Why, therefore, did you not cause the great seal to be affixed to the commission for Attornies, and cause the same words to be inserted therein, since they are as much public officers as Notaries ?--There are considerations which distinguish the commissions granted to Attornies from those granted to Notaries.

Are not the qualifications of Attornies and Notaries in this Province regulated by the same law, and what is the reason of the difference you make?—The principal cause of difference is found in the circumstance of Attornies being officers of certain courts, to whose superintending authority and coercive power in the discharge of their duties they are subject; whereas Notaries, as public officers of the government, are charged with more important powers and duties, and act independently without any other controul than that imposed by the provisions of law.

By what law, or what part of any law, were you authorised to insert in the commissions of Attornies, and in the old commissions of Notaries, the words "during pleasure?"—The commissions which have been issued under the ordinance regulating the appointment of Attornies and Notaries, from the time of the passing of the ordinance to the present time, that is, for nearly half a century, have, without exception, contained these words, which are to be found in the new as well as in the old commissions.

Are the words "at his special instance," which are met with in the new commissions for Notaries, also words de style, in commissions under the great seal, or for what other reason have they been inserted?—These words are introduced into the commission, because it is only on the special application of the individual that they are issued, as required by the ordi

nance.

Is the new commission for Notaries in the usual form of commissions under the great seal?—The commissions for Notaries are framed in strict conformity with the requirements of the ordinance, and in the form of instruments under the great seal.

Do you conceive that any greater controul would be established over Notaries under the new form than under the old? -No."

These details, I am sensible, are tedious, but they are necessary to enable the public to come to a right judgment upon the correctness of the report in question, to the examination of which I shall next proceed.

NO. VII.

ON THE FIRST REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF GRIEVANCES.

Quibus in controversiis cum sæpe a mendacio contra verum homines stare con suescerent, dicendi assiduitas aluit audaciam, ut necessario superiores illi propter injurias civium resistere audacibus, et opitulari suis quisque necessariis cogerentur. Itaque cum in dicendo sæpe par, nonnunquam etiam superior visus esset is, qui, omisso studio sapientiæ, nihil sibi præter eloquentiam comparasset, fiebat, ut et multitudinis, et suo judicio, dignus, qui rempublicam gereret, videretur. Hinc nimirum non injuria, cum ad gubernacula reipublicæ, temerarii, atque audaces homines accesserant, maxima ac miserrima naufragia fiebant. CIC. DE INV.

THE SUBJECT RESUMED.

HAVING thus disposed of the proceedings had in relation to this matter, within the Colony, we may now go back to the consideration of the public law applicable to the subject, and of the course pursued by the committee. But before doing so, we are called upon to look at the report of the committee itself; and it would have been satisfactory to find therein what the public had a right to expect-a plain and distinct enunciation of the question in controversy, and of the principles which were to lead to its solution. The jejune and immature character of this production precludes our taking it as any standard for the enquiry which we are to institute; we are constrained, in the first instance, to look at the subject as it stands in itself, and we shall afterwards examine the divergencies of this production.

The matter submitted to the committee would, to mature minds, have distributed itself under three heads :--

1st. Are the officers of the Government within the Colony holding commissions from the crown during pleasure, generally, bound to renew their commissions upon each new demise of the crown?

2d. Do the Advocates and Notaries Public commissioned within the Province fall under the operation of this rule, or are they an exception to it?

3d. Have the Advocates and Notaries any just ground of complaint for the course pursued by the Government in relation to the renewal of commissions upon the late demise of the crown?

Upon the first head we apprehend that it is not easy to give any thing more distinct than that which the opinion of the Attorney General affords. The question submitted to him was not of peculiar difficulty, but ex pede Herculem. Short and easy as this production is, one can readily believe that it comes from the pen of a man who is confessedly the first lawyer of Lower Canada.

QUEBEC, 8th December, 1830.

SIR,-I have been honoured with the commands of his Excellency the Administrator of the Government, signified in your letter of the 7th instant, requiring me to report with all practicable dispatch, for his Lordship's information, what ef fect, in my opinion, the demise of his late Majesty George the Fourth will have on commissions of public officers in this Province, after the lapse of six months from that event, and whether a renewal of such commissions will be of indispensable necessity before the expiration of the said period of six months.

In obedience to his Excellency's commands, I have the honour to state, that, according to the first rule of the common law, the commissions of public officers in this Province, which were in force at the time of the demise of his late Majesty George the Fourth, would have been determined by that event. But this rule of the common law has been modified by the statute 6th Anne, 7, according to the provisions of which, all such commissions will continue in force for six months from the period of his late Majesty's demise. At the expiration of this period, the rule of the common law will have the same effect in determining the commissions of public officers which

it would have had at his late Majesty's demise, if the legislative enactment now referred to had not been made. I am, therefore, humbly of opinion, that, in the absence of any legislative provision for a further or permanent continuance of officers in their respective offices, the commissions of public officers in this Province, by the demise of his late Majesty, will be determined at the expiration of six months from that event; and that the renewal of them before this period elapses will be of indispensable necessity, to prevent any interruption, or supposed interruption, in the continued legal exercise of their functions. I have, &c.

J. STUART, Attorney General.

Lt. Col. GLEGG, Secretary, &c."

The principles stated in it are not to be controverted. There is a wide latitude to be allowed for error, humanum est errare; but this indulgence is not to be extended to ignorance. A man who professes to be a lawyer spondet peritiam artis, and these juvenile lawyers who either controverted or misunderstood, or who had never read, the primary principles which ought to have guided them in the report to which we shall by and by come, are not to be excused on the score of ignorance; to them, at least, the maxim, ignorantia juris neminem excusat, is peculiarly applicable.

The opinion thus given by the Attorney General requires, on the part of men in the slightest degree conversant with the law, no confirmation or authority. If that authority were required, and we were to seek it beyond the bounds of the whole of the repositories of the common law of England, we should find it in the concurrent opinions of the Chief Justice of the Province, and the Chief Justice of Montreal, supported by those of the Judges of Quebec, and not contradicted except by the young chairman and young lawyers of the Committee of Grievances, the grounds of whose opinion, so far as they are to be detected, we will hereafter examine.

Considering, then, that all commissions from the crown during pleasure, determined at the expiration of six months from the demise of the crown as a matter not susceptible of controversy, the remaining question upon this branch of the sub

ject is, whether the Advocates and Notaries Public, commissioned within the Province, fall under the operation of this rule, or are they an exception to it.

It is proper to premise, that whatever conclusion we may come to in this inquiry, we have not the benefit of the lights of any of the foregoing opinions; those opinions cover an ab. stract question. The inquiry that we are now to enter into is, whether Advocates and Notaries fall within the general thesis stated.

There are very many considerations to distinguish the profession of an Advocate from the office of a Notary; and it is somewhat surprising that the chairman of the Committee of Grievances should not, even in the short period which he had devoted to his profession, have had time to learn the difference between the profession and the office. Nothing is better established than that the Notary is an officer of government. It may be well, for the instruction of the younger members of the committee, to put before them some authorities from the elementary books on this point :

"Notaire se peut définir un officier public institué à l'effet de rédiger par écrit, dans la forme préscrite par les loix, et de rendre authentiques par sa signature, les conventions qui se passent entre les hommes, et les dispositions qu'ils peuvent faire soit entre vifs, soit à cause de mort.

Ainsi, les Notaires sont des personnes publiques, établis pour écrire et arreter ce dont les parties demeurent d'accord et sont considérés comme de fidèles témoins de la vérité des actes, qui se passent devant eux, auxquels ils donnent une autorité publique, distinguée de celle que peuvent avoir non seulement les promesses verbales faites devant temoins, mais encore des actes passés sous signature privée.-Parf. Not., tom. 1, liv. 1, ch. 1.

Personne ne doute qu'un Notaire redigeant un acte sur du papier commun, cet acte ne perde, par cette seule circonstance, le caractère d'authenticité que la présence et le ministère du Notaire auroient pu lui donner. Il n'est donc pas vrai qu'un acte soit authentique par la seule présence d'un officier public; il suffiroit de consulter les Dictionnaires pour y apprendre qu'en termes de Jurisprudence, authentique signifie ce qui