Address at the Bar of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, delivered on the 11th and 14th March, 1853, on behalf of certain proprietors of seigniories in Lower Canada, against the second reading of the Bill intituled: "An act to define seigniorial rights in Lower Canada, and to facilitate the redemption thereof".

Mil. Speaker : On behalf of a number of proprietors of Seigniories in LowerCanada, 1 appear before you, to represent certain objections which they feel themselves justified in urging, to the further progress of the Bill, which has just examination to be as destitute of foundation, as any the most absurd of opinions ever vulgarly entertained.If the Seigniors be trustees and not proprietors, this much must be conceded that their capacity of trustees must arise, either from the incidents of the law in France before their grants ; or from something which took place at the time of making the grants-from something done here in the colony, or by the authorities in France, before the cession.; or, lastly, from something done since the cession of Canada to the British Crown.On all these points, I maintain that there is nothing to show the Seigniors to have been trustees, and not proprietors-everything to show that whatever interference was exercised over their property, was of an ab- normal character.As to the tenor of the prior French law, interpreting the subsequent grants in Lower Canada, I will not say much ; because, though addressing a tribunal, I am not addressing a body composed exclusively of professional men, and ought not therefore to talk too abstruse law.I shall go as little as possible into details ; but, venturing as I do on a position which professional men will and must attack, it is necessary for me to state, in some detail, my reasons for the conclusions to which I come.It would be a singular thing, considering what we know of France, if in the seventeenth and early part of the eighteenth centuries, any idea should have been entertained by the French Crown, of creating a body of aristocratic land-holders, as mere land-granting trustees for the public, especially for a portion of the public then considered so low as to be unworthy of attention.For ages, indeed down to the great revolution in the 18th century, the doctrine which prevailed in France, was a doctrine which made public trusts a property ; not one which made of pro- perty a public trust.The Seignior who was a Justicier, was the absolute owner of all the many and onerous dues, which he collected from the people subject to his control.The functionaries, even, whom he employed to distribute the justice such as it was-which he executed, held their offices for their own benefit-bought m franc aleu noble held by the most independent tenure possible, a tenure which admitted of his disposing of his land in whatever way he pleased.The holder in franc aleu roturier held as freely; with this reservation only, that he could not grant to inferiors, retaining to himself feudal superiority.The holder en fief was bound to his superior, and could grant, (either en fief or en roture,) if he pleased, to inferiors under him ; and the holder en roture or censive was bound to his supe- rior, but could have no inferior below him.As to the essential character of the contract involved in the granting of land en fief 1 refer here to one authority only, that of Heive, the latest and perhaps most satisfactory writer on the whole subjeci of the Seigniorial Tenure.In his First Volume, on page 372, he says, speaking of this contract : " it doit etre defini une (i concession faile d la charge d'une reconnaissance tovjours subsistante, qui doit (i se manifester delamaniere convenue" ; " it must be defined to be a concession " made subject to the charge of an always subsisting acknowledgment, which must (l be manifested in the manner agreed upon."This, then, is the essential of the contract ; a superior, holding nobly, grants to an inferior, who admits his inferiority and acknowledges it -how?In the manner agreed upon.The style of acknow- ledgment is the creature of the agreement between the parties.Here, again, is the definition of the holding a titre de cens, taken from the same author, Volume 5, page 152.ii C'est le bail d?une portion de fief ou d'aleu, a la charge par lepreneur ** de conserver et de reconnoitre, de la maniere convenue* un rapport de sujetion tou- " jours subsistant cntre la portion concedee et celle qui ne Vest pas, et de jouir " roturierement ; " it is the grant of a portion of a fief or aleu, subject to the charge il upon the taker, of maintaining and recognising, in the manner agreed upon, a a relation of subjection ever subsisting between the part conceded and that not " conceded, and of holding as a roturier."The holder en roture was a proprietor, but he must always recognize his chief-and this, as a roturier or commoner while the holder enfiefneld.as a noble.Both tenures were creatures of contract.In some parts of France one Custom, in others another, prevailed ; and in the silence of contracts the Customs governed the relations between the parties.The Custom which prevailed throughout Lower Canada, is well known to have been the Custom of Paris; and under it, as indeed under most Customs, the grantor of land was at liberty to grant on all kinds or conditions, and the appeal was only made to the regulations of the Custom in the silence of the contract.Particular Customs prohibited certain conventions ; but in general men granted, whether en fief or en censive, as they pleased, only observing not to transcend whatever might be the conditions of the Custom under which they contracted.1 admit, of course, that during a long period of dim antiquity, neither land held en fief nov land held en censive was really and truly property, in those days, such grant of land was merely the grq,nt of its use ; and the holder could not leave it to his children, or in any other way dispose of it.But in process of time it became the rule, that holders of land en fief could part with it by will, or by any contract known to the law,by sale, lease, grant d cens or a rente, or in any other way.If the holder did thus part with his land, the Lord of the land might claim his certain amount of dues ; if it was a fief or part of a fief that was sold, the buyer had to pay a quint.But I repeat, subject to these payments, the holder could sell his fief or any part of it ; only in the latter case, he could not make such part a new fief.The purchaser would merely become a co-proprietor with himself.Indeed, subsequently, still further relaxation came to be allowed.Within varying limits the holder en fief became entitled to alienate, without dues accruing to the Lord.According to the Custom of Paris, this point was regulated in a very precise manner ; the holder of a fief being at liberty to sell, grant or otherwise alienate, two thirds of his fief, if he only reserved ihefoi to himself-that is to say, if he held himself still as the feudal tenant or Seignior of the whole, and retained some real right, large or small, over the land alienated.He might take the value in any way he pleased, provided he only retained something payable annually as a token of his feudal superiority, and provided also he did not dispose of more than two thirds of his holding.In Brittany and elsewhere, the whole of this system of disposing of fiefs was unknown.There, the Seignior could not sell part of his fief He could either grant it nobly or en roture-, but could take only a small cash payment j and, supposing he had ever granted land at a particular amount of rent, he could never afterwards grant it at a less rent, and this for the reason that the interest of his Superior Lord in the land would be affected by any reduction of the amount of its permanent rent.That Superior Lord, therefore, had the right to demand that the Seignior holding of him should not make away lightly with his property-that its value should be kept up.No lawyer will deny, however, I believe, that by the law of France the obligations on holders of land granted en fief were in the interest of the lord and not in that of the inferior.It was not then the fashion to think of the inferior at all ; but only to take care that the Seignior was neither cheated by his feudal Vassal, nor by his Cefisitaire." ditions as they may think proper.But nevertheless, in case of the erection of any " duchy, marquisate, county or barony, His Majesty's letters of confirmation shall " be obtained, upon application of his said Eminence the grand-master, chief and " general superintendent of the trade and navigation of France."Such, then, were the terms of the grant of the whole country, made in 1627, to a commercial Company ; a Company created with most extraordinary privileges empowered to make war or peace ; to have fortresses ; in fact clothed with all the attributes of sovereignly.All limitations upon their power of alienation, which might appear to be made by the Custom of Paris, or otherwise, were dispensed with.They were to grant to anybody and everybody, on just such terms as they pleased.There had been some grants of land in Canada, made before this period ; but none of them seem to be in force ; so that I begin with this grant to the Company as affording the key idea, which interprets and governs all that follow.The Company granted, under this ample charter, a considerable number of Seigniories between the years 162S and 1663.By examining the printed titles, and adding several others, the existence of which I have ascertained elsewhere, I find in all sixty-one grants en fief of this period, of which sixteen are either duplicates or have never been taken possession of, or have been forfeited.Forty-five are thus still in force, and of these thirty-five are to be found in the Volumes lately laid before this Honorable House.The total grants en fief in Lower Canada, are about two hundred and eighty.The Company's grants, therefore, form about one sixth of the whole of those now existing.These grants cover an extent of* nearly three millions of arpents, according to the estimate of a gentleman of great accuracy in these matters and as all the lands held in Seigniory amount to some ten millions of arpents, the quantity now held under grants by the Company

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.