CHAPTER IV

CIVIC GOVERNMENT UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

1764

RALPH BURTON, GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL, BECOMES MILITARY COMMANDANT--FRICTION AMONG MILITARY COMMANDERS--JUSTICES OF PEACE CREATED--FIRST QUARTER SESSIONS--MILITARY VERSUS CITIZENS--THE WALKER OUTRAGE--THE TRIAL--WALKER BOASTS OF SECURING MURRAY’S RECALL--MURRAY’S DEFENSE AFTER HIS RECALL--THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ABUSE THEIR POWER--CENSURED BY THE COUNCIL AT QUEBEC--COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ESTABLISHED--PIERRE DU CALVET--CARLETON’S DESCRIPTION OF THE “DISTRESSES OF THE CANADIANS.”

The governor of Three Rivers, Ralph Burton, proclaimed to the Montrealers on October 29, 1763, his nomination by General Amherst as governor of Montreal in succession to General Gage. He announced that the civil justice would be administered by the same courts as hitherto. His ordinances have nothing striking beyond one ordering all who had gunpowder in their homes, and there were many, to take it to the powder magazine, and another announcing that on April 24, 1764, all who in accordance with the definitive treaty of peace wished to leave for France must within three weeks send in their declarations with their exact descriptions and the number of their household they propose to take with them. In August, Murray reported that only 270 men, women and children, mostly officers and their families, left the colony.

On August 10th military rule ended in Montreal but Burton continued on as military commandant.

Burton resigned his governorship in July, 1764. As the position of governor was not to be continued at Montreal or Quebec, no one succeeded him. He was confirmed, however, as Brigadier. Yet, although in command of a few troops, he refused to recognize Murray as his military superior, hence complications and conflicts arose. Murray wrote in indignation that if Burton were removed it would be better for himself and everybody. Murray is accused by his enemies of quarreling with everybody, but it is evidently hard on a governor general to have his wings clipped by having under him in a civil capacity a commander who took his orders from General Gage of New York. Where the military rights and civil duties of Burton at Montreal or of Haldimand at Three Rivers and Murray at Quebec, began and ended, was a harassing doubt to all three.

On January 11, 1764, letters patent were sent to the first justices of the peace at Montreal, including Moses Hazen, J. Grant, John Rowe, Francis McKay, Thomas Lambe, F. Knife, John Burke, Thomas Walker and others. Among these were two Swiss Protestants, Catholics being excluded from the office as yet, owing to the difficulty of their subscribing to the religious test not being yet solved.

The first general quarter sessions of the peace was held on December 27, 1764, and there were present Moses Hazen, J. Dumas, F. McKay, Thomas Lambe and Francis Knife. The court adjourned. The first case was one of battery and assault.

On August 10, 1764, military rule ceased. The new civil government brought to a head much of the ill feeling existing in the city. The tables were now turned, the merchant class, already become the magistrates, were now in the ascendant and rancours prevailed. The old-time antipathies between the soldiers and citizens at New York and Boston were being reproduced in Montreal. There were no barracks, although the troops had been there four years. Consequently the system of billeting became necessary and caused continual annoyance.

The famous Walker outrage grew out of one of these troubles. Captain Fraser had billeted a Captain Payne on a French-Canadian. In the house lodged one of the new justices of the peace who claimed exemption for the house. In reply he was told that the justices’ rooms were exempt but not the other rooms, and on Payne’s persistence in claiming the billet, the magistrate refused to yield his possession. The case was brought before Justice Walker, who, as a magistrate, ordered Payne to vacate the rooms and on his refusing to comply committed him to jail for contempt. He was released on bail. Two days afterwards, on the 6th of December, 1764, occurred the “Walker outrage,” which has been described more or less fully in various histories of Canada, sometimes incorrectly.

Walker was an Englishman who had lived for many years in Boston, coming to Montreal some time after the close of the war in 1760, where he engaged in trade with the upper country. He was a bold, aggressive man, full of democratic notions, who set himself up as the agent of the people, opposed the actions of Governor Murray in every way, and afterwards had endeavoured to use his influence to have Murray recalled. In many ways he showed that he was no great friend of the Military then established in Montreal.

The outrage on him, dated on the night of the 6th, he attributed to the Military, and was the occasion of the seizure of “John Fraser, Esq.,” Deputy Grand Paymaster; “John Campbell, Esq.,” now Captain of His Majesty’s Twenty-seventh Regiment; “Daniel Disney, Esq.,” now Captain of the Twenty-fourth Regiment; “St. Luke La Corne, Esq.,” (Knight St. Louis), “Samuel Evans,” Lieutenants in His Majesty’s Twenty-eighth Regiment, and “Joseph Howard,” Merchant, all of the City of Montreal, being to their great surprise seized and taken out of their beds in the middle of the night of the 18th inst., November, 1766, by “Edward William Gray, Esq.,” Deputy Provost Martial in and for the district of Montreal, assisted by a party of soldiers with fixed bayonets, and by them hurried down to Quebec, where they were in close custody on the charge of having on or about “the sixth day of December, 1764, feloniously and with malice forethought, and by lying in wait assaulted, wounded and cut off part of the ear of ‘Thomas Walker, Esq.,’ of Montreal in this Province, with intention in so doing to disfigure the said ‘Thomas Walker.’” The informant was “George Magovock” late soldier in the Twenty-eighth Regiment of foot, making oath before “William Hey,” Chief Justice in and for the Province of Quebec.

The Chief Justice was petitioned by the prisoners to be released on bail, but apparently the influence of Walker was so great, that this was not easy. The whole of Montreal was in a great state of irritable excitement, a deputation of the members of the Council, the principal merchants of Montreal and the officers of the Fifteenth, Twenty-seventh, Fifty-second and Royal American Regiments entreated the Chief Justice to grant the petition of the prisoners for bail, asking him to interpose his authority and to mitigate the rigour of the law for gentlemen, “whose honors we are so well convinced, that we offer to become their bail until the trial.”

The petition is signed by the following: Colonel Irving, A. Mabane,[1] Thomas Dunn,[1] J. Goldfrap, F. Mounier, T. Mills, Members of the Council; Thomas Ainslie, Collector of the Customs and Justice of the Peace; J. Marteilhe, J.P.; J. Collins, J.P.; C. Drummond, Comp. of the Customs; J. Porteus, Charles Grant, S. Frazer, J. Woolsey, W. Grant, G. Measam, T. Scott, J. Werden, E. Gray, J. Aitken, Wm. Garett, G. Allsopp, J. Antill, Gridley, H. Boone, J. Watmough, Samuel Jacobs, H. Taylor, F. Grant, S. Lymbery, Amiet, Perras, Dusault, Deplaine, Fleurimont, Fremont, Perrault, Bousseau, Guillemain, Panet, Beaubien, Principal Merchants; La Naudiere, Crois de St. Louis; Captain Grove, Royal Artillery; Colonel Irving, Captain Prescott, Captain-Lieutenant D’Aripe, Lieutenants Mitchel, Lockart, Dunn, Magra, Doctor Roberts, Fifteenth Regiment; Captain Morris, Ensign Winter, Twenty-seventh Regiment; Colonel Jones, Captains Phillips, Williams, Addison, Davidson, Alcock, Geofrey, Lieutenants Neilson, Dinsdale, Smyth, Aderly, Hamilton, Watters, Holland, Hawksley, Adjutant Splain, Ensigns Stubbs, Molesworth, Fifty-second Regiment; Captains Carden, Etherington, Schloser, Tucker, Burin, Rechat, Ensign McKulloch, Royal Americans.

Whatever the whole hubbub was about it was evidently of such importance that the Chief Justice did not see his way to grant the bail, and it was not until two years later that the case came before the Grand Jury in Montreal. Meanwhile the city had been divided in two factions.

On the 28th of February, the cases against all but Captain Disney were thrown out by the Grand Jury,[2] but a true bill was brought against him. This was on a Monday. Francis Masères, who succeeded Suckling as attorney general, prosecuted for the Crown, and Morison, Gregory and Antill defended Town Major Disney.

We may now tell the story in the words of the report of Chief Justice Hey, transmitted to London on his return to Quebec on April 14, 1767.

“_The bill against Major Disney being returned on a Monday, I appointed Wednesday for his trial, his Jury, after some few challenges on both sides, was composed of very reputable English merchants residing at Montreal, of very fair characters & as unprejudiced as men could be who had heard so much of so interesting a story._

“_The only evidence that affected Major Disney was that of Mr. & Mrs. Walker & Magovock, the substance of which I will take the liberty to state to yr. Lordship as shortly & as truly as my notes & my memory will enable me to do, all the other witnesses speaking to the fact as committed by somebody without any particular knowledge of Major Disney._

“_The narrative will perhaps be less perplexed--The house opens with two doors, one a strong one next the street, (within that a sashed one), into the hall where the Family were at supper when the affair began; short on the right hand at the entrance from the street are folding doors which lead into a Parlour, at the further end of which Fronting the Folding doors is ye door of the bed chamber where Mr. Walker keeps his fire arms of which he has great numbers ready loaded. In the hall almost fronting the street doors, are 2 which lead into a kitchen & a back yeard, through which Mrs. Walker & the rest of the family separately made their escape very soon after the entrance of the Ruffians._

“_The account which Mr. Walker gave to the Jury upon the trial was that on the 6th of Decr. 1764 at ½ past 8 in the evening Mrs. Walker looked at her watch and said it was time to go to supper--that the cloth was laid in the hall but that he not having been very well that day she was persuading him to stay & eat his supper in the Parlour--that they staid about 10 or 15 minutes in this and other conversation & then went into the hall to supper--that he sat with his back to, & very near the street door--that he had been but a very little time at supper when he heard a rattling of the latch of the door as of Persons wanting to come in in a hurry--that Mrs. Walker said Entre, upon which the outward door was thrown open & thro’ the sash of the inward one he saw a great number of People disguised in various ways, some with little round hats others with their faces blacked, and others with crapes over their faces--that he had time to take so much notice of them as to distinguish 2 Persons whose faces tho’ blacked he was sure he should know again if he saw them--that they burst the inward door & several of them got round to the doors leading to the Parlour as designing to cut off his retreat into that room--that upon turning his head towards that room he received from behind a blow which he believes was given with a broad sword,--that he passed thro’ them into the Parlour receiving many wounds in the passage got to the further end of the room near the chamber door before which stood 2 men who had got before him & prevented his entrance into it--that these 2 with others who had followed him striking and wounding all the way, sett upon him & forced him from the door into window, the curtains of which entangled itself round him and he believes prevented their dashing his brains out against the wall, that he received in the whole no less than 52 contusions besides many cuts with sharp instruments--that he believes during the struggle in the window he was for some little time deprived of his senses, sunk in stupefaction or stunned by some blow, till he heard a voice from the opposite corner of the room say ‘Let me come at him I will dispatch the Villian with my sword’ that this roused him and determined him to sell his life as dear as he could--that ’till this time tho’ he had apprehended & experienced a great deal of violence, he did not think they intended to take away his life because he had seen Major Disney in the outer room & knowing he had done nothing to disoblige him, he did not believe that he would have been amongst them if they had intended to murther him--that he broke from the persons who held him in the window & advanced towards the Part of the room from whence the voice came where 2 persons were standing with their swords in a position ready for making a thrust at him, but does not know whether they actually made a Pass at him or not, that he put by one of their swords with his left hand upon which they both retreated into the corner--that his Eyes at this time being full of blood, he was not capable of distinguishing the features of a face with great accuracy, but from the size & figure & gesture of the person whose sword he parried & from whom he believes the words came, he thought it to be Major Disney--that several of them then seized him at once (one of them in particular taking him up under the right thigh) and carried him towards the fire place with the intention as he believed to throw him upon the fire--that the marks of his bloody fingers were upon the jamb of the chimney--that he turned himself from the fire with great violence & in turning received a blow on his head which the surgeons say must have been given with a Tomahawk--which felled him to the ground & after that a blow upon his Loins which he feels to this day--that then one of them sat or kneeled by him (he lying at his length upon the floor) andeavouring as he imagined to cut his throat--that he resisted it by inclining his head upon his shoulders & putting his hand to the place, a finger of which was cut to the bone--that it was a fortnight before he knew that he had lost his ear, his opinion all along having been that in that operation they intended to cut his throat & believed they had done it--that one of them said the Villian is dead, another Damn him we have done for him, and a third uttered some words but his senses then failed him & he does not recollect what they were._

“_This was the whole of the Evidence given by him in Court in the cross-examination great stress was laid upon his positive manner of swearing to Major Disney in disguise upon the transient view which by his own account he had of him, and under the circumstances of terrour and confusion which such an appearance must have occasioned; to which he answered that he had time in the hall before any blow was given to take a distinct view of him, and that he actually did do it, and tho’ it was true he had a crape over his face, yet it was tied so close that he discerned the features and Lineaments of it very perfectly and that he was positive it was Mr. Disney, of his dress other than the crape upon his face he could give no account, and then he was questioned if he had not often declared that he knew nobody but upon slight surprise he said that he remembered Mr. Disney perfectly the next morning, but that he mentioned him to nobody but Mrs. Walker, charging her at the same time to conceal it, because he thought he had suffered by her in discretion in mentioning the name of another Person whose influence with People in Power had prejudiced the inquiry which was then making into the affair._

“_Mrs. Walker confirmed all the circumstances of their manner of coming in & swore as directly to Major Disney, that Lieut. Hamilton (as she did for some time believe but has since had occasion to think she was mistaken) was the first that entered that she saw Major Disney among a Groupe of figures very distinctly with a crape over his face and dressed in a Canadian Cotton Night Gown._

“_Magovock went thro’ his story as contained in his affidavit a copy of which has been transmitted to your Lordship, not without a manifest confusion of his countenance & a trembling in his voice common to those who have a consciousness that they are telling untruly, & a fear of being detected--his cross examination took a great deal of time in the course of which he contradicted all the other witnesses & himself in circumstances so material that I am persuaded he was not himself present at the transaction._

“_Major Disney proved by several witnesses, Dr. Robertson, Madam Landrief, Madam Campbell & Mrs. Howard that he spent that afternoon from 5 till ½ past 9 when he was sent for by Genl. Burton (he being town Major, upon the uproar that this affair had occasioned) at the house of Dr. Robertson--it was a particular festival with the French of whom the company was mostly composed, that he danced ’till supper time with Madam Landrief in the midst of which Genl. Burton’s servant came & called him out--they spoke all very positively to his being present the whole time & the impossibility that he could be absent for 5 minutes without their knowing it._

“_Upon this evidence the Jury went out of Court and in about an hour returned with their Verdict Not Guilty--In justice to them and to Major Disney I must declare that I am perfectly satisfied with the Verdict._

“_Mr. Walker’s violence of temper and an inclination to find People of rank in the Army concerned in this affair, has made him a Dupe to the artifices of a Villian whose story could not have gained credit but in a mind that came too much prejudiced to receive it, the unhappy consequence of it I fear will be that by mistaking the real objects of his Resentments the public will be disappointed in the satisfaction of seeing them brought to justice._

“_I should inform Your Lordship that the G. Jury inflamed with Mr. Walker’s charge against them are preparing to bring in several actions for words and have presented both him and Mrs. Walker for Perjury--I have endeavoured to put a stop to both and I hope I shall succeed._

“_I have the honour to be_ “_My Lord_ “_Yr. Lordship’s most obedt & humble servant_, “_W. Hey_.”

The report of the trial was printed by Brown and Gilmour at Quebec, it being the second book that appeared in Canada. The first book published is generally believed to be “Catechisme du Diocese de Sens Imprimé a Quebec chez, (Brown and Gilmour).” Brown and Gilmour were the printers of the first journal “The Quebec Gazette” published on June 21, 1764. It was printed with columns of English and French and was issued weekly.

Walker was afterward removed on the consideration of the Council from the commission of the peace at Montreal because of his seditionary tendencies and of the frequent accusations of his insolent and overbearing temper which made it impossible for his brother magistrates to associate with him. General Murray reluctantly consented if for no other reasons than his enemies would otherwise see vindictiveness in his actions.

On the 27th of March, 1766, Walker, who had powerful friends in England, was ordered by His Majesty to be restored to the magistracy. On the same day an order from the privy council was issued by the governor of Michillimackinac and Detroit to give him effectual assistance in his business pursuits. At the same time stringent orders were given for the discovery of the perpetrators of the outrage on him. The government offered a reward of two hundred pounds, and of a free pardon and a discharge from the army to any person informing. Montreal inhabitants offered another three hundred pounds. But there was nothing done.

Between the actual outrage and the final acquittal of Captain Disney, Walker had been a thorn in the flesh to Murray. His dismissal from the bench made him no friend of the Governor and he boasted afterwards that he had influenced Murray’s recall.

The first news of this likely recall came in 1765; on February 3d Murray wrote lamenting that Mr. Walker should have known it before himself.

Murray’s position was an unenviable one; his sympathy with the French Canadians was the basis of the anger of the little knot of powerful merchants against him; he was made the scape-goat for the difficulties arising from the bad working of the unfavorable new civil government. In addition he had troubles with the commandants of Montreal and Three Rivers who as military commanders had much independent authority, over which Murray had no control, much to his chagrin. The constitutional documents of this period contain the petitions signed by twenty-one of the merchants for his recall, and that of the seigneurs for his maintenance. Their description of those allied against Murray runs thus: “A cabal of people who have come in the train of the army as well as clerks and agents for the London merchants.” Their testimony to Murray is his justification. “We were suited in the government of Mr. Murray. We knew his character, we were fully satisfied with his probity and his feelings of humanity; he was fitted to bring your new subjects to a regard for the yoke of your kindly domination by his care to make it light.”

On April 1, 1766, Conway, secretary of the colonies, wrote to Murray requesting his immediate return. He left Quebec on June 28th, leaving the government in the hands of the senior councillor, Lieut.-Col. Aemilius Irving; on the same day there arrived the new bishop, M. Briand to fill the vacancy left by Pontbriand, who died in Montreal before the capitulation.

The result of the Walker outbreak was that Murray’s frequent representations that barracks should be built were listened to and in 1765 they were erected, but hardly so, when in February, 1766, they were burned down with all the stores placed there. A public meeting was called to appeal for shelter for the soldiers, who were again billeted upon the inhabitants, but with the promise that by May 1, houses should be hired for them. On his return to London Murray in his report to Shelburne on August 20, 1766, had his revenge on the New England settlers whom he calls broadly the most immoral collection of men he had ever known, and says:

“Magistrates were made and juries composed from four hundred and fifty contemptible sutters and traders. The judge pitched upon to conciliate the minds of seventy-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.

“* * * On the other hand the Canadians, accustomed to an arbitrary and a sort of military government, are a frugal, industrious and moral race of men who from the just and mild treatment they met with from His Majesty’s military officers that ruled the country for four years past until the establishment of the civil government had greatly got the better of the natural antipathy they had of their conquerers. They consist of the noblesse who are numerous and who pride themselves much upon the antiquity of their families, their own military glory and that of their ancestors. These noblesse are Seigneurs of the whole country and though not rich are in a situation, in that plentiful part of the world where money is scarce and luxury still unknown, to support their dignity. The inhabitants, their tenanciers, who pay only annual quit rent of about a dollar for one hundred acres, are at their ease and comfortable. They have been accustomed to respect and obey the noblesse; their tenure being military 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 in the country. So they have been taught to respect their Seigneurs and not get intoxicated with the abuse of liberty; they are shocked at the insults which their noblesse and the king’s officers have received from the English traders and lawyers since the civil government took place.”

He adds: “The Canadian noblesse were hated because their birth and behaviour entitled them to respect and the peasants were abhorred because they were saved from the oppression they were threatend with.”

The letter concludes: “I glory in having been accused of war with unfairness in protecting the king’s Canadian subjects and of doing the utmost in my power to gain to my royal master the affections of that great, hardy people whose emigration, if ever it should happen, will be an irreparable loss to this country.”

Though Murray was recalled it must not be assumed that his policy of colonial government was disapproved of by the ministers for it was not until April, 1768, that he relinquished the office of governor in chief. After a time the opposition between the military and the magistrates died down, but the latter now became a fertile source of oppression to the civil population.

Let us then turn our attention to the Montreal justices of the peace. In 1769, reports had reached the Council at Quebec as to the oppresive practices of some of the magistrates of the Montreal district, and in consequence the council addressed to many of them on July 10, 1769, a letter of remonstrance applicable to “those magistrates only who had given occasion for the complaint.”

The circular prepared by a committee of the Council was addressed “To the Justices of the Peace active in and for the district of Montreal.” It opened with a charge that “it appears from facts too notorious to be dispelled that His Majesty’s subjects in general, but more particularly his Canadian subjects, are daily injured and abused to a degree they are no longer able to support nor public justice endure.” The chief charges were of extorting excessive fees from litigants applying freely to the court and that in addition a low class of bailiffs, many of them French Canadians, who provoked and instituted lawsuits among the inhabitants were going about with blank forms signed with the justices’ names ready to be filled up at any moment. Thus abuses were numerous.

In August a committee of the Council sat to consider further the state of the administration of Justice under the justices of peace. A report was prepared and was read on August 29th and September 11th. It was agreed to in the Castle of St. Louis by the council on September 14th, and Acting Attorney General Kneller was instructed to prepare an ordinance on the point.

The report after stating that although the original powers in matters of property given to justices of the peace by the ordinance of September 14, 1764, were exceedingly grievous and oppressive to the subjects, yet even so “the authority given to the Justices hath been both too largely and too confidently entrusted and requires to be retrenched if not wholly taken away.” It then notices “The Justices of Montreal have in one instance, and probably in many others which have passed without notice, assumed to themselves powers of a nature not fit to be exercised by any Summary Jurisdiction, whatsoever, in consequence of which Titles to Land have been determined and possessions disturbed in a way unknown to the laws of England and inconsistent with the solemnity and deliberation which is due to matters of so high and important a nature. And we are not without information, that even where personal property only has been in dispute, one magistrate in particular under pretense that it was at the desire and request of both the contending parties has by himself exercised a jurisdiction considerably beyond what the ordinance has allowed even to three Justices in full court at their Quarter Sessions.

“From an omission of a similar nature and for want of ascertaining the manner in which their judgments were to be inforced, we find the Magistrates to have assumed another very high and dangerous Authority in the exercise of which Gaols are constantly filled with numbers of unhappy objects and whole families reduced to beggery and ruin.”

Later the report refers to evils “which will probably always be the case when the office of a Justice of Peace is considered as a lucrative one and must infallibly be so when it is his principal, if not, only dependence.”

One consequence of the report was the appointment in the ordinance of a Court of Common Pleas to be held before judges constantly residing in the town of Montreal. This court was now to be independent of, and with the same powers as, that at Quebec. Hitherto the latter had held adjourned meetings on different days at Montreal. The object was to give inexpensive, speedy and expert hearing to Montrealers.

The ordinance passed in the council on February 3, 1770, was translated and soon appears in English and French in the “Gazette.” When it appeared in Montreal it roused strong indignation among the magistrates whose powers were now curtailed. A memorial signed by fifty signatures only was presented on the part of “merchants and others of the city of Montreal” with twenty objections to the Ordinance. Pierre du Calvet, a French Huguenot magistrate, was one of the indignant protestors and his usual high-flown style characterizes his memorial. According to Sir Guy Carleton’s statement to the deputation they had issued handbills calling a meeting of the people to discuss grievances, they had importuned and even insulted several French Canadians because they would not join them. Carleton who had now succeeded Murray in the Government of Canada warned them that they were acting against their own interests, that the firm refusal of the Canadians as well as of most of their countrymen plainly showed the opinion the generality of the public entertained. In his letter to Lord Hillsborough of the 25th of April, 1770, Carleton, however, after pointing out the evils caused by the law as administered by the justices says: “Though I have great reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of some of the justices there are worthy men in the commission of the peace in both districts and particularly in this of Quebec.” (See Brymner’s Canadian Archives Report, 1890, whose abstract is here used.)

To the credit of the better class of Montreal merchants of this period we must clearly dissociate the names of men who like James McGill and others have deserved the city’s most grateful remembrance, from the inferior “grafters,” to use a modern term, then exploiting the people. These were disapproved of by many of their own race. Carleton’s report of them to Lord Hillsborough dated Quebec, 28th of March, 1770, clearly designates the “rascals” of the day. “Your Lordship has already been informed that the Protestants who have settled, or rather sojourned here since the conquest, are composed only of Traders, disbanded soldiers and officers, the latter, one or two excepted, below the Rank of Captains, of those in the Commission of the Peace such as prospered in business could not give up their time to sit as Judges, and when several from accidents and ill-judged undertakings became Bankrupts they naturally sought to repair their broken fortunes at the expense of the people; hence a variety of schemes to increase their business and their own emoluments. Bailiffs of their own creation, mostly French soldiers either disbanded or Deserters, dispersed through the parishes with blank citations, catching at every little feud or dissension among the people, exciting them on to their Ruin and in a manner forcing them to litigate what, if left to themselves, might have been easily accommodated, putting them to extravagant Costs for the Recovery of very small sums; their Lands, at a time there is the greatest scarcity of money and consequently but few Purchasers, exposed to hasty sales for the Payment of the most trifling debts, and the money arising from these sales consumed in exorbitant Fees, while the Creditors reaped little benefit from the Destruction of their unfortunate Debtors. This, My Lords, is but a very faint sketch of the Distresses of the Canadians and the cause of much Reproach to our National Justice and the King’s Government.” (Report Canadian Archives for 1890.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For their action in this case Carleton removed their names from the council.

[2] List of the grand jury of the district of Montreal before which bills were laid against the prisoners charged with the assault on Thomas Walker:

1. Samuel McKay, Esq. (Foreman). 2. M. St. Ours (K. of St. Louis). 3. Isaac Todd. 4. Francis de Bellestre (K. of St. Louis). 5. Louis Mattorell. 6. Mons. Contrecoeur (K. of St. L.). 7. Mons. Niverville (K. of St. L.). 8. Thomas Lynch. 9. Mons. La Bruiere. 10. John Livingston. 11. Jacob Jordan. 12. Mons. Niverville de Trois Rivières. 13. Mons. Normanville. 14. Moses Hazen. 15. Dailbout de Cuisy. 16. Jas. Porteous. 17. Jno. Dumas. 18. Wm. Grant. 19. Samuel Mather. 20. Augustus Bailie. 21. John Jennison.

In a P.S. from Sir Guy Carleton to Lord Shelburne it is stated: “The attorney general at the desire of Mr. Walker objected to the Knights of St. Lewis being of the grand jury as not having taken the oath of allegiance, which objection they immediately removed by cheerfully taking them.”