoble,  1731. 

BOUCHETTE,  J.  British  Dominions  in  North  America.  2  vols.  London, 
1831. 

BOUCHETTE,  J.  Description  Topographique  de  la  Province  du  Bas- 
Canada.  London,  1815. 

BOULLEE,  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 


268  ALPHABETICAL  LIST. 

BOURJON,  F.  Le  Droit  Commun  de  la  France  et  la  Coutume  de  Paris 
rdduits  en  Principes.  2  vols.  Paris,  1770. 

BOUTARIC,  F.  Traite*  des  Seigneuries  et  des  Matieres  Fe'odales.  Tou- 
louse, 1774. 

BRADSHAW,  F.     Self-Government  in  Canada.     London,  1903. 

BREVETS  DE  RATIFICATION.     Quebec,  1853. 

BRISSAUD,  J.     Manuel  d'Histoire  du  Droit  Fran9ais.     Paris,  iSgS-fio/^]. 

BRUSSEL,  N.  Nouvel  Examen  de  TUsage  Ge'ne'ral  des  Fiefs  en  France. 
2  vols.  Paris,  1727. 

BRYMNER,  D.  Reports  on  Canadian  Archives.  18  vols.  Ottawa,  1872- 
1903. 

BUCHE,  H.  Essai  sur  1'Ancienne  Coutume  de  Paris  aux  xiiie  et  xive 
Siecles.  Nouvelle  Revue  Historique,  viii.  45-86,  ix.  558-579.  Paris,  1884- 
1885. 

CADASTRES  abre'ge's  des  Seigneuries  du  District  de  Quebec,  2  vols. ; 
Cadastres  abrdges  des  Seigneuries  du  District  de  Montreal,  3  vols. ;  Cadas- 
tres abre'ge's  des  Seigneuries  des  Trois-Rivieres  ;  Cadastres  abre'ge's  des  Seign- 
euries appartenant  a  la  Couronne.  7  vols.  Quebec,  1836. 

CANADA.    Statutes,  1841-1866.     1 6  vols. 

CASGRAIN,  H.  R.  Une  Paroisse  Canadienne  au  xviie  Siecle.  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. 

CHAMPIONNIERE,  P.  L.    De  la  Proprie'te'  des  Eaux  Courantes.   Paris,  1846. 

CHAP  ATS,  T.    Jean  Talon,  Intendant  de  la  Nouvelle-France.    Quebec,  1904. 

CHARLEVOIX,  F.  X.  Histoire  et  Description  Ge'ne'ral  de  la  Nouvelle- 
France.  Edited  by  John  Gilmary  Shea.  6  vols.  New  York,  1866-1872. 

CHAUVEAU,  P.  J.  O.  Notice  sur  la  Publication  des  Registres  du  Conseil 
Souverain  de  Qudbec.  Quebec,  1885. 

CHERRIER,  C.  S.  Mdmoire  contenant  un  Re'sume'  du  Plaidoyer  .  .  .  sur 
les  Questions  soumises  a  la  Decision  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  Mdmoires  de  Colbert.  7  vols. 
Paris,  1861-1870. 

COFFIN,  V.  The  Province  of  Quebec  and  the  Early  American  Revolution. 
Madison,  Wisconsin,  1896. 

COLLECTION  de  Manuscrits  contenant  Lettres,  Mdmoires,  et  autres  Docu- 
ments Historiques  relatifs  a  la  Nouvelle-France,  recueillis  aux  archives  de  la 
Province  de  Quebec,  ou  copies  a  l'e"tranger.  4  vols.  Quebec,  1883-1885. 


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.     Traite  de  la  Loi  des  Fiefs.     Quebec,  1775. 

CUGNET,  F.  J.     Traite  de  la  Police.     Quebec,  1775. 

DANIEL,  F.  Histoire  des  Grandes  Families  Fran?aises  du  Canada. 
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.     L'Union  dex  Deux-Canadas.     Montreal,  1898. 

DEB  ATS  dans  PAssemblee  Legislative  sur  la  Tenure  Seigneuriale.     Quebec, 

1853- 

DENT,  J.  C.     The  Last  Forty  Years.     2  vols.     Toronto,  1 88 1. 

DENYS,  N.  Description  Geographique  et  Historique  des  Costes  de  I'Ame'- 
rique  Septentrionale.  2  vols.  Paris,  1672. 

DOUGHTY,  A.  G.  Reports  on  Canadian  Archives.  2  vols.  Ottawa,  1904- 
1906. 

DOUTRE,  J.,  and  LAREAU,  E.  Histoire  Gdndrale  du  Droit  Civil  Canadien. 
Montreal,  1872. 

DUMESNIL,  C.  De  PAbolition  des  Droits  Fdodaux  et  Seigneuriaux  en 
Canada.  Quebec,  1855. 

DUMOULIN,  C.  Coutumes  de  la  Pre'vdte'  et  Vicomte'  de  Paris.  Paris, 
1539.  —  New  edition.  Paris,  1 68 1. 

DUNKIN,  C.  Address  at  the  Bar  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  Canada 
on  behalf  of  certain  Seigniors  in  Lower  Canada,  against  the  Second  Reading 
of  the  Bill  for  the  Abolition  of  the  Seigniorial  Tenure.  Quebec,  1853. 

DUNK.IN,  C.     Case  of  the  Seigniors  of  Lower  Canada.     Montreal,  1855. 

DURHAM,  EARL  OF.  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 
Tenure.  Quebec,  1852. 

EDITS,  Ordonnances  Royaux,  Declarations,  et  Arrets  du  Conseil  d'Etat 
du  Roi  concernant  le  Canada.  2  vols.  Quebec,  1803-1806.  —  New  edition, 
enlarged  and  improved.  3  vols.  Quebec,  1854-1856. 

ESMEIN,  A.     Cours  Ele'mentaire  d'Histoire  du  Droit  Fran9ais.    Paris,  1905. 

FAILLON,  M.  E.  Histoire  de  la  Colonie  Fran9aise  en  Canada.  3  vols. 
Ville-Marie,  1865-1866. 

FERLAND,  J.  B.  A.  Cours  d'Histoire  du  Canada.  2  vols.  Quebec,  1 86 1- 
1865. 


2/0  ALPHABETICAL  LIST. 

FERRIERE,  CLAUDE.  Corps  et  Compilation  de  tout  les  Commentateurs 
Anciens  et  Modernes  sur  la  Coutume  de  Paris.  4  vols.  Paris,  1714. 

FUSTEL  DE  COULANGES,  N.  D.  La  Justice  dans  la  Socie'te'  Feodale.  Revue 
des  Deux  Mondes,  xcii.  274-298.  Paris,  1871. 

GARNEAU,  F.  X.     Histoire  du  Canada.     4  vols.     Montreal,  1882-1883. 

GASPE,  P.  A.  DE.     Les  Anciens  Canadiens.     Quebec,  1863. 

GATIEN,  F.  X.     Histoire  de  la  Paroisse  du  Cap-Sante'.     Quebec,  1884. 

GLASSON,  E.  D.  Precis  Elementaire  de  1'Histoire  du  Droit  Francais. 
Paris,  1904. 

GOSSELIN,  A.  Les  Normands  au  Canada:  Jean  Bourdon  et  son  ami 
1'Abbe  de  Saint-Sauveur.  Quebec,  1904. 

GOSSELIN,  A.  Vie  de  Mgr.  de  Laval,  premier  Eveque  de  Quebec  et  Apotre 
du  Canada.  2  vols.  Quebec,  1890. 

GRANDE  ENCYCLOPEDIE.    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,  W.  P.     Canadian  Folk-Life  and  Folk-Lore.     New  York,  1897. 

HAKLUYT,  R.  A  Discourse  on  Western  Planting,  written  in  1584.  (Maine 
Historical  Society,  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  a  1'Histoire  .  .  .  de  la  Nouvelle-France. 
Paris,  1872. 

HEAD,  SIR  F.  B.     The  Emigrant.     London,  1847. 

HENRION  DE  PANSEY,  P.  P.  N.  Dissertations  Fdodales.  2  vols.  Paris, 
1789. 

HERIOT,  G.     Travels  through  the  Canadas.     London,  1807. 

HERVE,  M.  T.  Theorie  des  Matieres  Fe'odales  et  Censuelles.  8  vols. 
Paris,  1785-1788. 

HINCKS,  SIR  F.     Reminiscences  of  his  Public  Life.     Montreal,  1884. 

[HiNCKS,  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  Encyclopaedia  of  the  Country.  5  vols. 
Toronto,  1898-1900. 

HOUSTON,  W.  Documents  Illustrative  of  the  Canadian  Constitution. 
Toronto,  1891. 

ISAMBERT,  F.  A.  Recueil  Ge'ne'ral  des  Anciennes  Lois  Francaises  depuis 
Tan  420  jusqu'a  la  Revolution  de  1789.  30  vols.  Paris,  1822-1833. 

J  EAN-B APTISTE,  LE  FRERE  DE.  Paie,  Pauvre  Peuple,  Paie!  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,  1665-1871.  Ottawa, 
1876. 


ALPHABETICAL  LIST.  2/1 

JOURNALS  of  the  House  of  Assembly  of  Lower  Canada,  1792-1837.  53 
vols. 

JOURNALS  of  the  Legislative  Council  of  Lower  Canada,  1792-1837.  25 
vols. 

JOURNALS  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  Canada,  1841-1866.    48  vols. 

JOURNALS  of  the  Legislative  Council  of  Canada,  1841-1866.    44  vols. 

JUGEMENTS  et  Deliberations  du  Conseil  Souverain  de  la  Nouvelle- France. 
6  vols.  Quebec,  1885-1891.  —  In  Vol.  V  the  title  is  changed  to  "  Jugements 
et  Deliberations  du  Conseil  Supe"rieur  de  Quebec." 

KALM,  P.     Travels  into  North  America.     2  vols.     London,  1772. 

KIERKOWSKI,  A.  The  Question  of  the  Seigniorial  Tenure  in  Lower  Can- 
ada reduced  to  a  Question  of  Landed  Credit.  Quebec,  1850. 

KINGSFORD,  W.     History  of  Canada.     10  vols.     Toronto,  1887-1898. 

KIRBY,  W.  The  Chien  d'Or  :  The  Golden  Dog,  a  Legend  of  Quebec. 
New  York,  etc.,  1877. 

KIRK.E,  H.     The  First  English  Conquest  of  Canada.     London,  1871. 

KLIMRATH,  H.     Etudes  sur  les  Coutumes.     Paris,  1837. 

LAFONTAINE,  SIR  L.  H.  Observations.  Printed  in  Lower  Canada  Re- 
ports: Seigniorial  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,  E.  Histoire  du  Droit  Canadien,  depuis  les  Origines  de  la  Colonie 
jusqu'a  nos  jours.  2  vols.  Montreal,  1888-1889. 

LAREAU,  E.     Melanges  Historiques  et  Litte'raires.     Montreal,  1871. 

LAROCHEFOUCAULT-LIANCOURT,  F.  A.  F.  DE.  Travels  in  the  United 
States  .  .  .  with  an  authentic  account  of  Lower  Canada.  4  vols.  London, 
1803. 

LAVELEYE,  E.  DE.  De  la  Propriety  et  de  ses  Formes  Primitives.  Paris, 
1874- 

LE  BLANC  (or  LEBLANC),  F.  Traite"  Historique  des  Monnoyes  de  France. 
Amsterdam,  1692. 

LE  MOINE,  J.  M.     Chronicles  of  the  St.  Lawrence.     Montreal,  etc.,  1878. 

LE  MOINE,  J.  M.     Maple  Leaves.     7  series.     Quebec,  1863-1906. 

LEROY-BEAULIEU,  P.  De  la  Colonisation  chez  les  Peuples  Modernes.  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  Coutumieres.     Paris,  1688. 

LORANGER,  T.  J.  J.  Me*moire  compos^  de  la  Plaidoirie  .  .  .  devant  la 
Cour  Seigneuriale.  Montreal,  1855. 

LORIN,  H.     Le  Comte  de  Frontenac.     Paris,  1895. 


2/2  ALPHABETICAL  LIST. 

LOWER  CANADA  REPORTS.  Decisions  des  Tribunaux  du  Bas-Canada  : 
Seigniorial  Questions.  Edited  by  Messrs.  Lelievre  and  Angers.  3  vols. 
Quebec,  etc.,  1856. 

LUCHAIRE,  A.     Manuel  des  Institutions  Francaises.     Paris,  1892. 

MACKAY,  R.  The  Case  in  Part  of  the  Seigniors  of  Lower  Canada. 
Montreal,  1855. 

MCCARTHY,  J.  Dictionnaire  de  1'Ancien  Droit  du  Canada.  Quebec, 
1809. 

MAITLAND,  F.  W.     Domesday  Book  and  Beyond.     London,  1897. 

MANDEMENTS,  Lettres  Pastorales,  et  Circulaires  des  Eveques  de  Quebec. 
Edited  by  Messrs.  H.  Tetu  and  C.  O.  Gagnon.  6  vols.  Quebec,  1887-1890. 

MANESSE,  L.     Les  Paysans  et  leurs  Seigneurs  avant  1 789.     Paris,  1895. 

MARGRY,  P.  Decouvertes  et  Etablissements  des  Fran9ais  dans  TOuest. 
6  vols.  Paris,  1879-1888. 

MARGRY,  P.  Relations  et  Memoires  ine"dits,  pour  servir  a  THistoire  de  la 
France  dans  les  Pays  d'Outre  Mer,  tires  des  archives  du  Ministere  de  la 
Marine  et  des  Colonies.  Paris,  1865. 

MARIE  DE  L'INCARNATION,  MERE.    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,  [1771]. 

MONTESQUIEU,  BARON  DE.  The  Spirit  of  Laws.  Translated  by  Thomas 
Nugent.  London,  1897. 

MONTIGNY,  B.  A.  TESTARD  DE.  Histoire  du  Droit  Canadien.  Montreal, 
1869. 

MONTREAL  CONVENTION.  La  Convention  Anti-Seigneuriale  de  Montreal. 
Montreal,  1854. 

MOREAU  DE  ST.  MERY,  M.  L.  Lois  et  Constitutions  des  Colonies  Fran- 
9aises  de  I'Amdrique.  6  vols.  Paris,  1784-1790.  . 

MOYAT,  L.  Etude  Historique,  Critique,  et  Compare'e  sur  le  Droit  de  Chasse. 
Paris,  1900. 

MUNRO,  W.  B.  The  Droit  de  Banalite"  during  the  French  Regime  in 
Canada.  American  Historical  Association,  Report,  1899,  i.  205-228.  Wash- 
ington, 1900. 

MUNRO,  W.  B.  The  Noblesse  of  the  Old  Regime.  Canadian  Magazine, 
April,  1900,  pp.  568-573.  Toronto,  1900. 


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  Fernow.  15  vols.  New  York,  1853-1883. 

NOUVELLE  REVUE  HISTORIQUE  du  Droit  Fran9ais.  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  Legislative  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  Troisieme  Race.  22  vols.  Paris, 
1729-1849. 

PARKMAN,  F.  Count  Frontenac  and  New  France  under  Louis  XIV. 
Frontenac  edition.  Boston,  1901. 

PARKMAN,  F.     The  Old  Regime  in  Canada.     2  vols.    Boston,  1901. 

PARKMAN,  F.  The  Pioneers  of  France  in  the  New  World.  2  vols. 
Boston,  1901. 

PERRAULT,  J.  F.  Extraits  ou  Precedents,  tire's  des  Registres  de  la  Pre- 
voste"  de  Quebec.  Quebec,  1824. 

PERWICH,  W.  The  Despatches  of  William  Perwich,  English  agent  in 
Paris,  1669-1677.  [Camden  Society,  Publications,  3d  series,  vol.  v.]  Lon- 
don, 1903. 

PIECES  ET  DOCUMENTS  relatifs  a  la  Tenure  Seigneuriale.  2  vols.  Quebec, 
1852-1854.  —  See  also  TITLES  AND  DOCUMENTS. 

PIGEONNEAU,  H.  La  Politiqiie  Coloniale  de  Colbert.  Annales  de  FEcole 
Libre  des  Sciences  Politiques,  i.  487-509.  Paris,  1886. 

PROCEEDINGS  of  the  Special  Court  held  under  the  authority  of  the  Seign- 
iorial Act  of  1854.  Quebec,  1856. 

QUELQUES  Avis  d'un  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.  PERE,  E.  Une  Colonie  Feodale  en  Ame'rique.  2  vols. 
Paris  and  Montreal,  1889. 

RAPPORT  du  Ministre  des  Travaux  Publics  de  la  Province  de  Que*bec. 
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  Aout,  1764.  (Montreal  Historical 
Society,  Publications.)  Montreal,  1872. 

RENAULDON,  J.  Traite  Historique  et  Pratique  des  Droits  Seigneuriaux. 
Paris,  1765. 

REPORT  of  the  Commissioners  on  the  Grievances  complained  of  in  Lower 
Canada.  London,  1837. 


274  ALPHABETICAL  LIST. 

REPORT  of  the  Committee  on  the  Affairs  of  Lower  Canada ;  with  Evidence. 
London,  1834-1837. 

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  1'Histoire  des  Banalites.     Paris,  1893. 

ROCHEMONTEIX,  C.  DE.  Les  Je'suites  et  la  Nouvelle-France  au  xviime 
Siecle.  3  vols.  Paris,  1895-1896. 

ROY,  J.  E.  Histoire  de  la  Seigneurie  de  Lauzon.  5  vols.  Montreal,  1897- 
1904. 

ROY,  R.  Les  Intendants  de  la  Nouvelle-France.  Royal  Society  of 
Canada,  Proceedings,  1903,  Mhnoires,  sec.  i.  65-75.  Ottawa,  1903. 

ROYAL  SOCIETY  OF  CANADA.  Proceedings.  First  series,  n  vols.,  Ottawa, 
1882-1894.  Second  series,  u  vols.,  Ottawa,  1895-1906. 

SAGARD,  G.  Histoire  du  Canada.  Edited  by  E.  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  Beauharnois. 
Huntingdon,  Quebec,  1888. 

SMITH,  W.     History  of  Canada.     2  vols.     Quebec,  1815. 

SULTE,  B.  L'Ancienne  Noblesse  du  Canada.  Revue  Canadienne,  May- 
September,  1885,  pp.  298-5 56  passim.  Montreal,  1885. 

SULTE,  B.     Chronique  Trifluvienne.     Montreal,  1879. 

SULTE,  B.   Histoire  des  Canadiens-Francais.    8  vols.    Montreal,  1882-1884. 

SULTE,  B.  La  Guerre  des  Iroquois.  Royal  Society  of  Canada,  Proceed- 
ings, 1897,  Memoires,  sec.  i.  65-92.  Ottawa,  1897. 

SULTE,  B.  Le  Regime  Militaire,  1760-1764.  Ibid.  1905,  Appendix  A. 
Ottawa,  1906. 

SULTE,  B.  Le  Regiment  de  Carignan.  Ibid.  1902,  Memoires,stc.  i.  25-95. 
Ottawa,  1902. 

SULTE,  B.  La  Tenure  Seigneuriale.  Revue  Canadienne,  July-August, 
1882,  pp.  43 7-462  passim.  Montreal,  1882. 

TACHE,  J.  C.  A  Plan  for  the  Commutation  of  the  Seigniorial  Tenure. 
Quebec,  1854. 

TAINE,  H.  A.  Les  Origines  de  la  France  Contemporaine,  Vol.  I :  L'Ancien 
Regime.  Paris,  1876. 

TANGUAY,  C.  Dictionnaire  Ge'nealogique  des  Families  Canadiennes  depuis 
la  Fondation  de  la  Colonie  jusqu'a  nos  jours.  7  vols.  Montreal,  1871-1890. 

TANGUAY,  C.     Repertoire  Ge'ne'ral  du  Clerge*  Canadien.     Quebec,  1868. 

THELLER,  E.  A.     Canada  in  1837-1838.    2  vols.     Philadelphia,  1841. 

THWAITES,  R.  G.,  editor.  The  Jesuit  Relations  and  Allied  Documents. 
73  vols.  Cleveland,  1896-1901. 


ALPHABETICAL  LIST.  2?$ 

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. 
Quebec,  1852-1854. 

TITRES  DES  SEIGNEURIES.  —  Vol.  II  of  PIECES  ET  DOCUMENTS. 

TOCQUEVILLE,  A.  DE.  The  Old  Regime  and  the  Revolution.  Translated 
from  the  French  by  J.  Bonner.  New  York,  1856. 

TROISIEME  Rapport  et  Deliberations  du  Comite"  Special  de  1'Assemble'e 
Legislative.  Quebec,  1851. 

TURCOTTE,  L.  P.     Le  Canada  sous  1'Union.     2  vols.     Quebec,  1871-1872. 

VIOLLET,  P.     Histoire  du  Droit  Civil  Fran9ais.     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- 
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 
Beauharnois  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,  106-107;  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- 
vees,  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, 

'57- 

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 
arrSt,  185. 

Agriculture,  progress  of  (1608-1627), 
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 
byCatalogne,  45-47;  neglected  during 
the  closing  years  of  the  old  regime,  51, 
1 88;  effect  of  subdivision  of  lands  on, 
83-84;  relation  of  seigniorial  mills  to, 
125-126;  state  of,  under  British  rule, 
23S»  237. 

Aguesseau,  Henri-Frangois  d'.  See  Da- 
guesseau. 

Ailleboust.      See  D'Ailleboust. 

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  (1711),  42-44;  of  Ver- 
sailles (1732),  49;  draft  of  an,  for  re- 
form of  seigniorial  abuses  (1717),  128, 

135- 
Arriere-fiefs,  number  of,  77;   obligations 

imposed  upon  holders  of,  77;  reasons 

for  making  grants  of,  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  Sable,"    1 70. 
Auteuil.      See  D'Auteuil. 


277 


2/8 


INDEX. 


Aveu  et  denombrement,  made  by  seign- 
iors, 57;  its  nature  and  scope,  57-58; 
its  value  to  the  colonial  authorities,  58; 
in  case  of  arriere-fiefs,  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,  12. 

Ban,  feudal,  in  France,  65. 

Banal  mills.     See  Banality,  Mills. 

Banality,  forms  of,  in  France,  4,  101; 
Henrion  de  Pansey  on,  101 ;  origin  of, 
101-102;  provisions  of  Custom  of 
Paris  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;  Gold  win 
Smith  on  non-enforcement  of  the  obli- 
gation, 125;  relation  of  the  right  to 
agriculture,  126;  minor  forms  in  Can- 
ada, 1-42;  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,  1 66.  See 
also  Cap  Tourmente,  Des  Islets,  Lon- 
gueuil,  Pobomcoup,  Portneuf. 

Barroys.     See  Le  Barroys. 

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- 

Beauharnois,  Charles,  Marquis  de,  gov- 
ernor of  New  France  (1726-1747), 
discusses  seigniorial  abuses,  47—48 ;  calls 
attention  to  subdivision  of  lands,  84. 


Beaumont,  seigniory  of,  given  to  Charles 
Couillard  de  Beaumont  (1713),  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. 

Beaupre,  seigniory  of,  population  in  1667, 
1 86. 

Becancour,  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,  135;  counsels 
creation  of  parishes,  182. 

Beloeil,  seigniory  of,  given  to  Lemoyne  de 
Longueuil  (1713),  44. 

Berthelot,  Francois,  seignior  of  Isle  Jesus, 
165  ;  exchanges  seigniories  with  Laval, 
165  ;  becomes  Comte  de  St.  Laurent, 
165  ;  commended  to  the  royal  favor  by 
Talon,  1 66. 

Berthier,  seigniory  of,  enforcement  of 
royal  reservation  of  timber  in,  136. 

Berthier,  Alexandre,  officer  in  the  Carig- 
nan  regiment,  becomes  owner  of  a 
seigniory,  70. 

Bienville.     See  Lemoyne  de  Bienville. 

Bigot,  Fran?ois,  intendant  of  New  France 
(1748-1760),  orders  demolition  of 
buildings  erected  by  habitants,  84. 

Blairie.     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  Perriere,  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  denombrement,  57  ;  within  seignior- 
ies to  be  delimited  by  seigniors  who  had 


INDEX. 


279 


middle  jurisdiction,  150;  frequent  dis- 
putes among  habitants  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.  See 
Company. 

Cadillac.     See  Lamotte-Cadillac. 

Caen,  Guillaume  de,  given  Cap  Tour- 
mente  (1624),  21 ;  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,  189;  guarantees  of  proprietary 
rights  in,  189-190;  confirmed  by  the 
Treaty  of  Paris,  191. 

Cap  Tourmente,  granted  to  Guillaume 
de  Caen  (1624),  21 ;  made  a  barony, 
166. 

Card  money,  seigniorial  dues  payable  in, 
92  ;  depreciation  of,  188. 

•Carignan-Salieres  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  (1768- 
1778,  1786-1796),  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,  198-199 ; 


views  on  legal  needs  of  Canada,  199— 
200 ;  proposes  ordinance  for  reform 
of  legal  system,  200-201  ;  recommen- 
dations to  Shelburne,  201  ;  opinion  of 
Maseres,  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)»  17- 

Casgrain,  Abbe  H.  R.,  on  method  of  pay- 
ing seigniorial  dues,  95  ;  on  relation 
between  the  seigniory  and  the  parish, 
183. 

Catalogne,  Gedeon  de,  engineer,  report 
on  state  of  seigniories  (1712),  45—47  ; 
on  ownership  of  fiefs  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 ; 
Herve  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 
1711,  88  ;  desire  of  Raudot  for  uniform 
rate,  89  ;  relation  of  Arret  of  Marly  to 
rate,  89-90  ;  common  belief  in  uniform- 
ity of  rate,  90  ;  Hocquart's  attitude  re- 
gar  ding  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;  of  1739,  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. 


280 


INDEX. 


Champigny,  Jean  Bochart  de,  intendant 
of  New  France  (1686-1702),  asks  that 
Longueuil  be  made  a  barony,  1 68;  on 
poverty  of  the  noblesse,  173-175;  im- 
plores the  king  to  give  no  more  patents, 

'75- 

Championniere,  A.,  on  banal  abuses  in 
France,  102. 

Champlain,  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  first  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  (1483-1498), 
codification  of  the  coutumes  during  the 
reign  of,  7. 

Charlesbourg,  granted  to  the  Jesuits  en 
franc  aleu  noble  (1637),  52- 

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. 

Chatellenie.     See  Coulonge. 

Chavigny,  Francois  de,  seignior  of  La 
Chevrotiere,  seeks  enforcement  of 
corvee  obligation,  130. 

Cheruel,  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, 
180-181  ;  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,  Recollets, 
Sulpitians,  Ursulines. 

Churches,  sometimes  erected  by  corvee 
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, 
185  ;  right  of  advowson  in  seigniorial, 
185-186. 

Clergy  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;  surrenders  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,  158;  given  to  seigniors 
upon  abolition  of  seigniorial  tenure, 
247-248;  considered  inadequate  by 
seigniors,  251. 

Contrecceur,  Antoine  Pecody  de,  officer  of 
the  Carignan-Salieres,  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. 


28l 


to,  127;  abuses  in  Canada,  128-130; 
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. 

Cote  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,  chatellenie  of,  given  to  Louis 
d'Ailleboust  (1656),  169-170. 

Council,  Old  (1'ancien  conseil),  estab- 
lished at  Quebec,  146;  jurisdiction  of, 
146;  registers  of,  not  preserved,  146; 
replaced  by  Sovereign  Council,  154- 

*55- 

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  arre"ts, 
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  Prevote,  112;  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  corvees,  128. 

Council  of  State  (conseil  d'etat  du  roi), 


hears  appeals  from  Sovereign  Council, 
14. 

Countships.     See  Orsainville,  St.  Laurent. 

Courcelle,  Daniel  de  Remy  de,  governor 
of  New  France  (1665—1672),  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, 
10. 

Coutume  de  Paris.     See  Custom  of  Paris. 

Coutumes,  codification  of,  in  France,  7; 
frequent  revisions  of,  1 1 ;  English 
judges  mistake  nature  of,  205-206. 

Cramahe,  Hon.  Hector  T.,  lieutenant- 
governor  of  Canada  (1770-1774),  ad- 
ministers affairs  during  absence  of 
Carleton,  208. 

Cugnet,  Fra^ois  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. 

Cures,  sent  about  from  seigniory  to  seign- 
iory, 182 ;  permanently  located  in 
parishes,  183 ;  support  given  by,  to 
seigniors,  183;  collect  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,  10-11; 
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,  1 1 1  ;  on 
scope   of  banal    rights,    117-118;     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. 


of,  misunderstood  by  English  judges, 
205  ;  not  customary  law  in  English 
sense,  206  ;  importance  as  a  source  of 
seigniorial  law,  207;  perpetuation  in 
civil  code  of  Quebec,  251. 

Daguesseau,  Henri-Francois,  eminent 
lawyer  of  Paris,  41 ;  requested  to  draft 
an  arr£t  for  reform  of  seigniorial  abuses, 
41-42;  becomes  chancellor  of  France, 
41;  opinion  of,  regarding  provisions  of 
Arret  of  Marly,  62. 

D'Ailleboust,  Louis,  governor  of  New 
France  (1648-1651,  1657-1658),  given 
the  chatellenie  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  Dautre"),  seigniory  of,  stipu- 
lations in  title-deed  of,  60-61 ;  timber 
for  royal  use  taken  from,  136—137. 

Deerfield,  part  taken  by  the  noblesse  in 
destruction  of  (1704),  176. 

De  Gaspe,  Philippe  Aubert,  on  daily  life 
of  habitants  during  the  old  regime,  153; 
description  of  May-pole  ceremony,  1 60. 

Demaure,  seigniory  of,  banal  mill  in,  109- 
110;  habitants  ordered  to  give  corvees, 

IS*- 

Denombrement.  See  Aveu  et  denombre- 
ment. 

Denonville,  Jacques-Rene  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  arre"t  for  reform 
of  seigniorial  abuses,  41 ;  tardiness  in 
compliance,  42;  opinions  on  provisions 
of  the  Arr£ts  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  of, 
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.  See  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  jambqge,  mention  of,  142. 

Droit  de  pSche,  nature  of,  140;  not  an 
important  exaction,  140.  See  also 
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;  Pontchartrain  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, 

'73- 

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,  Christopher,  counsel  for  seign- 
iors before  Special  Seigniorial  Court, 
249. 

Dupuy,  Claude-Thomas,  intendant  of  New 
France  (1725-1728),  judgment  regard- 
ing obligation  of  banality,  113. 

Durantaye,  Olivier  Morel  de  la,  officer  of 
the  Carignan-Salieres,  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. 

Ecu,  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),  166. 

Exodus,  of  French-Canadians  after  the 
conquest,  192;  conflicting  views  of 
Suite  and  Garneau  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. 

Faillon,  M.  E.,  historian,  on  services  of 
the  Jesuits  to  agriculture,  186. 

Fanning-mills,  sent  to  colony  by  the  king, 
116. 

Fealty  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. 

Ferte,  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,  3-4;  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,  106-107.  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  aumone,  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 

l673,  73- 

Frontenac,  Louis  de  Buade,  Count,  gov- 
ernor of  New  France  (1672-1682, 
1689-1698),  orders  seigniors  to  drill 
their  habitants,  66;  describes  chateau 
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,  168;  recommends  Her- 
tel  for  letters  of  noblesse,  174;  pre- 
dicts land  monopoly  by  Jesuits,  180. 

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- 
logne's  description  of,  47  ;  pen  portrait 
of,  by  Hocquart,  143 ;  Kalm  and 
Lahontan  on  economic  condition  of, 
144  ;  tendency  to  litigiousness  among, 
153  ;  De  Gaspe  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. 

Fustel  de  Coulanges,  Numa-Denis,  on 
administration  of  feudal  justice  in 
France,  145. 

Garneau,  F.  X.,  opinions  on  seigniorial 
judicial  powers,  147 ;  on  extent  to 
which  judicial  powers  were  exercised, 
158  ;  on  grants  of  seigniories  with 
jurisdiction  after  1714,  158;  on  ex- 
tent of  exodus  after  the  conquest,  192. 

Gaudais,  Louis,  sent  to  Canada  as  royal 
commissioner,  29. 

Gaudarville,  seigniory  of,  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  Godfrey),  Jean-Baptiste, rec- 
ommended for  rank  in  the  noblesse, 
172. 


Goderich,  Lord,  secretary  of  state  for 
war  and  for  the  colonies  (1830-1833), 
instructions  regarding  tenures  in  Can- 
ada, 228. 

Gosford,  Lord,  governor  of  Canada 
(1835-1838),  head  of  commission  to 
investigate  grievances  in  Canada,  235 ; 
dissolves  parliament  of  Lower  Canada, 
236. 

Governor,  under  English  rule.  See  Carle- 
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 
ofintendant,  50;  ceremony  of  fealty 
and  homage  rendered  to,  56;  recom- 
mends distribution  of  royal  favors  in 
the  colony,  162-172.  See  also  Beau- 
harnois,  Champlain,  Courcelle,  D'Aille- 
boust,  Denonville,  Frontenac,  Lauzon, 
Mezy,  Ramezay,  Vaudreuil. 

Grand  voyer,  office  of,  in  New  France,  132. 

Grant,  Charles  Colmore,  recognized  as 
seventh  baron  of  Longueuil,  169. 

Grants,  en  franc  aleu  noble,  52-53;  en 
franc  aleu  roturier,  53;  en  franche 
aumone,  53-54;  en  arriere  fief,  77-78; 
en  roture  or  en  censive,  78-79;  at  De- 
troit, 79;  shape  of,  79-80  ;  subdivision 
of,  81;  effect  of  subdivision  of,  83-85. 
See  also  Seigniories. 

Granville,  Pierre  Becquart,  Sieur  de, 
officer  of  the  Carignan-Salieres,  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  ArrSt  of  Marly  to,  43;  ref- 
erences of  Catalogne  to  condition  and 
habits  of,  47-48;  ignorant  of  their 
rights,  48;  nature  of  land  grants  re- 


INDEX. 


285 


ceived  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,  112-114; 
banalities  not  burdensome,  120-121; 
attracted  by  profits  of  the  fur  trade, 
126;  of  Desjordy,  ordered  to  render 
corvees,  129;  of  La  Chevrotiere,  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  of, 
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,  1 60;  more  desirable  as  settlers 
than  gentilshommes,  174;  protected  by 
intendant,  177;  influence  of  the  church 
with,  1 88;  respect  and  obey  the 
noblesse,  197;  called  upon  by  Carleton 
for  military  service,  211;  refuse  to  obey 
their  seigniors,  212—213;  rents  of,  in- 
creased after  the  conquest,  220;  show 
signs  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 (1778-1786),  instructed  to  grant 
lands  to  loyalists,  214. 

Hamelin,  Louis,  seignior   of  Grondines, 

"3- 

Haute  justice.     See  Justice  (seigniorial). 
Haverhill,  noblesse  in  raid  on,  1 76. 


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,  101;  concerning  exercise  of 
royal  authority  over  seigniorial  mills, 
104;  on  extension  of  banal  rights  to 
grain  other  than  wheat,  118. 

Henry  HI,  king  of  France  (1574-1589), 
orders  revision  of  Custom  of  Paris,  8. 

Henry  IV,  king  of  France  (1589-1610), 
grants  commission  to  La  Roche,  18. 

Hertel  de  Rouville,  Fran?ois,  forbidden  to 
take  wood  from  lands  of  habitants,  134; 
offered  rank  in  the  noblesse,  174. 

Hertel  de  Rouville,  Jean-Baptiste,  de- 
stroyer of  Deerfield,  176;  takes  part  in 
raid  on  Haverhill,  1 76. 

Hocquart,  Gilles,  acting  intendant  of  New 
France  (1729-1731),  intendant  of  New 
France  (1731-1748),  discusses  seignior- 
ial abuses,  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-mills,  116;  strives  to 
foster  agriculture,  126;  his  description  of 
Canadian  population,  143. 

Honors,  accorded  to  seigniors  in  France, 
5;  in  Canada,  159-160.  See  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. 

Hotel  Dieu,  at  Quebec,  lands  held  by,  181. 

Hurons,  extirpation  of,  by  Iroquois,  26. 

Iberville.     See  Lemoyne  d'Iberville. 

Intendant,  not  mentioned  in  edict  of  1663, 
29;  calls  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  court  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  Begon,  Bigot,  Champigny, 
Duchesneau,  Dupuy,  Hocquart,  Meulles, 
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,  6l. 

Isle  Jesus,  seigniory  of,  exchanged  by 
Berthelot  for  island  of  Orleans,  165; 
progress  made  in  cultivation  of,  166. 

Isle  of  Orleans,  seigniory  of,  exchanged  by 
Laval  for  Isle  Jesus,  165;  population  of 
(1667),  186.  See  also  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. 

Jacques  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  aumone  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, 
180;  churches  erected  in  seigniories 
of,  185 ;  superior  cultivation  of  their 
seigniories,  1 86 ;  services  to  agricul- 
tural development,  186;  order  sup- 
pressed by  the  Pope,  250 ;  estates  pass 
to  the  crown,  250.  See  also  Laval, 
Pontbriand,  St.  Vallier. 

Jesus,  The  Reverend  Fathers  of  the  So- 
ciety and  Company  of.  See  Jesuits. 

Jeu  de  fief.     See  Subinfeudation. 

Juchereau  de  la  Ferte,  Jean,  member  of 
council,  recommended  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  of,  in 
France,  5 ;  Maitland  on  essential  na- 
ture of,  145  ;  gradations  of,  147  ;  haute 
justice,  148-149 ;  moyenne  justice, 
150;  basse  justice,  150-151  ;  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  abuses  in  administration  of,. 
156;  views  of  Carleton  on,  157  ;  com- 
ments of  Garneau  concerning  adminis- 
tration of,  158;  abolished  by  British 
authorities,  158,  190;  in  fiefs  of  the 
church,  187. 

Kalm,  Peter,  Swedish  naturalist,  ort 
methods  of  fishing  on  tidal  beaches, 
138  ;  on  dwellings  of  habitants,  144. 

Kirby,  William,  describes  ceremony  of 
fealty  and  homage,  159. 

Kirke,  Sir  David,  captures  Quebec  (1629), 
24-25. 

La  ChevrotieTe,  seigniory  of,  disputes  re- 
garding corvee  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-I57- 

Lamotte-Cadillac,  Antoine  de,  makes  in- 
formal grants  at  Detroit,  79. 

Lanaudiere,  Charles  de,  submits  answers 
to  disputed  questions,  65,  216;  peti- 
tions for  commutation  of  tenure,  214. 

Lanaudiere,  Jacques-Thomas  Tarieu  de, 
officer  of  Carignan  regiment,  becomes 
a  seignior  in  Canada,  70. 

L'Ange-Gardien,  seigniory  of,  demolition 
of  houses  in,  by  intendant's  order,  84. 

Langlois,  Noel,  purchases  a  seigniory  and 
aspires  to  be  a  gentilhomme,  172. 

Langlois,  Noel,  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. 

Lauzon,  seigniory  of,  banal  mill  demol- 
ished, 1 20. 

Lauzon,  Jean  de,  governor  of  New 
France  (1651-1656),  ordinance  relating 
to  seigniorial  mills,  103  ;  recommends 
Pierre  Boucher  for  rank  in  the  no- 
blesse, 171. 

Laval,  Frangois-Xavier  de,  appointed 
bishop  of  Petrsea  and  vicar-apostolic  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  Jesus,  165  ;  work  of, 
in  accumulating  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, 
1 86.  See  also  Church,  Jesuits,  St.  Sul- 
pice. 

La  Valterie    (or   La  Valtrie),   Seraphin 


Margane,  Sieur  de,  officer  of  the  royal 
forces,  becomes  a  seignior  in  Canada, 
70. 

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  English 
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  Carleton,  201- 
202 ;  restoration  opposed  by  Maseres, 
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-Edme,  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 
Longueuil,  obtains  seigniory  of  Beloeil 
(1713),  44;  inherits  father's  estates, 
167;  made  first  baron  of  Longueuil, 
1 68;  descendants  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,  1 76. 

Lemoyne  de  Serigny,  Joseph,  brother  of 
first  baron  of  Longueuil,  distinguished 
in  French  service,  169. 

Lemoyne  de  Ste.  Helene,  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  Vallieres  (or  Valliere), 
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.  See  also  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,  1 69. 

Lotbiniere,  family  of,  in  the  Canadian 
noblesse,  173. 


Louis  XI,  king  of  France  (1461-1483), 
views  on  compilation  of  the  cou- 
tumes,  7. 

Louis  XII,  king  of  France  (1498-1515), 
codification  of  the  coutumes  during 
reign  of,  7. 

Louis  XIII,  king  of  France  (1610-1643), 
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,  1 80. 

Louis  XV,  king  of  France  (1715-1774), 
progress  of  seigniorial  system  under,  50. 

Mabane,  Adam,  opinion  on  workings 
of  seigniorial  system,  217-218. 

McCallum  vs.  Gray,  case  of,  207. 

Maitland,  F.  W.,  on  significance  of  seign- 
iorial justice,  145. 

Malbaie,  seigniory  of,  granted  to  Captain 
John  Nairn,  193. 

Manesse,  L.,  on  evils  of  seigniorial  absen- 
teeism in  France,  12. 

Marie  de  PIncarnation,  Mere,  opinion 
regarding  character  of  female  immi- 
grants, 72. 

Marly,  ArrSts  of  (1711),  provisions  of, 
42-43;  their  significance,  44;  evaded 
by  seigniors,  47-48;  provisions  reiter- 
ated in  Arrgt  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  Dusable,  Miscou. 

Maseres,  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 


Maurepas,  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, 
1 60. 

Mazarin,  Cardinal,  minister  of  Louis  XIV, 
lack  of  interest  in  French  colonies, 
14. 

Meulles,  Jacques  de,  intendant  of  New 
France  (1682-1686),  calls  attention  to 
poverty  of  the  noblesse,  172—174. 

Mezy  (or  Mesy),  Augustin  Saffrey  de, 
governor  of  New  France  (1663—1665), 
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,  211;  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,  1 10-1 1 1 ; 
complaints  regarding  quality  of  flour 
produced  by,  111-112;  rude  equip- 
ment of,  113-114;  official  attempts  to 
improve,  115-116;  often  built  of  stone 
and  sometimes  fortified,  116-117;  some- 
times built  by  corvee  labor,  117;  charac- 
ter of  grains  ground  by,  118-119;  meth- 
ods of  preventing  competition  with, 
119-120;  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,  170. 

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  (1620-1624),  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. 


290 


INDEX. 


Morel  de  la  Durantaye,  Olivier,  officer  of 
the  Carignan-Salieres,  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 (1764-1768),  accepts  fealty  and 
homage  of  Jean  Noel,  56-57;  report 
of  (1762),  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  Malbaie. 

Musseaux,  Charles -Joseph  d'Ailleboust  de. 
See  D'Ailleboust. 

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  France  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, 1 73 ;  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 
Maseres  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    Paris,    10;    prolific    character   ofr 
84;     tendency  to     litigation    among, 

153- 

Notaries,  oppose  interference  with  seign- 
iorial system,  234;  justified  by  Durham, 

238- 

Notre  Dame  des  Anges,  seigniory  of, 
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  Jesus,  165; 
population  in  1667,  186.  See  also  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,  1 21;  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,  180. 

Paris,  Custom  of.     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  introduction 
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,  1 76. 

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. 

Peche.     See  Droit  de  peche. 

Perriere,  Boucher  de  la,  member  of  the 
noblesse,  leader  in  Haverhill  raid,  176. 

Perrot,  Francis-Marie,  first  seignior  of 
Isle  Perrot  (1672),  70. 

Perwich,  William,  English  agent  in  Paris, 
on  nature  of  female  immigration  to  New 
France,  71. 

Petit,  Jean,  treasurer  of  the  marine,  given 
half  interest  in  seigniory  of  Mille  Isles 
(1714),  44. 


INDEX. 


291 


Petrsea,  Frangois-Xavier  de  Laval,  bishop 
of.  See  Laval. 

Peuvret,  Dame,  seignioress  of  Gaudar- 
ville,  ordered  to  grant  title-deeds  to 
habitants,  90. 

Piot,  dit  Langloiserie,  Gaspard.  See  Lan- 
gloiserie. 

Pobomcoup,  barony  of,  in  Acadia,  granted 
to  Philippe-Mius  d'Entremont  (1652), 
1 66. 

Pointe  du  Lac,  seigniory  of,  granted  with- 
out judicial  rights,  147. 

Pontbriand,  Henri-Marie  Dubreil  de, 
fourth  bishop  of  Quebec  (1741-1760), 
views  seigniorial  system  with  favor,  182; 
endeavors  to  secure  concord  between 
cures  and  seigniors,  1 86. 

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,  1 22. 

Population,  of  New  France,  strength  of 
Norman  element  in,  9-10 ;  increases 
during  period  1669—1673,  72  ;  Fronte- 
nac's  estimate  of,  72 ;  disposition  to 
litigiousness,  155 ;  of  Longueuil  and 
Tremblay,  168 ;  of  Beaupre  and  island 
of  Orleans,  186 ;  drain  on,  caused  by 
wars,  1 88  ;  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. 

Prevote,  court  of  the,  at  Quebec,  deals 
with  questions  concerning  seigniorial 
mills,  112,  114  ;  first  established,  145  ; 
hears  appeals  from  seigniorial  courts, 
154. 

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  arriere-fiefs,  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 
arriere-fiefs,  77 ;  proceeds  devoted 
to  civil  expenses,  222 ;  abolished, 
247. 

Ramezay,  Claude  de,  governor  of  Mont- 
real, obtains  seigniory  on  river  Ya- 
maska  (1713),  44. 

Ratification,  of  seigniorial  grants  by  the 
king,  39  ;  necessary  within  a  year  from 
date  of  grant,  75. 

Raudot,  Jacques,  intendant  of  New  France 
(1705-1711),  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, 1 06  ;  protests  against  exaction  of 
oven  banality,  122-123  5  anxious  that 
agriculture  should  be  encouraged,  126; 
does  not  mention  corvee  exactions,  127 ; 
explains  frequency  of  lawsuits,  153. 

Rear  fiefs.     See  Arriere-fiefs. 

Reaume,  Pierre,  habitant  at  Detroit,  re- 
ceives new  title-deed,  92. 

Recollets,  lands  held  by,  181  ;  excepted 
from  certain  guarantees  in  articles  of 
capitulation,  190. 

Redevances,  seigniorial,  nature  and 
amount  of,  in  France,  4-6.  See  also 
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  amount  of,  63  ;  pro- 
vided for  by  rules  of  the  French  Vexin, 
63-64  ;  evidently  not  collected  after 


292 


INDEX. 


the  conquest,  64 ;  opinion  of  Cugnet 
on  abrogation  of,  64. 

Renauldon,  J.,  on  character  of  the  seign- 
iorial bailiffs  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.  See  also  Cens  et 
rentes. 

Repentigny,  Jean-Baptiste  Le  Gardeur  de. 
See  Le  Gardeur. 

Report,  of  Gedeon  de  Catalogne  on  state 
of  the  seigniories  in  Canada,  45-47  ; 
of  General  Murray  on  Canadian  affairs 
(1762),  191  ;  on  administration  of 
justice  (1766),  196-197  ;  of  Maseres 
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  (1772-1773),  209;  So- 
licitor-General Williams  on  the  seignior- 
ial system  (1790),  215-216;  of  attorney- 
general  (1794),  220  ;  of  Lord  Durham 
on  the  affairs  of  British  North  America 
(1839),  236-239  ;  of  commissioners  of 
1843  on  the  seigniorial  system,  240  ; 
committee  of  the  legislature  (1851), 
244. 

Requint,  payment  of,  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  un- 
cleared (1663),  28-30;  of  the  char- 
ter of  Company  of  the  West  Indies 
(1674),  37;  provided  for  in  first 
Arret  of  Marly  (1711),  43;  of  the 
grant  of  Mille  Isles  (1714),  44;  of 
en  censive  grants  (1731),  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  Plessis,  Car- 
dinal, minister  of  Louis  XIII,  com- 
monly regarded  as  having  planted 
feudalism  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,  70. 

Rioufol,  M.,  on  origin  of  the  right  of  mill 
banality  in  France,  101. 

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,  8l ;  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-Fran9ois  de  la  Roque, 
Sieur  de,  expedition  to  New  France, 

iy. 

Robineau,Rene,seignior  of  Becancour,  167. 

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,  1 86. 

Romans,  military  colonization  of,  taken 
as  a  precedent  by  Talon,  68. 


INDEX. 


293 


Roque,  Chevalier,  ensign  in  the  Carignan 
regiment,  obtains  seigniory  on  the 
Richelieu,  70. 

Roture,  grants  in.  See  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. 

Sainte-Anne  de  la  P6rade,  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-Helene,  Lemoyne  de.  See  Le- 
moyne  de  Ste.  Helene. 

Sainte-Marie  (pres  Batiscan),  seigniory 
of,  granted  to  Jean  Le  Moyne  (or  Le- 
moyne) in  1669,  35. 

Saint -Germain-en-Laye,  Treaty  of  ( 1 632) , 
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- 
gueuil,  169. 

Saint- Laurent,  countship  of,  given  to 
Francois  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  Tilly  (1668),  35  ;  without 
judicial  rights,  147. 

Saint-Ours,  Jean-Baptiste,  Sieur  d'Es- 
chaillons  (or  Deschaillons),  leader  in 
Haverhill  raid  (1708),  176. 

Saint-Ours,  Pierre  Roch  de,  officer  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  (1714),  61  ;  excepted  from 
provisions  of  act  of  1854,  250. 

Saint-Sulpice,  Seminary  of,  at  Paris,  ob- 
tains seigniory  of  island  of  Montreal, 
6l  ;  receives  certain  favors  regarding 
lods  et  ventes,  96 ;  fortified  mill  of, 
116-117;  obtains  demolition  of  rival 
mill,  1 20;  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- 
Chevrieres  de,  second  bishop  of  Quebec 
(1684-1727),  buys  Talon's  seigniory, 
165 ;  on  seigniorial  right  of  advow- 
son,  181  ;  looks  with  favor  on  seign- 
iorial system,  182  ;  endeavors  to  secure 
concord  between  cures  and  seigniors, 
1 86. 

Salieres,  Colonel  Henri  de  Chapelais, 
Sieur  de,  in  command  of  the  Carignan 
regiment,  67.  See  also  Carignan-Sal- 
ieres. 

Sault  au  Matelot,  seigniory  of,  granted  to 
Louis  Hebert  (1623),  21. 

Saurel  (or  Sorel)  Pierre  de,  officer  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  ArrSts  of  Marly,  44  ;  only 
five  granted  during  the  period  1711- 
1717,  44-45;  royal  decision  to  grant 
no  more,  45  ;  report  of  Catalogue  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  arriere-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, 
248-250. 

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  Catalogue  on  occupations  and 
character  of,  47  ;  violate  provisions  of 
Arrets  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- 
161  ;  relation  to  cures,  183-186 ;  rights 
guaranteed  in  articles  of  capitulation, 
189 ;  ordered  to  enrol  habitants  for 
military  service,  211  ;  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,  181.  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  (1766-1768),  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 
powers  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  de, 
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.  83,  210;  34  Geo. 
Ill,  c.  6,  219;  31  Geo.  Ill,  c.  31,  221; 
3  Geo.  IV,  c.  119,  223;  6  Geo.  IV,  c. 
59,  225;  i  &  2  Wm.  IV,  c.  20,  229; 
3  &  4  Viet.  c. 35,  239;  8  Viet. c. 42,  242; 
12  Viet.  c.  49,  242;  1 8  Viet.  c.  3,  245. 

Stuart  vs.  Bowman,  case  of,  195. 

Subinfeudation,  articles  in  Custom  of 
Paris  relating  to,  58-59;  not  made  com- 
pulsory before  1711,  59;  relation  of  Ar- 
re"ts  of  Marly  to,  61—62;  provisions  in 
draft  arret  of  1717  regarding,  62;  pro- 
cedure of,  77-78. 

Sub-seigniories.     See  Arriere-fiefs. 

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 


Suite,  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  Council  (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,  30. 

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  grants  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  Francois,  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  St.  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  colonials  for  rank  in  the 
noblesse,  172. 

Treaty,  of  Saint-Germain-en- Laye  (1632), 
25  ;  of  Paris  (1763),  142. 

Ursulines,  of  Quebec,  lands  held  by, 
181  ;  of  Three  Rivers,  receive  seign- 
iorial grant  (1727),  47;  lands  held  by, 
181. 

Vallidres.     See  Leneuf  de   la  Vallieres. 

Varennes,  seigniory  of,  banal  rights  in,  108. 

Varennes,  Rene  Gaultier  (or  Gautier)  de, 
officer  of  the  Carignan  regiment,  ob- 
tains seigniory  in  New  France,  70. 

Vaudreuil,  Pierre-Frangois  Rigaud,  Mar- 
quis de,  governor  of  New  France  (1755- 
1760),  signs  capitulation  of  Montreal 
(1760),  189. 

Ventadour,  Henri  de  Levis,  Due  de,  vice- 
roy of  New  France  (1625-1627),  con- 
firms first  seigniorial  grant  (1626),  21. 

Vercheres,  Francois  Jarret  de,  officer  of 
the  Carignan-Salieres,  obtains  seigniory 
in  Canada,  70. 

Versailles,  Arret  of  (1732),  49. 


296 


INDEX. 


Vexin,  French  (Vexin  le  Fran§ais),  nature 
of,  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,  II. 


Waters,  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  vs.  Wilcox,  case  of,  195. 

Williams,  Solicitor-General  J.,  opinion  on 
rebates  of  lods  et  ventes,  96. 

Wolfe,  Major-General  James,  besieges 
Quebec  (1758),  188. 

Wurtele,  J.  S.  C.,  performs  last  act  of 
fealty  and  homage  (1854),  57. 

Yamaska,  seigniory  of,  given  to  Ramezay 
(1713),  44. 


s 


I 
r     . 


v<\ 


y 


inn  ii  mil *"L;"i"j  "j  n~—i  r- 

206400111075 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY 


JL      Munro,  William  Bennett 
*H         The  seigniorial  system 
M8      in  Canada 


Sig.  Sam. 


SAMUEL  UBILVRl