"Your committee feel less hesitation in pointing out these derelictions from his duty by the said public functionary, since the evidence on which the same is for the most part founded is corroborated by authentic documents; these make it appear that when it was in agitation to proceed on the question of boundaries en bornage against the parties in possession of the seigniory of Mille Vaches, in order to adopt proceedings for ejecting then from their encroachments on the King's Posts, the natural desire he entertained to shield them made him delay for a long time in instituting an action en bornage ; and it required nothing less than the repeated and positive orders of the Governor-in-Chief to make him undertake that proceeding, a culpable negligence which he would probably not have been guilty of if he had not contracted the improper custom of practising as a private attorney, which places him in contact with the interests of Government, and exposes him to the inducement of either neglecting or opposing them, as has been the case with respect to the disputes between the Jessee of the King's Posts and the aforesaid Hudson's Bay Company. When, in contempt of the King's Peace, and without any sufficient cause, the servants of the former were torn from their residence at their Posts, and dragged to Quebec as prisoners, the said Attorney General brought bills of indictment against them which were frivolous, and not justifiable by the circumstances attending them, whilst by a still more culpable neglect of his duty, and of the impartiality which ought at all times to be his guide, he favoured his own clients, and granted to them an impunity which is clearly demonstrated by the following facts.

"The Attornies who were employed by the lessee of the King's Posts to maintain his rights with respect to the charges brought against a number of the servants or agents of the Hudson's Bay Company, for having robbed the Indians of the Interior, and having fired with guns and pieces of artillery upon the servants and clerks of the said William Lampson, and being desirous of ascertaining whether the said Attorney General intended to proceed against them in the Criminal term of September last, wrote officially to him, in order that, in case he had determined to proceed, they might send for the witnesses required from the Indian country. That gentleman

magistrates, or upon the Certiorari which was afterwards brought, on either side: the case was argued before the magistrates by the Advocate General and Mr. Gugy for the prosecutors, and for the defendants by the Hon. Mr. Primrose; and upon the Certiorari by Mr. Advocate General and Mr. Gugy, and for the defendants by Mr. Primrose and Mr. Andrew Stuart.

however, not having thought fit to give them any answer, they as they ought to do, considered his silence to indicate his intention of not proceeding in those suits. But how much were they not surprised when they found that the said Attorney General, as soon as he knew that there were no witnesses, came forward with bills of indictment, which he submitted to the Grand Jury, who threw them out, as was naturally to be expected. To the remonstrances which the Attornies of the King's Posts made to him on the subject, who maintained that they were not bound to send for witnesses from such a distance without being brought on, he answered, "It is not my fault, I have done my duty-here are the bills."

"Your committee ought not to omit one very peculiar circumstance which has characterised the conduct of the said Attorney General with respect to the petitioner who is now before the House. With the view of prejudicing the judges of the Court of King's Bench against the said William Lampson, plaintiff in the action en revendication of which mention has before been made, it has appeared to your committee that, by the advice and under the direction of the said Attorney General, the petitioner was arrested for perjury, and that upon the sole accusation of the same individuals who had forcibly carried off his Peltries, and who solely escaped from being overtaken by public vengeance, because their protector, the Attorney General, had recourse to expedients which are equally repugnant to honour, to duty, and to the due administration of justice. (p)

"The documents which have been fyled before your committee have convinced them that the interest which the Attorney General has taken in these disputes, in favour of the proprietors and lessees of the seigniory of Mille Vaches, (the partners and servants of the Hudson's Bay Company) did in

(p) In this last paragraph the committee begin with usurping the powers of a grand jury, find a bill upon the accusation of M. Lampson without having before it one iota of evidence upon which the charge was founded, (see the appendix to report of committee) proceed to convict the Attorney General of corrupt misfeasance in office, and end with pronouncing judgment against him for corrupt misfeasance in office, and carry their sentence into effect by punishing him so far as they can; for that man is to be pitied who does not know that censure is punishment, and to a man of honourable character and feelings, punishment too of the most severe kind, far surpassing in intensity any pains merely physical or any penalties merely pecuniary. The other allegations above contained concerning other proceedings had in the criminal court, bear upon the face of them marks of discoloration, and would have barely passed muster in the speech of a manager of an impeachment. They too will be found to be wholly unsupported by the evidence joined to the appendix to the report.

effect influence the opinions which he gave to His Majesty's government on several occasions, and in particular the answer which he gave to the questions which were submitted to him in November last respecting a petition presented in behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company, praying to be authorised to sell strong liquors to the Indians, and soliciting pardons for those of their servants who had so done.

"In this answer he pretended that the provisions of the Provincial Ordinance of the 17th of Geo. III. ch. 7, prohibiting the sale of strong liquors to the Indians, was repealed by the 31st Geo. III. c. 1, and that the Hudson's Bay Company, trading in the Seigniory of Mille Vaches, did not require either a pardon for having sold strong liquors to the Indians, or a license for selling them in future. (q)

"Yet it is in proof before your committee, that the Courts of Justice have contradicted those opinions by sentencing to fine and imprisonment such of the agents and servants of that Company as had sold strong liquors to the said Indians. (r)

"It appears, therefore, to your committee, that the opinion so given by the Attorney General could only have been instigated by the desire to be of service thereby to his clients, whose interests were opposed to those of the Lessee of the King's Posts, and by a necessary consequence to those of the crown itself. (s)

(9.) And such is undoubtedly the law. After the fundamental error, already pointed out in our remarks upon this and upon the first report of the Committee of Grievances, it is not calculated to excite much surprise that the Committee did not learn much legal wisdom from the mouths of the juvenile lawyers of the committee, who were still reposing im primis legum incunabulis, and who seem not to have listened to the adhortation of their master which we read in the first elementary treatise in the fol lowing words. Summa itaque ope, alacri studio has leges nostras accipite et vosmetipsos sic eruditos ostendite, ut spes vos pulcherrima foveat, toto legitimo opere perfecto posse etiam nostram rempublicam in partibus ejus vobis credendis gubernare.-D. C. P. XI. Kalend. Decemb. D. Justiniano PP. A. III. Cos.

(r.) To enable our readers to judge of the sufficiency of the grounds upon which the Court of King's Bench at Quebec did hold that the ordinance imposing this penalty was not repealed, we subjoin a report of the case and argument as given at the time; but it is proper to be observed that this judgment was a judgment of two out of four of the Judges, and is not a judgment in dernier resort, so far that there are now pending several actions in the Court of King's Bench at Quebec, wherein that point is directly in issue, and upon which the judgment of the whole court will be taken, with the exception of the Chief Justice of the province, who is a party to one of these actions, and the judgment thereupon of the Provincial Court of Appeals and of His Majesty in his Privy Council, may and probably will be had.

(s.) Admirably logical !

"In conclusion, your committee beg leave to submit the following resolutions as expressing the opinions of this House relative to the conduct pursued by the said James Stuart, Esquire, in his quality of Attorney General, in the matters which have given rise to the complaint upon which this report is founded. (t)

1. Resolved, That the Attorney General of this Province is, both by law and custom, the officer who is especially encharged with the duty of maintaining the rights of the crown, as well as those of the public, as the present Attorney General, James Stuart, Esquire, expresses himself in his letter addressed to the Civil Secretary, and dated on the 24th December, 1830.

2. Resolved, That the Attorney General of this Province ought not to practise as a private Attorney in any case where he might be liable to be placed in opposition to the interests of the crown and of the public, who are exclusively entitled to his services.

3. Resolved, That the said Attorney General receives a salary and fees that are sufficient to prevent him from having any need of practising as an Attorney in the Courts in behalf of individuals.

4. Resolved, That the said James Stuart, Esquire, Attorney General as aforesaid, did, in the matters relating to the complaints made by the petitioner, William Lampson, become Counsel and Attorney for the partners, servants, or agents of the Hudson's Bay Company.

5. Resolved,-That by thus becoming Counsel and Attorney for the abovementioned individuals, the said James Stuart, Esquire, placed himself in opposition to the interests of the Lessee of the Crown, and by a necessary consequence, also in opposition to the interests of the Crown itself. 6. Resolved, That the conduct of the said James Stuart, Esquire, on the occasion of the disputes pending between. the Hudson's Bay Company and the Lessee of the Crown for the King's Posts, has been exceedingly unjust, vex

(1.) Observe here that the committee have forgotten Mr. Lampson, the Hudson's Bay Company, the encroachment upon the Crown domain, the civil rights, in the investigation of which regularly or irregularly they had entered, and with the touch of a wand they become at once a court for the trial of high crimes and misdemeanors of a public functionary, and proceed to hear, try, and determine, to judge, convict and sentence that public functionary, as will be seen in the resolutions immediately following this para. graph.

atious and equally injurious to the rights and interests of the Crown, and those of its Lessee, in the enjoyment of the Posts known by the name of the King's Posts.

7. Resolved, That this House perceive, in this conduct of the said James Stuart, Esquire, a new motive to solicit his Majesty's Government to dismiss him from his situation of Attorney General of this province."

I shall proceed in the next number to the examination of this document.