*. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 £fut m 
 
 1.1 
 
 11.25 
 
 mm §23 
 
 ; la ■2.0 
 
 lii& 
 
 6" 
 
 Fhoiographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WBT MAIN STtRT 
 
 WItSTIR.N.Y. USM 
 
 (7l6)l7a-4S03 
 

 ^ 
 
 .^^ 
 
 CIHM 
 Microfiche 
 Series 
 (IMonographs) 
 
 ICiUIH 
 
 Collection de 
 microfiches 
 (monographies) 
 
 Canadian Instituta for Historical Microraproductiont / institut Canadian da microraproductions hittoriquas 
 
Ttchnical and Bibliographic Notai t Notes techntqum et bibliographiquM 
 
 The Institute hat attcmptad to obtain the bnt original 
 copy available for filming. Features of this copy which 
 may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any 
 of the images in the reproduction, or which may 
 significantly change the usual method of filming, are 
 checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 L'Inslitut a microfilm* le mrilleur exemplaire qu'il 
 lui a it* pcisible de se procurer. Les details de cat 
 exemplaire qui sont peut-itre uniques du point de vue 
 bibliographique. qui peiivent modifier une image 
 reprodb4e. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification 
 dans la mithode normale de f ilmage sont indiquis 
 ci-d«ssous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endomma(i*e 
 
 D 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur** et/ou pelliculie 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Caites g*ographiques en couleur 
 
 D 
 
 □ Coloured 
 Encre de 
 
 ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrat'ons/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli* avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 La reliure serr*e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion le long de la marge intirieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may appe^ar 
 within the text. Whenever pouible, these have 
 been omitted from filming/ 
 II sa peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes 
 lors d'une resteuration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela *tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas ete f ilm*es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplementaires: 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagtet 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restauries et/ou pellicul**s 
 
 Pages discoloured, steined or foxed/ 
 Pages d*color*es. tachet*es ou piquees 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages d*tach*es 
 
 0Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 print varies/ 
 in*gale de I 'impression 
 
 Quality of 
 Qualite in4 
 
 □ Continuous pagination/ 
 Pagination continue 
 
 □ Includes index(es)/ 
 Comprend un (des) index 
 
 Title on header taken from:/ 
 Le titre de TentCte provient: 
 
 □ Title page of issue 
 Page de titre de la 
 
 I j Caption of issue/ 
 
 livraison 
 
 n 
 
 Titre de depart de la livraison 
 
 Masthead/ 
 
 Generique (periodiques) de la livraison 
 
 This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film* au taux de r*duction indiqu* cidessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26 X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 
 
 
 16X 
 
 
 20X 
 
 
 
 
 24 X 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 7H)( 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 22X 
 
The copy filmed here het been reproduced thonk* 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Netionsl Librery of Cenede 
 
 L'fixempleire film* fut reproduit grAce A le 
 gAn«ro«it6 de: 
 
 Bibiiothique nationele du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here ere the best quaiity 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sicn, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The !asv* recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall con.'ain the symbol —^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, riates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams iilusti<«te the 
 method: 
 
 Les imsges suivantes ont AtA reproduites avec ie 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet* de I'exemplaire fiim«, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimAe sont filmAs en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminent soit par la 
 derniire page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exempieires 
 originaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la 
 premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminent par 
 la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, seion le 
 cas: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre 
 filmAs A des tsux de reduction diffArents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul ciichA, ii est film« A partir 
 de i'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 iilustrent la mAthode. 
 
 32 X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
SUPERIOR COURT, 
 
 BEATJCE. 
 
 i 
 
 'I 
 
 JOHN OTAERELL & AL., 
 
 """••WW*,! . • ■ ' 
 
 Plaintiffs, 
 
 vi. 
 
 ALEXANDRE R. C. DE LERY & AL., 
 
 Defendants. 
 
 'itiilenientarj Jfactum b( t\t llaratHfe. 
 
 QUEBEC: 
 
 LEGER BROUSSEAU, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, 
 
 7, Jiuade Street, Upper- Town. 
 
 1867. 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY FACTUM 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PLAINTIFFS. 
 
 Thli 
 .involves 
 
 CRse 
 the 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 TIjc magnitude of tho interests involved in the decision of 
 tins case fully justifies thopublication, by the Plaintiffs, of a 
 second or supplementary Factum. 
 
 Tlie PUading submitted for tho consideration of tho 
 Court, 18, on both issues, a Di'fense au fonds en droit, or 
 General Demurrer, and involves, at tho same time, the 
 Bufficiency in Law, as well of the Defendants' Demurrer, as of - - ^"-- 
 the Plaintiffs' Declaration. The Plaintiffs purpose considering '"°'T" ^^% 
 lierein the sufficiency in Law : Istly : of the Demurrer, 2ndly : !« &«! 
 ot the Declaration. They claim that the Demurrer is insufficient murrer, 2nd 
 m Law, and that their Declaration is sufficient in Law : and.'^''" Deciara 
 as to the * 'tJon- 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 INSUFFICIENCY OF THE DEMURRER. 
 
 ^eC. I • ^The Plaintiffs submit, as they have already 
 
 done in their Factum, that tho grounds of the Demurrer have 
 raised questions, purporting to meet : 
 
 „ . let.— Tlie Plaintiffs' entire case, and numbered, Ist, 2nd 
 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 20th 
 and 21st. » 7 » , 
 
 «*u o^^-tJ'J'^L^^^^S^ *^® Plaintiffs' case, and nnmbered, and part onl- 
 6th, 8th, ] 2th, 16th, nth and 19th. of ml" ' 
 
 In order the better to understand tho points at issue, it 
 becomes necessary to reproduce entire tho questions of both 
 classes, namely : 
 
 Sec. 2, — -Question : 
 
 Demamr 
 rtiiei qaM« 
 tioni touch- 
 ing 
 
 lit entire CAM 
 
 1® To 
 
 whereof are not 
 
 support their present action (the conclusions 
 lot restncteu to the ueniEiiti oi rcvocutxou of tlic 
 
 Statement of 
 qaeitlona rai- 
 led hj Demur* 
 rer. 
 
OK PEttMISSION 
 
 — 4 — 
 
 rntcntj must tlic Plaintiffs shew ATmtoRm- 
 
 Q o ^"^^^^^^^ to bring this enit ? 
 
 i.„ K w^ *^ ,^"®* ^"'^'^ * •'"^t «» t'»e present one neccesarilv 
 ho bronglit m the name of Ilcr MajcHtv, on thrA^TofTjer 
 
 4 ?Ttl?e%.^^'''- **'';!" „.'',,, i^ 3„^j, La^^.officer ; 
 
 * 18 tl e iictre Faouu the only procecdinir bv wliieli thn 
 Instrument known as the ^^J^.^.-PatSu^'Xt 
 
 Buits',:htti%ironor"""^ '°"^'° ^ ^'^y '^ - 
 
 f„r^ T ^ ^^ *l'° Seigniorial Act and its amendments, and the 
 two Judgments above referred to, and the SclSo S t e 
 feeigmory as confirmed, affect tlie rights claimed bv « 
 Delendants under the " he Um-Patenp't '' "'° 
 
 A\..l f .i'* necessary that the Plaintiffs should have 
 discovered the existence of gold on their lands, and otificd 
 Uie Govjemment of such discovery, before the fssuo of 'ho 
 
 „!„ ^^ ^y®''V^'e Piioprietors of the i^i./ bound, M-ithin anv 
 
 or which ,n.STeCe^'f Iwln^r S^- "^*^'^*^^^ 
 2nd, 3rd, 4th „ o |^f ,S^^^ ^° "leir Seigniory ? 
 
 6ih, 7th, 9th, -^ ^^>« any necessity exist for n formal notice to \hn 
 ?!!:• US' ?Tr' f /''' '?"^^^*'* ^ requisition on him to work ?he mi e 
 1:S; leiJ; STf lY, V"f t^ 'T*T^' consequent on hrne^e^ «; 
 2o,h t aut, ^^"f.*^* 80 to do, belorc the Iloyal Permission could bt given 
 affect entire to mine on private property ? "»iu ue gi\en 
 
 tn thnr^l ^"^ ^^''- ^7'^"'*n t't^''^ «« owners of the soil convey 
 to them the ownership of the gold thereon ? ^ 
 
 ♦i,« • ? ® '"l"?^ ^°^°"» to the owners of the soil under 
 
 ^iz,zs:Li '"* ''"«'°"' o™°'. --;" • 'o? 
 
 iiy.^^1^ \^^? revocation of an Instrument, such as the 
 " DE W-Pafen , an act which may not bo decreed in a 
 proceeding to «-hich the Crown is not J party ? 
 ♦l,„ .-1 * 5''^« tl^e mLunr- Patent vest the Defendants with 
 1^ i of entry on the Plaintiffs' lands ? 
 
 Andeth, 8th, with the f™ hin'nT.^^^'n''^'^.''" ^^^^, *'^° Defendants 
 
 affect parton- 16 f Have the Plaintiffs the right to urffe in this casp fho 
 ' ^ {he pST* '' *'" '^"'^^^^"^ ^*" ^^^ O^gi-l^Grant'nV o? 
 
; I'KUMISSION 
 
 necessarily 
 flat of Her 
 Av-officer i 
 
 •y which tlio 
 ' may bo 
 
 party to a 
 
 its, and the 
 diilo of tlio 
 led by the 
 
 loiild bave 
 nd notitiod 
 ssiit of the 
 
 wifliin any 
 ent of the 
 
 tice to tliG 
 If the mine, 
 neglect or 
 
 1 be given 
 
 5oil convey 
 
 ' soil nnder 
 >mpanying 
 
 iffs' Decla- 
 
 with the 
 
 mely : of 
 
 ch as tho 
 reed in a 
 
 [ants with 
 
 )efendant8 
 id on tho 
 
 is case the 
 It and of 
 
 — 5 — 
 
 17 = Have tho Plaintiffs a right to recover, bv reason of 
 tlic attri c.f trcHpass ulleged by them, from tho t)etVndant8, 
 other damages than the mere agricultural loss i 
 
 18 ® Id the operation of the Patent divisible with respect 
 to the several distinct aud separate lots of land comi.oBinir tho 
 Seigniory ? i fe 
 
 I'J® Do the Plaintiffs, in their Declaration, deny the 
 Defendants' <laim to other mines, minerals and metals besides 
 those of gold if 
 
 M, ^,^f ^^ *'*° Plaintiffs' action unfounded, informal and 
 illegal ? 
 
 21 ® Have the Plaintiffs, against the Defendants, tho 
 right of action claimed in this cause ? 
 
 Tin.El. 
 
 Q'lestions of the First Clcus. 
 
 Tlie Questions of the first class may again be subdivided Qaeitioniof 
 
 into (Questions : Ist Strictly grounds otEec^ption d la forme, fi"tclMnub. 
 
 and 2nd. Fairly matter of General Demurrer 'divided into 
 
 ^. > •iibt. groundf 
 
 S(»C. 3, AVith regard to Questions : Ist, 2nd, 3rd, »•* of ^ev 
 
 -■' '-" - tiotudla/ormt 
 
 J. , ' . , -, -. -.^ Excevti 
 
 jorme havmg been already dismissed in this case. 
 
 PoTHiKR, Procedure civile, ch: 2, sect :2,art:Lvn ^ 
 thus defines £xceptions d la forme : ' ^' ' ,.? "indlTd, 
 
 <• J ',' ^^^ Exceptions sont cellcs qui tendent & faire rentoyer le Defendmr^^^' **•* '3^^» 
 dela demandt donn^o contro lui, k mvie do qnelques nulliteit qui so *[•, '''■°""^* 
 trouvent d.*«« la/orme de Vexphit do demande : par exemple, itarte qutf ^"V"""** 
 ''CtxphiticCiCvamiliQn'eatpasUMU. t"' ^"^ " ^"'' la forme. 
 
 Tlie same author, loco citato, then lays down the doctrine 
 broadly : 
 
 u 1 ^ ^p^^ f "'■'''■^ d'Exceptions doivent so proposer d limim litU. Lorsque 
 .. '^ Defendeur a defondu au fonds, il n'est plus recevable k proposcries 
 
 ^-sceptions, ct toutes les nullit4s sont couvertes. " 
 ^^ " Si le Juge trouve valables les moyens de nulliti, il declare I'exploit 
 ^^ nul, et rmtote en consequence lo De/endeur de la demande, sack a se 
 
 poukvoir; car il font bicn observer q„e ces exceptions ne sont 
 .. P*'"?™P'o"?s quo de I'lnstancc ; elles no sont pas poretnptoircs du Droit 
 
 du Uemandeur ; ellea ne doivent pas operer kt decheascs du fosds de 
 
^ — 
 
 not (S'roX PI ^'"J^J^V^l'Ofity then, Ib, that whatever does 
 to tlf;! J^^/ iH.nf.tts' nirl.t of action, but morelv objects 
 
 by Exceplion da forme: an.l that whatever nuUity Joes not 
 opera as a dochiance iiu fonds da droit du DemZdcur or 
 wo,.ia only inntlty a dien.isaal saufd s. por^rvoirTy^ZZ'nCi of 
 
 io ho Ei;."r"T '^""'^T'^ ^''•^'•' '^^r,io\v,A in a senso^voVablo 
 to the Defendants' pretensions, wouhl not destroy the PhiintiflV 
 right ot action, and wonhl, ut best, jnstify a dieniissal W 
 
 M^^urXd^th'^'V'S'i^T;/"" ^'•^"'^ tLrthe"Qucs.i:n:< 
 
 cromul! of k ! /^^ and l.'Uh are matters which are strictly 
 grounds ot iuceptxm a la forme, should have been i.ronosp'd 
 tn U,mne^nc\ before Plea to tlie uierits,-havo come Wate 
 and must bo overruled by the Court ? ' 
 
 And from 0_ A 
 
 want of Inter. ►^^»>. ^. Moreover, the Questions : Ist, 2nd, 3rd. 4th 
 
 «t^ .a Deren. 5th and 13th are so many attempts, on the par of the DeSn! 
 
 ?n wKf h!?n*f "h" 'f '? "^^"''•^ ''^^'^^'"g thl Crown onlv, and 
 in wluch the Defendants have not the slightest interest : the ridit 
 
 exilra? a7lv .1^' r;*'"*'' ^^^^^'^ «^""^' be dStroyed ff k 
 exist at all, by the Judgment in th s case, which beinffathin«r 
 tn^ahos acta never can have force of .C^^'/XS 
 fronf I"^"' f "^ .'""^' '^^ '"°^*' «'^'ft the burthen of th^RoyaUy 
 
 ONL^^ and'mi^'L^r''"'''*;, ?°l^ ^i;°""^« *''»'^^^'' 'h« cfown 
 oNL\ and may not be urged by the Defendants, who have not 
 
 ^a ufr vf ;?-''''V° *'1 ^"^^"^" ^^'«t^'°'' or nottlec'own 
 18 a party to this suit : such want of interest, which (NodveIu 
 
 ?f the nVht^'J^-,''"'^' § ^: ^'' !•) i«thcgreatcriteriJn, as^n 
 r? J 1 /f^ J-**" "'^^ Tl ^^^'^ "™'^«er in defence, as it is of the 
 nght of action, precludes the Defendants from reauirino- the 
 presence of the Crown in this suit. requiring the 
 
 .f ihn* ^T"^??^'' ^h** ^« th'« carping on the absence 
 ot the Crown from this suit, but a pleading of the rights of 
 Th.rf«ft^a«. J^ C^oyn. a resort, in fine, to the prohibited Plea of thfim- 
 
rn 
 
 — 7 - 
 
 Sec. O,— In any case, the grounds urged by tlu-^"'' *>«''""'i 
 Plaintifts ngainet the PE LfcKv-/>a^..i Ibnu what, in our Luw,j;'ron.";*:,t 
 are termed nullita absoluea, ae will bo Been bv thjicnt Kr.««//. 
 autliorities to bo cited horeatUr. Now, by our I ii\v .^^^^\li'' <ii>,otut.. 
 according to the maxin. : '^ QuoU nullum ,,t, nuUumprou\uit 
 efcctum , in all cases of absolute nuliitv, not ordy muv thu 
 party urge such nuUitv, without being nceu.ud of urgiiu; thu 
 rights of others, but the Judge is bound to noti(;o tht^radiciil 
 detect, even though it bo not pleaded bv the parties (Dunoo 
 presonpUona anl Gcvot, vho. nulliti P. 422, Ji)l : in act: cf' 
 l.ZW.Jid'. xn quarto), and no consent, and no lapse of 
 tunc, however great, short of the secular prescription, can cover 
 the detect ot an Ins.vument bearing, on its face, evidence of 
 al)8olato nullity, according to then.axitn: ^^ Mams est nnn 
 Habere titulmn, quam habere vitioswn," (Glvot vbo 
 nulhtl P. 475, M: in act: d^ I\ oGg] jrj\ inl/uaHo). 
 If then the " de LEuv-Pa^^i " can produce no effect, 
 it 18 clear that the Crown can exercise against the Patentees no 
 action under that Instrument, and no necessity can possibly 
 exist for requiring the intervention of the Crown in tiiis suit. 
 V lu .r^° 1°""^* ludicially notice the defects in question, 
 whether they be pleaded or not, and if those absolute nullities 
 cannot be covered by the silence of the parties, not even by 
 their consent, not even by immemorial prescription, is it not 
 clear that the silence of the Crown, its aljsence from tliis suit, 
 cannot cover those vices, and debar the Plaintiffs from having 
 the nulhty of the « db LmY-Patent » decreed by this Court. 
 
 • • ^'mu '^^ Orovm cannot be said to be absent from Ard Crowa \, 
 
 tins suit. The Superior C' i has been substituted to the late "o* •'»«•«>» 
 
 Courts of Queen's Bench iu Civil matters {G.S.forL C' """"^ *•*'■ "*"• 
 
 cA:78, §:4, »:667); and the Queen, Herself, sits here] 
 
 this Court IS held coram Jiegind ipad (3 Blackstone, P. 41, 
 
 ^. III, ch:4, §:G). Are the parties hereto not litigating 
 
 before the Queen, Herself? How does the writ of summons 
 
 herein run ? Is it not written : 
 
 " Victoria, by the Grace of God, Ac, &c. to certain Bailiffs, Greeting? " 
 
 u -P^®^ ?°^ "°* therein command those Bailiffs to summon 
 the Defendants « to appear before Heb, in Eer Superior Court, 
 to answer the demande » contained in the Declaration in 
 this cause ? 
 
— 8 — 
 
 >n<l8oTe- SOC. 0« IIow, tho I'lnlntiffB ftslc, coiiM i ho Crown 
 
 '•'^" ^^""'Miavo b('cn com|."lli'tl to intcrvcuo herein ? IIow couhl the 
 Crown liavo been innde a |iurty hereto i How, otiicrwiao than 
 BH Defendant i Ihit: i^ it (h)nhte<l that tho Crown eannt)t ho rnndo 
 Defendant in our Courts, that tho S(»Vv;rei;;n (rannot ho Bucd 
 (i Ulackhtonk, /•. 242, Ji. I, ch : 1, § : 1) < And, aa a 
 corollary of tlio maxim: ^^ nemo tenetnr ad impmaihile^^' tho 
 riaintilla cannot ho culled on to bring the Sovereign into thifl 
 Buit. 
 
 And eilftence 
 of the Titret- 
 oppoiilion 
 ■bowi it not 
 to be neceus- 
 
 §r to bring 
 OTereiga in- 
 to lait. 
 
 And Sore- 
 rt'iKn hu 
 been notified 
 
 Sec. 9. " But," gay the Dofondants, " you might 
 
 " have notified tho Sovereign of tho iuBtitution of this suit." 
 Tho IMaintitl'rt. answer, as before, that, tho issue of tho writ, tho 
 entry of tho dochiration, every step, in fine, taken in tho ease, 
 is a notice to tho Sovereign iterself, in Her own Court. More- 
 over are not tho proceeding!* of our Courts public matters, 
 whereof the subject, much more tho Sovereign, who holds tho 
 Court, is bound to take notice ? Does not flie oxiHtenco of tho 
 Tierce-opposition, by tho relief that remedy affords against 
 judgments affecting third parties, necessarily imply that tho 
 Jutigmentsofour Courts shall bo binding on third persons, not 
 parties to those Judgments, until such time as those third 
 persons shall havo obtained relief by the Tierce-opposition i 
 What then precludes tho Court from adjudicating on tho 
 DE Ls&x-Patent f If tho rights of the Crown be involved, let 
 tho Crown intervene now, or come in hereafter by Tieroe- 
 opposition. But, as a matter of precaution, tho Plaintiffs havo 
 notified the Crown of those proceedings, by a formal, written 
 notico, duly served on Her Majesty^ Attorney General for 
 Lower Canada ; not that tho Plaintiffs attach much value to 
 the step ; because no default can be recorded against tho 
 Crown, which may, or may not, at discretion, intervene 
 herein ; but because tho Plaintiffs are as ready to litigate their 
 claim herein with Her Majesty, Herself, as they are to do so 
 with the Defendants. 
 
 ^eC« lU« If, then, tho Crown has not thonght 
 
 And non-in- 
 terrention of 
 
 pnMumpUon propor to interfere between the Plaintiffs and tho Defendants 
 that Crown m tliis causc, may it not reasonably be supposed, is it not 
 acqniewee in oven a presumption juria et de jure, that tho Sovereign 
 deci^on to be ***^^1"*'^^^*^' ^" advance, in whatever decision may be arrived 
 giren in this t-^^j i" Her Court, upon tho points at issue betwccTi tho parties 
 
 esse. 
 
 hereto ? May we not likeu the inaction of the Crown to the- S 
 
— J) _ 
 
 mIIuiioc of iho Notary, uliuii onu of the i.uitiuri to u Juwl 
 uxtciitod l)utoro that Notary .Iwlarus frc-o from inortuniru n 
 ].n.|mm' on wliich tho Notary haH a hypothec ; in 8iu-h n case 
 
 1 . 2(ly, /{// : ,n fHjt : it- />. 20«l, /CJ : m ^«ar<<>, and Lacomhk, 
 vlfo. hy^HnhcqiUy i'. 853). 
 
 S<'c. 1 1 . 
 
 it irt hecaurtu 
 
 litiroinieitt tlie.v., ...... nn^ 'sx^nc-jwtufi iies. do iiii'ij is tlio 
 
 rert|K'ct thie, uiuler Hriliuh Law, to i hi.' sanctity of a Ii,am1, 
 that It re«niires the special ]iennisHiuu of tlio b(.verei"n t.. 
 enahle o-ir CtMirts to alter it, or cancel it, except it l.e the 
 mere act of the Court, not nf the i)arty, and in the breast of 
 the Court, but not beyond t lie Term wlierein the Uecord was 
 nuide {Jutnn' vs Bnmah/, Trin : 2 Anv. H. Ji. .t,- Ix>ui) 
 JJor;r, 2bAi.KKLD, vbo. liei-ordf. No. 6, P. 500.) And it is n<»t 
 every thing which the Legifelatnro has thought lit to call a 
 Kocord, that may not thus bo inteilered with except on 
 
 ell. 
 
 LoascH granted by the Governor of Sovth Australia, un.lcr Dowtrs 
 
 conferred on him by the Colonial Art, 21 Vict : ch : fl § ly, for riulntine 
 
 the sale and other aisposnl of vvasto lands belonging to the Crown%u< not 
 
 .M»rSV7''''rK'^r'''^r\^"''"^! ?'*'""" '" themselves AW,/«; and. 
 
 " Jw " '■'"'"'' ""^ ANSULLKD or QUASHED 6y a Writ of .*tV«- 
 
 " n /w f "? '•' " P:«'-"g?tivo judicial Writ, which must Int/ouwled on 
 a heeord, and cannot under the constitution of the Suprcinc Court in 
 South Australia issue out of that Court." 
 
 "rJZ'in'oTTr"'''^/'''""" »n«"th,.riKed nosscssion of lands of tho 
 trown in the Lolony is by an information in Chancery, Writof Intrusion." 
 
 . ?^P' . ^ '^' ^" ^'"'^ ^'"'° Scirc-Fadas Iiad been sntKl r„,., „, ,u., 
 
 ?W. r ^"T"'/'^"'> "^--^'"''^^ ^"^^'•"^'^'' t'^ vacate a S:"''"* 
 Grant ot Crown Lmd^, under the Great Seal of tlic Province of 
 iioutk Australia, %\^yMii\ and executed by the Governor, in tlio 
 na.no and on. behalf of Ilcr Majesty, but «of ttuct) ^ 
 2 
 
Arprnment of 
 
 ATTOnNFY 
 
 Gknbbal. 
 
 — 10 — 
 
 RECORDED in the Supreme Court. A Rule nijil was obtained 
 toqnash the Writ oi Scire- Facias^ on the following, among 
 other, grounds ; 2nd, that there was no record in the Supreme 
 Court of South Australia wJicreon to groniid such Writ. 
 6th, That the Writ did not sd forth any Recnid for annulling 
 of which it had been issued. On the 29th August, 1864, the 
 Supremo Court made the Eule absolute, and quashed the 
 Writ. On Appeal to Her Majo-ty in Privy Council, the case 
 was argued for the Eospondent's by the Attounky-Gkneual, Siii 
 RouNDELi. Palmer ; and it is but titting to reproduce his 
 argument, since it Avas endorsed throughout by the Judgment 
 of tlie Privy Council, and since it bears on other points i>f the 
 pre;:ent case, that shall be more fully noticed hereinufter. 
 
 " The Writ of Seire-Fiieias" ( snid Sir Roundcll Piilmcr, in thnt case,) 
 " is wholly inapplinnble to the Laws and Constitution of the Colony. There is 
 " no Officer or Court in the Colony having jurisdiction to issue such a Writ. 
 " It is a judicial and high prerogative Writ, and cannot be gkanted but upon 
 " A KECOKD ( Bac. Ahk. Scirc-Fucias A ; 2 Inst. 470 : 2 Wm's Saund., 71, 
 " note 4 ; Foustku on Scire- Facias, 2 ). Grants of Crown laneUin tJte Golonica 
 « are not re<-orih, thi;y aue not patents, nor are they proceedings cfa Court 
 •' 0/ Record, or enrolled, tohich in necessary tocomtitute them Records. (Com r 
 " Dio, Record A, Patent, F. 1 ; IIindmai«ii on Patents, 37—9 ; 3. Inst. 71). 
 " Crown grants of land can only be made by Letters-Patent under the Great 
 " Seal, which arc RcctcIs without further proof, being enrolled in the High 
 " Court of Chancery, from whence they issue : (Co : Litt : 16 ; Vin : Abk : 
 " Prerogative C ; Peaks, E, 81, note G; 2 Blackstonb 846 ; Doc : & Stud, 
 " B. I. dial 8 ; Chitty on Prerogative, 331 ). 
 
 The Seal of the Governor is not equivalent to the Great Seal ; he has 
 no sovereign authority, and an Act done by him, unauthorized by his 
 Commission is void : {Cameron va Kyte, 3 Knapp's P. C. cases, 332.). 
 
 " In our Colonics, questions regarding the title to lands are to be 
 " decided in the first instance by the Court of local judicature, from whence 
 " an appeal lies to Her Majesty in Council : {Attorney General vs. S'ewart, 
 " 2 Mku : 143). This must he done in the ordinary mode of procedure ; there 
 " is no instance of such a proceeding as this in the Colonies. " 
 
 " There were other remedies to which resort might have been had ; 
 " the parties might have proceeded by Bill in equity, to set aside 'ic grants 
 " as unduly o'ltained: Sawyer vs. Vernon, 1 Veunon, 370 ; Attorney General 
 " vs. Chambers, 4 D. M. & G. 206 ; Alcock vs. Cooke, C Binoiiam, 340 : or as 
 " in the case of a grant under the Uuchy Seal oi Lancaster, of a manor w'th 
 
 certain rights, where the question was raised in an action of trover ; or by 
 information of intiusion, (Chalmers' Opinions, vol. 1, P. 160.), where the 
 very case is put, of error on the face of the grant ; or by writ of intrusipn. 
 (CniTTY on Prerogative, 882-3)." 
 
 lie***************** 
 
;as obtained 
 zing, among 
 the S^iprcme 
 such Writ, 
 "or annulling 
 i8t, 1864, tho 
 qnashcil tho 
 icil, the case 
 
 jKNEUAL, Silt 
 
 L'prodnce liia 
 le Jiulgment 
 points I'f tho 
 jiuat'tcr. 
 
 ', in t)mt case,) 
 olony. There is 
 ue such a Writ. 
 
 lANTED BUT UPON 
 
 m's Saund., 71, 
 H in the Colonies 
 lings cfa Court 
 Records. (Com ; 
 -9 ; 3. Inst. 71). 
 under tho Great 
 lied in the High 
 16 ; ViN : Abk : 
 ; Doc : & Stud, 
 
 t Seal ; ho has 
 thorized by his 
 ses, 832.). 
 lands are to be 
 re, from whence 
 end vs. S'ewart, 
 rocedure : there 
 
 lavc been had ; 
 aside he grants 
 ttorney General 
 HAM, 340 : or as 
 of a manor wth 
 jf trover ; or by 
 ICO.), where tho 
 rrit of intrusion. 
 
 — 11 — 
 Sec. 13. Tn rendering Judgment on the Appeal, J^^J^*""" 
 
 LOBD CllELMSFOKD ohscrvod '. CBILMgrORD 
 
 " This is an appeal against a rule of the .Supremo Court of the Prc-'nce 
 " oi South Australia, making absolute a rule of the same Court obtained by 
 " the Respondents for quashing the Writ of S'-ire-Fncins issued for tho 
 " purpose of revoking certain leasts of Crown lands granted by the Governor 
 " of the Province to the Respondents." 
 
 . " J" ^° question raised by the rule, and to be decided upon the Appeal, 
 
 18 whether the Supreme Court of So"tfi Avstralia had jurisdiction to 
 " proceed by writ of Scire Facias to onnul grants or leases of Crown lands 
 " within the Prrvincc." 
 
 " ''■^'P ^^ ''* oi Scire- Facias to repeal or revoke grants or charters of tho 
 
 Crown is a prerogative judidal Writ, which according to all the authorities, 
 " mvst he lomahd upon a liecord. Time Crown grants and charters under 
 *| the Great Seal are always sealed in the Pctty-Baji-Officc, which is on the 
 " Comti.ftn Lutr Kile of the Court oj ( eery, and become Recouds theke. 
 '' Whether grants would be Records o^ the more act of Sealing, without 
 " cnrohucnt in the Court, it is unnecessary to consider, because in point of 
 " fact, such grants are invariably enrolled. They are then, at all events, 
 " brought within the defmition of a Record given in Comvn's Digest, title, 
 ' liicord, A, upon the authority of Coke on Littleton 200, A, viz : 'a 
 ^1 'memorial of an Act or Proceeding of a Court of liecord, proceeding 
 
 according to the course of the Common Law, entered on parchment for 
 
 ' the preservation of it.' 
 ^ " All Charters or Grants of the Crown may be revoked or repealed 
 •^ when they are contrary to Law, or uncertain, or injurious to tho rights 
 « and interests of third persons, and the appropriate process for the purpose 
 «' IS by writ of Soire-Facias." 
 
 ^^ " This being tho long-settled and wel" known rule of proceeding with 
 respect to Crown grants in this country, the question to be determined is 
 ^- whether grants and lonses of Crown lands in South Australia are o£ such 
 " an analogous character and desciiiition as to be necessarily subject to the 
 " same rpmcdial process of Scire-Fncias for their rcpeaL" 
 
 " The first thing to be considered is the Constitution of tho Supreme 
 " Court in the Province." 
 
 J^eC. 14. His Lordship, having stated that a The same 
 
 Colonial Act had conferred on the Supreme Court all such continued. 
 Dowers as the Lord High Chancellor of England could or 
 lawfullv might exercise within the realm of England, 
 proceeded to observe of the Supreme Court :— 
 
 . k !' ^^^? ^"'° promulgated a rule as tothe«e«teofWritsof >Sfc^V«-i?bc^fl«; 
 ^^• but, as that process rs applicable to other objects besides the grants of 
 ^^ Crown Lands (such as Recognizances and Judgme. ts), the right to use it 
 ^^ in order to annul the leases in question njust depend upon whether tho 
 .. grants are of the peculiar nature and character to render them a proper 
 toun'tftiion lor this partirninr remedy." 
 
! ! 
 
 ~ 1-2 — 
 
 ■a * •;<• ■:<• -x- * * * 
 
 * * 
 
 i! 
 
 •* It was contended, in th" lirst place, thnt these Lenses were virtually 
 RecordK. Thnt the Governor was entrusted with nil the niinistcriid duties 
 of putting the Prhvincinl Seal (the Queen's Seal of the Province) to grants 
 of Crown lands. That the Siiprenic tvourt, besides being a t-ourt of Record, 
 isnlso a Court of EquitjV ai'l en" perform ' nil such Acts, matters and 
 
 • things as lawfully can, or may be done by the Lord High Chancellor 
 ' within tho reahn of England, in the exercise of the jurisdiction to him 
 
 ♦ belonging.' 
 " The meaning of this argument seems to he, that all tho machinery 
 
 existed in the Province for placing grants of Crown lands on the same 
 footing with those in this country, both in their Original creation, and for 
 constituting them a Record. But it was not pretended that any enrolment 
 of them had taken place, and it, therefore, became necessary for the 
 Appellant to insist that the leases were in themselves Records. With this 
 " view it was asserted that every grant under tho Great Seal is i)ii>o f'lcfo n 
 " Record, and thnt the Seal of tho Province, which was entrusted to the 
 •' Governor by the Queen's Commission for the purjiose of making grants in 
 " Her Majesty's name, is equivalent to the Great Seal. Assuming this to bo 
 *' the case, it would advance tho argu.ncnt a very sh^rt way, unless it 
 " could be established that tho mere affixing the Seal to an instrument by 
 *' the Governor at once made it n Record. Jiiit a liecord (to recur to the 
 " definition of it given in Comyn's DiqeM) mvst he ' a memorial of an Act 
 " • or proceeding of a Court of Record,' and, when it in asserted thnt when 
 " the Seal of the Prminee is affirM to a lease kif the (rovernor, it hewmes a 
 " lieeord, it may not unueasonadly we asked : ' a Record of what 
 
 " COUKT ' ? " 
 
 Sec. \ O. After stating the arguments of opposing 
 
 Judgment of Counsel as to the existence of other remedies, His Lordship 
 PrivyCouncil.^,|,gjj,.^.^^. 
 
 " There can be no donht, however, that tho other modes of proceeding 
 •' pointed out by the Respondents are applicable to the Grant of the leases 
 •' in question." 
 
 " Their Lordships, being of opinion that the Rule granted by tho 
 " Supremo Court /oj- quashing tho writ of Scire-Faeias was rightly mode 
 " absolute will recommend to Her Majesty that tho Appeal against it bo 
 " dismissed with costs. " 
 
 Rulings in 
 that case. 
 
 SoC, 1 6j From that case in the Privy Council it 
 
 results, that 
 
 Istly.— The Writ of Scire-Facias, cannot he used to attack a 
 Crown-grant, that has not been enrolled in a Codut of 
 Justice and of Rkcobd. 
 
 2ndly.— TIic ordinary remedies must he resorted to, in tlje 
 ordinary course of procedure of the Colonial Courts, in 
 
 i ! 
 
_. j;>, ._. 
 
 order to nttack Giuii's not so rccordod in a Court of 
 
 Justice and of IJccord. 
 SnWy.-Thii ralnhy of Ontvif, not under tlic Great Seal of 
 
 Eninrliiiid, and not enrolled in Chancery, may be teKted hy 
 
 I'KivATK KriT between svhjcct and mbjcd, anil was even k'o 
 
 tested in a suit in trover, 
 4fl,l3-._TJic> introduction, into the Colony, of a form of 
 
 procedure on Scirc-Facias (which is ai)plical)le to other 
 
 matters hesidos Cnm-n-grants ) leaves the LaAV ow Scirc- 
 
 Fucias piccisely where it stond before, as to the peculiar 
 
 natui-e of the cases, where it lies. 
 Mi\y.—Viown. (jruvts in the Colornea arc not, and cannot be, 
 
 J.KrricKs-PATKNT ; for Letters Patent can only issue under 
 
 the Great Seal of England. 
 Othly.— The^yowjms of the Governor are strictly limited by his 
 
 Coimausion ; and such Gi-ants in the Colony are void as 
 
 are not authorized by Statute or by the Governor's 
 
 Commission. 
 
 N'C, I <• In order to apply, to the "de LEKY-ApplicaUoncf 
 
 rnt>nV\ the principles involved in tlie decision of the ease of''*^ decieioa 
 TiiK QtioKN v^. Ilvghes, it becomes necessary to examine ^ *^''"^'"'- 
 critically the nature of the Instrnment commonly called 
 the " i)K Leuy-/ atent. " By Lkpteks Open or Patent, the 
 Governor of Canada, under the Public Seal of Canada, 
 granted to Madame de Lery and her sons, not the"^*^*«^- 
 waxte lands of the Crown (which our Provincial Statute ^"iTiJl","* 
 authorized hun to grant) but the Royal Pkpmission <o Court of j" 
 work mines of gold and other precious metals, a PermissinnMci). 
 be it observed, enpanmnt, which nothing in the Governor's 
 Commission, still less in tho Imperial or Colonial legislation, 
 authorized him to grant. That grant commonly called the 
 " DE LERY-/*a<e«< " HAS NOT been enregittred^ enrolled or 
 recorded in any Covrt of Justice. It is, therefore, notaEecord 
 ot a Court of Justice, and consequently, in the language of 
 LoKD Chelmsford, as quoted above in the case of Hughes, 
 " It is not a proper foundation for the particular remedy of 
 ' Sctre-Faciafi,'' which does not lie in such a case as that of 
 the " PE LmiY-Patent." 
 
 ^eC. lo. But we shall perhaps be told that "thete"d "by *nl 
 
 "^DELERY-Po^M^'has bocH rccOrdcd in the Office of the ^'"^''n *!? "" 
 negistrar of Kecords." Wo answer with Lord Chelmsford : mrof¥«ords' 
 
11 
 
 ii 
 
 ii! 
 
 ;i I 
 
 " Assuraiiip; this to be the case, it would ndvnnce the argument a very 
 *• short w;iy, uiiU-ss it could he estnblished thiit the recording of it there nt 
 ** once nindc it n Record, that is to say, according to Comyn. following Coke 
 *' on Littleton ; ' a memorial of nn A(;t or proceeding of a Court of Record, 
 " ■♦ proceeding according to the course of the Common Law ; ' 
 
 " And if it is asserted that the " de LEKX-PateiU " has become a 
 "Record, in the language, again, of Loan CnEi,MSFonD," it may not 
 unreasonably be asked: " A Record of what Court ? " 
 
 Sec. U. Tliat 18 not all. Tliis Instrument is not 
 
 Enrolment ofn Orant of lands of any kind ; and tlie Office of Registrar 
 
 iiltmiofEn"^ Enmlraciits (not of Kecords) lias been created by tlic 
 
 lolraeuts ' Provincial Act, 36 Geo : III, ch. 3, an Act applying to 
 
 dotanotmako OmnU of Crown lands only, hut not to Giants ofthn Royal 
 
 It a Record Permimon to work a mine (see the Piearable of the Act). 
 
 c^_ ""-^""Enrolments niafle by that Officer are by § 2 declared to be 
 
 "■ Jievords fou tiuo pukposes hkkein contained.^' But nor 
 
 one word is there in that statute of Seive- Facias^ or of 
 
 •affiliating that officer wiHi uny Court of Justice. It is 
 
 theiefore clear that, even supposing the 36 Geo: III, 
 
 .ch : 2, to apply to such Grants as the " de liE&\- Patent,^* 
 
 (•which it does not), nevertheless, for the purpose of sueing 
 
 out a Scire-Facias the " de Lvaix- Patent^'' constitutes no 
 
 Eecord ; and Scire-Facias, therefore, does not apply. 
 
 mirbe reio°^ ^^^' ^9* ^oreo^^'' ^^^^ Chklmsfokd has declared 
 
 ted to, in or- that the remedies pointed out by Attorney General Palmer^ 
 
 f."*o^"*v«-nre the anpropriate remedies to repeal improper Grants 
 
 Crown Grants ^".*^'® Colonies ; and Sir lioundell Palmer in his argument 
 
 4nColonies. pointed out a case wherein the validity of the Grant had 
 
 been tested in an action of Trover, in other words in a 
 
 suit between subject and subject, and this without the 
 
 intervention of the Crown in any way. 
 
 ^eC. iC\ . In addition to tlio authoritiee cited in the 
 
 case of Hughes, the Plaintiffs beg to refer to the following 
 authorities, namely : 
 
 The same. Istly. — To show the necessity of its being recorded in a Court 
 of Justice. 
 
 Dunn vs. Allen, 1 Vernon, 283. 
 
 NoKAiAN on Patents, 165, 166, 168, 191 in fine, (& 209, 
 English Eds : 
 2ndly.— Tliat a bad grant is void, not merely against the 
 Crown, but aii?t> in ti suit between the Piitcntce and a 
 third person. 
 
)nD," it may not 
 
 Btrumcnt is not 
 
 ded in a Court 
 
 'n fine^ ds 209, 
 
 — 15 — 
 
 2 VicBNox, 388, noff, 
 NoKMAN rm H'ltcnta. 5 Englipli Ed : 
 2 Ron. 191, pi, 20. 
 3rd!y.— That the ordinary Tiibmiala, on pkivatk mH, and 
 withotit the formality of ^cmK-F\oi\&, aro eoinpctcnt to 
 try tJie vahdity of Crown-grants not enrolled in a Conrt 
 ot Justice. 
 
 Chad V.S Tilsed, \ I ?; ^ ^-^ l^S, ) 
 ' } 5 MooKE, 185, j 
 
 Gray vs Bond, J ? ?; *^ ^^ *'^''' I 
 ' \o M<K)BK, 527, j 
 
 Alcoal' vs Cooke, 5 Einwham, 340. 
 
 Cnmmlng vn ForrcKfer, 2. J. ct VV. Si2. 
 
 ■I'armett')' vs GM.s, lu Pkick, 412. 
 
 feCC. 44, In the 3rd case, lastly above ci'ed,And theRoy- 
 where, by privuto suit, the validity of Crown-^^rants has been ""^ """"■'"*" 
 tested in the ordinary cour.-e, and without the forn.ality of Sir/pff "p're- 
 ^cire facias, very large sums of money had been paid to the sence of the 
 Lrown lor the Grants, while in others the Crown had ^^°^^" ''> P'^- 
 considerable subsisting and pecuniary interest at the time ^'''»'"»'*' 
 What then becomes of the argument that a nece sity evisfcj 
 tor the presence of the Crown in this suit, by reason of the 
 oneteuth Royalty ? 
 
 ^eC. -J. ^Moreover in the case of The Principal 
 
 Officers of Ordnance vs. Taylor, (1 Lowkr Canada Reports, 
 481) It was held by (he Court of Queen's B.'nch. in Appeal, ^- °- ?^«'' '"^ 
 that a Defendant by Exception, might invoke"^ the^^P^^'^"^: 
 imlhty injuriously affecting him, without being obliged toattSedV 
 have recourse to the Scirfi-Ficia,9. And aisuredfy if there is P'**^- "^^d 
 any meaning in the maxim : " Q,mperpet>ia ad excipiendum,tlJf'''^ ^^ 
 temporaka sunt ad agendum:' it must moan that whatever 
 may be upheld by Plea, may also be urged by Action, subiect 
 nevertheless to the qu. stion of time, as affected by 
 prescription ; and that a man is at liberty to defend his rio-hts, 
 cither by Plea, or by Declaration, according as those rfghts 
 inay have been invaded in, or out of. Court. So much for 
 eductions, Ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 13th. 
 
 ^eC. 24. As to Questions 20th & 21st, they aro too Questions 
 
 general, and are not to be noticed by the Court, since thev ■-°'^' ^.^^' '"^ 
 
 • ' •' general, and 
 
 faulty. 
 
•1 ' 
 
 i 
 
 
 — Ifi — 
 
 do not convey particnliirs of tlio objcjtione soiisUt to he 
 urffcfl ; mid they violate, in that respect, the XXXVth llule 
 of Practice of tliis Court, which states "that no party shall 
 '* be permitted to urge any <;roinul, in support of a D/ftVfte 
 " aafondx hh Droits not so set forlli and paitivuLiuutd in 
 
 " such notice'. " 
 
 Remaining ^ q^* 
 Questions of ►^(JC, 4tO, The only Questions of tlie first class, 
 
 7th'9S'''foih P"rporting to meet the Plaintiffs' entire case, and remaining 
 nth. 14th. 'to be considered, arc the 7th, 9th, 10th, 1 1th, 1-lth, 15th. 
 15tb*18ih. &18th. 
 
 Aa to 7th, 
 Plaintiifs 
 could not be 
 expected to 
 notify Crown, 
 before issne of 
 Patent, of dif- 
 covery, since 
 gold had not 
 then been dis- 
 covered on 
 their lands. 
 
 ^^*C» <<*W, The 7th Question is, whether, " in order 
 
 " to he able to maintain their present action, the Plaintiffs 
 " should have discovered gold on their lands, and notified the 
 " Government of such discovi-ry before the issue of the Patent." 
 Tlie absurdity of the reasoning which prompted the raising of 
 such a (|ue8tion is apparent on reflection, that, although gold ha<l 
 been discovered long ago in other parts of the Seigniory, yet, 
 at the date of the " de Lkry- t^atent^' gold had not been 
 discovered on the particular lands referred to in this cause. 
 Tlie " DK Jj^^VLY- Patent " issued in 1846 ; and the Plaintiffs' 
 Declaration alleges gold to have been a very an< ient 
 discovery in some parts of the Seignioi*y, but not to have been 
 found on the Plaintiffs' lands until 1860, when the Declaration 
 alleges the Plaintiff", O'Farrell, to have been ihe first to have 
 discoverci quartz and other gangnes bearing gold and silver, 
 and to have notified the Government of such discovery. How, 
 then, could it be expected that the Plaintiffs, in order to 
 maintain their present action, should, in 1846, have notified 
 the Government of a discovery that was not made until I860 ? 
 
 Sec. 27,- 
 
 And here it is fitting chat the Plaintiffs 
 
 Misrepresen- 
 tation by the , , J ^. , . 
 Defendnntsofsnould notice a glaring misrepresentation of the Plaintiffs' 
 the Plaintiffs' allegations, perpetrated, unintentionally no doubt, by the 
 
 SiXadno-^*'^"'''^''"*^ ^" *''<'''' Factum. The Defendants, at Page 36 of 
 ticed. tlieir Factum, say : 
 
 " II est bicn all6gu6 quo I'un des Demnndeurs, John ^Farrell, Ecuier, 
 " a fait, suK le8 tekkains qu'ils deciuvent, la decouverte de nines, que 
 " DANS UNB AUTKB PAUTiE DE l' ACTION, ils alleguent avoir etc cunnves ct 
 " dicouvertus depuia ii n demi-sidde, et qu'll a eto le premier k en denonccr 
 " rexistoncc. Or, M. O'Farrdl n'a acquis ccs torrainp. nu'c!) IRfiO, ctf,, ctf. 
 
 •i 
 
— 17 — 
 
 ! sontjhf to be 
 
 XXXVtI. Kulo 
 
 no prtitv fihall 
 
 rt of a bi'fciixe 
 
 aiiicuLurizal In 
 
 ' tlie first class, 
 
 and remaining 
 
 'th, l-tth, loth, 
 
 2ther, " in order 
 n, the Plaintiffs 
 and notified the 
 c of the Patent." 
 id the raisinij of 
 thongh gold had 
 J Seigniory, yet, 
 hau not been 
 
 in this canse. 
 
 1 the PlaintifiV 
 ft very amient 
 lot to have been 
 
 the Declaration 
 llie first to have 
 gold and silver, 
 liscovery. How, 
 ffs, in order to 
 S, have notified 
 lade until 186U? 
 
 It the Plaintiffs 
 f the Plaintiffs' 
 doubt, by the 
 i, at Page 36 of 
 
 'Farrell, Ecuier, 
 vcrte de nines, que 
 oir oto conmies ut 
 mier k en denonccr 
 ii'en 18fin, etc., etc 
 
 Sec. 28. — In 
 
 the above quotation the Plaintiffs RefntBtion of 
 
 are accused of having said, in one part of their Declaration, '''"' T'^ 
 that « the gold on the Plaintiffs' lands was discovered half J {IL"*"''^'"" 
 " century ago," and, in another i)art of their Declaration, that 
 ' sudi discovery was made (luite recently by the Plaintiff, 
 O Farrell." To show that the Plaintiffs have not fallen into 
 any such ridiculous contradiction, the Plaintiffs reproduce 
 entire the allegations of their Declaration, concerniu'r the 
 discovery of the precious nielals. At Page 3, in fine, of their 
 Declaration, the Plaintiffs sav : 
 
 " That t'le discovery of the existence of alluvial and diluvial Rold in the Quotation 
 SeiRniorynow called U.g.md-Vaudreuil was not made by said Grantees, from Plain- 
 eUliur indivhlually or colle. tlvcly ; that such discov.-ry had been made forty ''ff^' Declara- 
 ; years at least I.etm-e the issue of said I-etters-Pat, .t, as evidenced by old t'on, 
 
 maps whereon the River now called the Oilbcrt-Kiver in said Seigniory, now 
 .. ?"*;'' ,!^'r71"."l\^ au.lrenil, is set down and marked iiulitrerently as ' Kivioro 
 " herewith mJ"" """" '^'"'■'" "" ""^'''^'^^''^ '^"l'^ "^ «"« of which maps is 
 " That thirteen years at least before the issue of said Letters-Patent, 
 a nug^y;t of nluvial gold, ofsevral onnces in weight, had been found in said 
 Kiver Gilbert by a person nam.-d Gilbert ; and that, although the said Uame 
 Mane Joseph te rras.r, Charles Joseph Chaussegros de Lory, Esquire, and 
 Alexandre Keno Chaussegros de Lory, Esquire, immediately alter such 
 discovery, Imd knovvledge thereof and of like discoveries elsewhere in said 
 Seigniory now called Rigaud-^^iudreuil, and although, during said period 
 of thirteen years, the said Marie Josephte Eraser and Chtrles Joseph 
 Chaussegros de Lery, Esquire, and Alexandre Rene Chaussegros de Lery. 
 fcsquire, had been exclusive proprietors in possession of said Seigniory now 
 cahed Risaud-\ audreuil, yet the said Marie Josephte Eraser and Charles 
 Joseph Chaussegros de Lery, Esquire, and Alexandre Rene Chaussegros de 
 J.ory, Lsquire, utterly failed and neglected to disclose, or to cause to ho 
 diclosed to Our said Lady, The Queen, or to the Governor of this Province, 
 or to the Civd Government of this Province, as representing Her said 
 .v\ih1t 5'i""i °^ such , liscovery of gold, or in any manner to comply 
 R ^V '''"^^ °^**'^ ^"S'""*^ ^'■••^"* of said Seigniory now called 
 ^l^^u 1 r^ respecting the disclosure of mines, until application was 
 made by the Grantees aforesaid for the said Letters-Patent in the month of 
 Moy preceding the issue of the same." 
 
 Sec. 29,- And at Page 8, 
 Declaration, the Plaintiffs further say : 
 
 in fine, of 
 
 And by other 
 their quotation 
 from same 
 Declaration. 
 
 TTcnni. f ' o'?*'ie pieces of land so bought by the said John O'Farrell 
 nf Xvioi '"^^M™*^/"'!!!***.'''^*^*^'^*'''''^*' ^'^^ora), there exist deposits 
 ^n.fri!I r diluvial gold tin, platina and other metals, and veins and 
 fm^n^Kin ^'^'''^1^ *"** ^V^^"" S^^gues. carrying gold, silver and platina, 
 uncombmed with any other, metal, and also chemically combined witl^ 
 copper, lead, Uu, zinc, arsenic, antimony and iron. 
 o 
 
— 18 — 
 
 "That the saidJohnO'Farrell, Esquire, has discovered, and has been the 
 flsrt. to denounce (denoncer) to Our Sovereign Lady, The Queen, the 
 exiHtence, on said pieces of land, of the said gold and silver-bcaring-quartz 
 and other gangues. 
 
 " That, the said Plaintiffs are ready and willing and have suGBcient 
 means to work, and to cause to bo worked, well and sufBciently, the said 
 alluvial and diluvial gold and other mines, and the said metal-bearing 
 quartz and other gangues ; whereof the said Plaintiffs hereby pray aete." 
 
 That misre- 
 presentation 
 arises from 
 ignoran 
 nttare 
 
 nes. 
 
 i!li 
 
 i: I 
 
 in 
 
 ^CC, oU. — In the faco of such, the language of the 
 Plaintitts, and their only allegations on the subject, it is a 
 re of mystery to them, how the Defendants could have'so misrepre- 
 "'"'•sented the l^laintitfa as to have accused the Plaintiffs of 
 liaving madecontradictory averments as to thediscovery of gold. 
 The milde8t_ explanation of the Defendants' conduct in this 
 particular, is to be found in the supposition that they are so 
 little versed in mining matters, as Jiot to know that there may 
 be as m ny mines, and consequently as many independent 
 discoveries of mines as there are quartz reefs, — aye, even as 
 many discoveries, as there are important mineral deposits in 
 the same reef. And the principle of such independent 
 discoveries, even on the same reef, is laid down and recognized 
 by our own Legislature, in the " Gold mining Act of 1864," 
 (27 & 28 Victoria, ch : 9, § : 17), which states : 
 
 "2^0 person shall be considered the diseove. ..' of a thew quarU-mine, 
 " vnlets the place of the alleged discovery shall be distant, if on a known 
 " lead, at least three mileg from the nearest known mine on the same lead, 
 •' and, if not on a known lead, at least one mile at right angles from tiie 
 " course of the lead." 
 
 Deftidants'**^ Sl.'C. 31. Upon Ihat misrepresentation of the 
 
 Logic, based Plaintiffs' Declaration, the Defendants, in their Factum, have 
 on that mis- proceeded to bui'd up what they, no doubt, conceive to bo a 
 representa- dQemma of the strictest logic. At Pago 36 of their Factum, 
 the Defendants say : 
 
 " Alors de deux choses I'une : ou, il (the Plaintiff, O'Farrell,) a donne 
 *• cet avu AVANT d'etre proprietaire de ces terrains, ou depuis seulement. 
 '* — S'il Va donne avant, il se trouvait dans la position d'un etranger qui 
 " demande une concession de mines existantes, dans la propriete d'autrui ; 
 " et, suivant les pretentions des Demandeurs, ih deraient auparavant 
 " mettre les propnetaires du sol en demeure de les exploiter eux-nieines, et 
 " ohtenir unjutjement centre eux, en decheanee de leurs droits, ce qu'il n'a 
 " pas fait ; on il a d nne cet avis depuis les acquisitions susdites, et alors, 
 " il venait trop tard, puisqy unc autre denonciation avait et6 faite et la 
 " concession dc toutcs ccs mines diimcnt aciordee aux Messieurs de Liry." 
 
— 19 — 
 
 ON THE SAME LEAD, 
 
 it angles from the 
 
 Sec. 32.--N 
 
 ow all that tlio above attempt at 
 
 J«*8oninK requires, m order to he&dilemvta, is that it should that i^pecimea 
 
 be ***** a dilemma!! It is, in fact, the very reverse "^ !-««««»• 
 
 ot a dilemma, since neither horn will bear being handled. 
 
 J?or instance, as to the first alternative the Defendants 
 
 oner, that of having failed to place the owners of the 
 
 sou tn mord, and to obtain a judgment of subrogat'on 
 
 to the owners rights, the Defindants seem to have forgotten 
 
 tnat f/ie J^/mnt^Jfs, by pukciiark, have become subrogated to 
 
 t/ifi owners rw/its, and do not therefore need any judgment of 
 
 subrogation. And, as to the second alternative, tllat of having 
 
 given notice too late, since a previous grant of the mines had 
 
 been made to the Messieurs de Lery, the Defendants' argument 
 
 is a Fetttw jmnppa ; they assume as admitted, the very 
 
 Droposition denied by the Plaintiffs, the validity of the " De 
 
 Lery-grant ; and the Defendants conceive that, by urging the 
 
 existence of a void grant, they can debar the Plaintiffs from 
 
 questioning its validity. It is of such specimens of logic as 
 
 tne foregoing, of such misrepresentations of authority and of 
 
 garbled quotations that the Defendants' Factum is made up. 
 
 ^or instance,tlie Defendants, throughout, confound the Droit 
 
 UegaUen with the right of ownership ; and from the existence 
 
 of a Royalty which no one denied, prior to the Seigniorial 
 
 Act, tlie Defendants conclude, throughout, that the right of 
 
 Koyalty is sponimous with the right of ownership. But of 
 
 tiiose errore, into which the Defendants have thus fallen, more 
 
 will be said hereafter. 
 
 -Tlie difference between the position of ^ISD^fen- 
 
 Sec. 33. 
 
 +r„ -n ^ 1 , , , "" "'^ I'^^ciiiwii V71 unlike Urft 
 
 iif .-^Ji""^"^^ ""d ^J'at of the Plaintiffs is this, that the <''>"»»• "^e 
 i-laintifts are first (and, as may almost be said, exclusive) f""7'!f*°" 
 discoverers of the mines, as they are exclusive owners of there's, aZ.Tf 
 soil, ot til. ir lands; m that respect, they possess two qualities, their mineB. 
 no one of. which ever was held by the Defendants or bv the 
 Grantees of the Patent, and which, by the Laws of all Nations, 
 constitute an invincible claim to the mines, when combined, 
 as the llaintifis Declaration alleges they are, with the will 
 and the imans of working such mines. 
 
 k.(,C t>4. Admitting, for the sake of argument. Defendants' 
 that, at some given point, or points, in the Seigniory, thel:*'':*'"""''' 
 Messieurs de lery had made a discovery of ?old, their »^";r' ''^ 
 posuion IS not bettered '" ' ■ - -^ ' 
 
 .n, 
 
 In view of the present argument ^r^umwirt 
 
— 20 — 
 
 etutn, thftt being on the Demnrrcr, wliicli, ad hoe, admits tlio 
 ih»y Rro dis- truth of the PhiintiftV ulli'^mtii.n tliat they are the first 
 goMeUp." diHcoverers of the mines on tlicir liindrt, it is olear that 
 where in the » prior discovery of gold elsow licie hy somebody else, 
 ■eigiiiory. never eoidd jnstity tlio <?nint to flint Hotnehody else of the 
 mines so discovered hy the IMiiintlirs ;»n their own lands. For 
 instance, within what area hIuiU yon circnniscriho tho 
 inordinate desires of that sonielxidy el.se, von-owmr of the 
 soil, in his demand for n gdld-iiiiniiii; grant ? If yon do not 
 limit him to territory a-^ distiiiguislicd hy a diti'erence of 
 proprietary, or, in other words, if von give liim a gold mining 
 grant extending over other lands tliiin the partienlar lot, npon 
 which ho may have made his discovery, there is no reason 
 ■why yon shouhl not make to him a gtaiit of nnlimitcd extent. 
 If you do n(jt limit his grunt fo a jiurticnlar lot, there is no 
 reason why you should limit the (Jrant to a Parish, a County, 
 a District, aye, even to a Piovince. Thus is evidenced tho 
 absurdity of tho claim set n]) by the Messieurs do Lery to a 
 Grant of mining rights over onk mNi>uKD and kight sqdakb 
 MILKS of territory, founded on a discovery, not by them, but 
 by one Gilbert, of a nugget, that did nut perhaps cover one 
 smiare inch of that territory. That the interjtion of the 
 Governor of this Province, inissiiing the " dk Lkkv-Z^'/^^/j^," 
 could not have been to grant any other mines than those to be 
 thereafter discovered by tho Grantees, is clear from the very 
 wording of tho Instrument itself; and ceitainly, it was not 
 tlio intention to grant to tho Patentees such mines as other 
 persons (for instance, the Plaintiffs) should thereafter discover 
 on their own lands ; but of this more hereafter. So much for 
 Question 7th, raised by the 7th Ileasou assigned iu tho 
 Demurrer. 
 
 SrS! ^^'^« ^'"^^ Questions : 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th & 
 
 11th, 14th and 15th, (which, with the 18th, form the only remaining Questions 
 
 ^f'h' *'f®**®'^ot' tho first class) involve the whole question as to the 
 
 erea ter. Q^ynership of gold and silver mines and of Eoyal rights 
 
 therein, and will bo treated of, in a more appropriate place, 
 
 in the next chapter, under the heading of the Vth, Vlth, and 
 
 Vllth reasons assigned by the Plaintiffs in their Declaration 
 
 against the validity of the " de LE&x-Patent " (see Section 
 
 of this Factum). 
 
 Sec. 36. — As 
 
 Pateat'°i8 i\. ^GC. eJO. As to Question : 18th, whether the 
 
 risible : and operation of the Patent is divisible, it is hardly necessary 
 
— 21 — 
 
 ', admits tlio 
 y are tlic first 
 
 18 clear that 
 8oint'l)0(ly else, 
 idy olso of tlie 
 )wn lands. For 
 iTiiinscribrt tlio 
 7i>-owihT of the 
 
 If yi»p. do not 
 u ditt'eronco of 
 I a irctld iiiiiiin<; 
 iciilar lot, upon 
 •0 is ii(» reason 
 iiliiuited extent, 
 lot, thoro is no 
 Irish, a County, 
 > evidenced the 
 I do L6ry to a 
 
 r) KIOUT SQUARE 
 
 )t by them, but 
 haps cover one 
 itention of the 
 [•: Lv.u\-h(tmt;^ 
 ;]ian those to be 
 ' from the very 
 nly, it was not 
 mines as other 
 •e after discover 
 ', Ho much tor 
 ssigued in the 
 
 11th, 14th & 
 ining Questions 
 ion as to the 
 f Royal rights 
 jropriate place, 
 f^th, Vlth, and 
 sir Declaration 
 " (see Section 
 
 1, whether the 
 irdly accessary 
 
 to discuRs the matter, sinco the diviBibility of ita operation 
 pceiiis, to the Plaiiitift's, to be a self-evident proposition. 
 Now, { and without waiver of the objection that this 
 Question should have been raised by Exceptimi a la forme) 
 just suppose the case of a Crown grant to A of several lots 
 of laud previously and separately i)atented to H, C, D; 
 Will any (»no pretend that B may not attack A's Patent, 
 merely because C & D iire either unwilling or unable to move 
 in the tnatter i Could H, C, & D even join in the same suit 
 to compliiln of that Patent ? Clesrly not. What right, then, 
 wonid li have to urge C's rights as against A's Patent ? By 
 claiming in Ji's suit to have A's Patent declared inoperative 
 as against (', would not W lay himself open to the imputation 
 of urging the droit d'autnii 'f In the case, then, of the " i)« 
 Lkky-ZW?*/'," is it not c ear that the Plaintifis had no right 
 to askthis Court to declare the Grant inoperative as against 
 any other person than themselves i Moreover the right of entry 
 wh cli the Defemlants claim, under that Instrument, to 
 exercise uj)on and over the Plaintifis' lands is nothing more 
 nor less than a servitude ; as rc8i)ect8 the soil itself, not even 
 the Defendants claim it to be a right of ownership ; and if it 
 is not ownership, it can be nothing else than servitude. Who, 
 then, ever questioned the divisibility of a servitude, as respects 
 theobject of that servitude ^ Giyot, vho. servitude, P. 236. 
 M '.in oct : dj I". 249, Ad : in quarto, in an article, which 
 acqun-es im])ortance mainly from the vast research and great 
 learning it exhibits, has said : 
 
 rtftbtrf Action 
 thprnfore dU 
 visible. 
 
 Patent rifrhti 
 not a riKbt of 
 jiroperty ; 
 thereroreonljr 
 a irnfilude ; 
 iini lerviludt 
 divisible. 
 
 ^^ beaucoup d anfrcs doctenrs, que toiites les autres servitudes, tant reelles 
 „ ,1,"' .P'^'"«o'."»i"cs se uiesurent sur les besoins de la personne. ou do 
 u ' ""^"^K.c «* qui elles sent dues, et que ces besoins ne sont pas susceptibles 
 
 de division ; tandisquc chaque portion de I'usufruit, prise 86par6inent, 
 
 apporte une utiiito relative a la propcrtion qu'elle a avec le tout." 
 ^^ " II n'est pas tonjnurs vrni, d'abord, que les autres servitudes se 
 
 mesurcnt sur les besoins do la personne ou de rh6ritage k qui elles 
 
 sont dues." 
 
 « 77' ^"^1*° difference d6rive done de la nature mfime dea servitudes qui est 
 ^^ telle qu on ne peut phesque jamais les dkiser. Mais toutes lesjois que 
 ^^ L OBJET de la servitude pcut etre divhe, la reole n'a plus lieu. Le droit 
 
 de puisage, par exemple, qui apportient a une maison pour cinquante 
 ^sceaux par jour, peut fort bien 6tre divis4, si la maison elle-m^me est 
 
 oivisiMe : et rien n emp^chera que^ si celte maison ent 'ijirte"^." m deus 
 
 " chacune de ces maisons" n'ait un droit 6gd "ou "in6goi dans^ce puisage! 
 
 selon les conventions de I'acte de partage, r o » 
 
• />« miiM«Mf>T0^ lorsque je Ruin grw* (1« la ttnitudt d« n« pa$ tUttr 
 ^^ mon mur da cI6tu>* do plus dc six piedH do haut jiOiir ne paa nuire k vo» 
 ^^ vues, nen n mpi- >- quo Je ne mo WHrv de cetto servitudo pour ptrtie 
 „ "•."!"!"?"♦» ^} P*«" "nRi<)Uftit qu'elU ne puiue Mre eonti/irie eomm» 
 ^^ atvwtHe. C oat Hur ce roiidoinent quo Ddnod rappnrto au Chapltro 6, 
 «i ^ * "• '?" ^"•'^ <*" l*re»eription*, un oiT«f< du Parlcinent de 
 Bosanpon, qui a jugi qu'on pouvait pre$erire contrt une itrviluds 
 Boinblable pou« pakhb leuUmtnt. k sbhait facilb db iu'ltipubii cbs 
 
 KXCKITIONS. 
 
 The same doctrine is laid down by Lk Oamub in h-B 
 observations on FkrkiAkk, Grand Coutuviier, art: ^>l, 
 . l*^l»--and by Langk, in his JVouvelU Pratique, vol : li 
 oh : 3. Tit : 3, h 225. * 
 
 It is therefore clear that the rifjhts claimed by the 
 Defendants, under the " de Ltmy- Patent,'' are divisible, since 
 the lands they are supposed to affect were held in different 
 hands, at the time of the issue of the Patejt, and are still 
 divided among various proprietors. 
 
 Tlie Questions of the first class having been thus disposed 
 of, the Plaintitfg proceed to treat of the 
 
 Title II. 
 
 Questions of the Second Class. 
 
 the lecond ^GC. O t • As to all the Questions of the second class, 
 
 .1n?;1?col "^""^^^ • *''^ ^*'*' ^t'^' 12th. 16th, 17th, (Sr 19th Questions, they 
 
 leciiveij-, do P"i'port to answer part only of the JhiirMffs' Declaration; 
 
 notmeot collectively they di not profess to raeet fh', m '»- !t ease ; .)'l^ 
 
 Plaintiff*' en- even did they cover all the ground tf i-.,u .ip uv the Plaintiffs' 
 
 cMa > Declaration, the unsoundness of any one of the Law-points 
 
 raised by those Questions would preclude the Court from 
 
 considering the others ; because, in the latter case, some part 
 
 of the Pliiintiffs' Declaration would remain unanswered. 
 
 And the Plaintiffs contend, that, on General Demurrer, 
 
 professing to answer the whole case, and not praying for 
 
 tho diemissal of each one of the Plaintiffs' conclusions, the 
 
 Defenda".*,. are debarred from urging grounds that profess 
 
 to ineei part only of the Pl.aintiffij' case. In order to 
 
tdt d« n« pat ilettr 
 ne piH nuire A voa 
 viludo noiir partie 
 ? eotitUttrit comme 
 rtti au Chapitre 6, 
 du Parletnent de 
 tr» une t»rvilud4 
 
 Dl MrLTIPLlKR CM 
 
 Oamus, in h'!fl 
 ier, art: 1^7, 
 ratique, vol : 1, 
 
 ilaimcd by tho 
 ! divisible, since 
 eld in ditfercnt 
 t, and are etill 
 
 !n thus disposed 
 
 the second class, 
 Qnestions, they 
 V Declaration ; 
 < It case ; .)'l^ 
 ) the Plaintitts' 
 the Law-points 
 he Court from 
 case, some part 
 Ji xinanswered. 
 3ral Demurrer, 
 lot praying for 
 onclusions, the 
 ds that profess 
 la order to 
 
 — 88 
 
 show that Quoationa: 6th, 8th, 12th. 16th Itth Ar 
 19th dp not moot the Plaintiffi,' ontlro case, eithc'r sin^h;, " 
 colloct.voly, ,t 1. well to remind tho reader that those 
 QucHtu.ns aro :-Oth as to tho effoct of tho Soigriiorial Act mi 
 he i;atent,-8th, whether the Grantees were Lnn.l to not y 
 tl.o Crown, within a reasonable tiino, of tlieexistonco ui'mM -L 
 li?th. whether the PiaintiftV Doclaratioti shows the DelAular'.ta 
 to have no ihcd tho Crown in tiino,-16th, whether the Phiintirts 
 can urge the non-f ulfalment of the con.litionH of the two Grants 
 -ntl., whether the Plaintiffs can recover for otlu r ca se f 
 
 i}'""fo- 'T.*^'." '"''■" '^Kr'^V'^"'-*' Io«8,-an.1 19th, whether tho 
 llaintitls D.carution denies the Defendants' right to other 
 .nines bej.-les tu.se of gold. Jt is also well to bear in m h 
 thatthoPlaint.tts in their Declaration, besides tho matk-^ 
 referred to in tho Gth, 8th, 12th, ICth, 17th, & l!Hh Ques? on 
 do also urge against tho » dk LKUY-PuUnt^ a varie -z 
 of other grounds such as fraud, deceit, surprise, niiHreprese ^^ 
 tation, misreei al, uncertainty, the absence of the Great Seal 
 of England, &c., &c., &c. Now the PlaintittV cSn for 
 dan.ages forms part only of the Plaintiffs' d.mande. TI^ 
 
 5?H s' V M ""n^ ^T^'frJ^ '''' *^'^^« '^••^ t^^« «f them. Hee 
 ^age IS of the BefendanU' Factum ) are in these words : 
 
 .« A. " ^""■".'J""'' 0" T.^'t," ^^ '*'«°"« ci-des8U8 all6gu«es. le dit Dfifendenr 
 demande le renvoi de I'acUon des Demandeurs avoc dlpens: " ^*'^"'^*'" 
 
 OeC. 38. ^Those -onclusions therefore pray theAndr«nnot 
 
 dismissal of the Plaintiffs' entire action, for reasons that profess n" "^ "* > 
 to niee part on y of the Plaintiffs' case. Now the PlSftt' S^Ir 
 contend that tho Defendants' Pleading, beinc a Gen ra 
 Demurrer to part only of the Plaintiffs' casef is tSfo o 
 bad and mu«t be overruled in toto ; in any ca e, it must be 
 onTS ''\lf\^y''''^'^^o^^^^^Vroi.Jr^^ to mee part 
 only of the Plaintiffs' action. In support of their views on 
 
 " flJ'yl!^*" *^':°,'""'^ leveral Counts in (i Declaration, gome of which nre 
 u ^o"'" " -i '°''' •^.*' "'^'■^ *** '^'""'"' ^ «A« waoi-s declaration. th„ SJ 
 
 De. 
 
— st- 
 
 ill 
 
 If 'III 
 
 III 
 
 ill 
 
 ^6C* 3^» In support of his opinion, Tidd, loco 
 
 citato, quotes the following decided cases and report^ ; 
 
 1 Wm's Saunu :5Ed: 286 (9). 
 
 2 Wm's Saund : 5 M : 380 (14). 
 
 Duke of Bedford vs. AlcocJc. — 1 Wils : 248. 
 Judin vs. Samuel. — 1 New Riip : C. P. 43. 
 Spi/er vs. Thelwell. — 3 Cbomp : M. & K. 692. 
 1 tvR. & G. 191. 
 
 1 Gale, 348, S. G. ' 
 Ferguson vs. Mitchel, — 4 Dowl. Rep. 513. 
 
 2 Ckomp : M. & R. 687. 
 1 Tyb. & G. 179. 
 
 1 Gale, 346. S. G. 
 
 Price vs. Williams — 1 Meeson & "W. 6. 
 1 Tyb. & G. 197. S. C. 
 Wainwright vs. Johnson. — 5 Dowl : Rep : 317. 
 
 Sec. 40. CniTTY on Pleading P. 304 & 576, also 
 
 states 
 
 :i li 
 
 iil) 
 
 " Where the matter goes only to defeat a part o/'the Plaintiffs' cause 
 " of action, the Plea in abatement should be confined to that part ; and, 
 " if the Defendant were to plead to the whole, his plea would be defective." 
 
 ************ 
 
 " A Demurrer is cither to the whole or part of a Declaration ; and, if 
 " there We skveual Coimtn, or, in covenant, seveual bmiche.% mme of which 
 *' are .^iijficient and the others, not, or one Count which niav be bad in paut, 
 '■ the Dctendiint should only dtmur to the latter ; for if he were to demur 
 " to the WHOLE Deel.irat on, the Court would gwtijinlginent against him ; 
 " and this rule applies to one Count, part of which is sufficient and the 
 " residue is not, when the matters are divisible in their nature. 
 
 ************* 
 
 So, where the Plaintiff declared in Seire-Facias, upon a judgment in K. B*, 
 with &proiitpatet per recordum, and also an affirmance of that judgment 
 in Error, in the Exchequer Chamber, without a pj-out patet, &c., 
 and the Defendant demurred to the whole, the Court held the Demurrer 
 TOO LAUOB, and the Plaintiffs demand was divisible, and j udgment was given 
 for the Plaint{f. So if part of a breach bo good, it is no cause of Demurrer 
 to thaichole, that special damage is laid, whioh is not kecoveuadle. 
 In the case of a Plea of Sett-off (two parts of which are considered as 
 similar to two Counts in a Declaration) if one part be good, a General 
 Demurrer to tlio wiiole will be had.''' 
 
— 25 — 
 
 )4 cfe 576, also 
 
 •. ?^^'„'^^' -^^ ^"PP°'* ^^ ^"8 opinion, Cnirry 
 
 by Tidd! nameTy? '^''''^''^ '"''' ^"^ ''^''*'' "'^^ ^^^^^''^^ *<> 
 
 5 B. & A. 712, & 715. 
 
 Comyn's i^^Viresi:, vJo. Pleader Q. 3. 5., & 0. 82. 
 
 1 Saunders'^ Rkp : 27. 
 
 2 Saunpees' Eep : 378, 379 & 380, Tioife 14. 
 
 10 East's Rep : 359. 
 
 11 East's Rep : 505. 
 3 Teem Rep : 374. 
 5 Teem Rep : 557. 
 5B. &A.175, 712. 
 1 WiLs : 284. 
 
 1 D. «fe R. 361, S. C. 
 
 2 Bla : Rep : 910. 
 
 1 Salkeld, 171 a, note 1. 
 
 Sec. 42.— On the merits of the Questions of the Propositiow 
 second c a.B, tlie Plaintiffs s.bmit(as at Page 7 of their Firs^°-°"«° 
 Fuctinu they have already done) the following Peopos tkns ''r"^'';' . 
 namely: " -- "o •^^^'^^^o^^ions, submitted by 
 
 Tn^ If'''";^'°.^*^'^"'°''''''^ ^c*' and the two 
 Judgments referred to, and the Schedule of the 
 
 pZt^' ^«'7 materially affect the '« de Leey^ 
 
 T.nnn'^'''"''-??"'^''® pvoprietors of the Fief wero 
 bound, withm a reasonable time, to notify the 
 
 feigSy"' '^" ''"''"'' '^^'^^ '"^ '^^ 
 
 Twelftly -The Plaintiffs have not, by their 
 Declaration shown the proprietors of the iw to 
 have complied with the condition of their Grant 
 
 SixTEENTHLY.-The Plaintiffs have a nVht in this 
 cause to urge the non-fulfilment of the condi ions of 
 the Original Grant, and of the Patent. '^""'''^'^"^ ^^^ 
 
 Seveententhly.— The Plaintiffs have a nVht to 
 recover other dama^fia tb«P th^.n ^ri^in^^-"^ ^ 
 agricultural loss. ° ° """' °'^''« 
 
 Plaintiffs. 
 
iil 
 
 - 2G - 
 
 NiNETEENTiiLY. — ^Thc Plaintiffs do, in their 
 Declaration, deny the Defendants' right to other 
 metals besides gold, nainely,^ to all the mines, 
 minerals and metals referred to in the Patent. 
 
 .. , „ Sec. 43. As to the Sixth PROPOsmoN, after they 
 
 atxth Propo- . , r ,. t /-i i 
 
 Bition invoi- shall have F.liown what the Law ot Lower Canada was, in 
 
 Ting owner- respcct of iniucs, at the date of the issue of the Patent, the 
 
 ??e'«te°dofhe'l'l'^'»titt"^ purpose establishing that the abolition of the Feudal 
 
 teafier. Tenuri) involves the annihilation of all pretensions, either of 
 
 the Crown, or of the Patentees, to mines in the Seigniory^ in 
 
 question. For evidence of tho PliiintiilV views on tliar point, 
 
 tliw reader is referred to Section of this Factum, where, as 
 
 the Xth Reason assigned by the Plaintitls' Declaration against 
 
 the validity of the '^ im Lv.\vi-P(itmt,'' the matter wiil be 
 
 treated of, in its most appropriate place. 
 
 Eight Propo- SgC. 44. The ^«>/<^/t Pkoposition to the effect that 
 
 obiil^Ition on " the Patentees (as being in possession of the Fief) were homid, 
 D.'fendantsto" within a reasonable time, to notify the Government of the 
 diaciose ruU " existence of gold in the Seigniory " is 6usce])tible of lacilo 
 nee, proved pj-oof. The Plaintiffs' Declaration '(admitted to be true, for 
 all tho purposes of this argument) alleges the discovery of 
 gold to have been made, to the knowledge of the Patentees, 
 on a part of the Seigniory 13 years before the issue of tho 
 Patent, and not to have been notified to the Government by 
 the Patentees until the May preceding the date of the Patent, 
 Now it will be seen hereafter (Section of this Factum) 
 that the Law itself, the Onlhrnnce ^*/' Louis XI, dated from 
 Jlont/ls-Jefi Tours in Skptembkb, 1471, Section 4, pronounces 
 against all those failing, within the space of forty days, to 
 notifv the Crown of such discoveries, the penalty of forfeiture 
 of all claim to a Grant of the Royal Permission to worh the 
 mine. How many periods of forty days there are in the 
 thirteen years,silence of tho possessors of the Flcf\ hmy many 
 times over the Messieurs de Lery had earned the forfeiture of 
 all claim to a Royal Permission, before the issue of the Patent, 
 is, tlurefore, no difficult matter to determin . 
 
 Effi'ft.inLftw 
 of f.tilnre hy 
 
 See. 45. 
 
 Independently of the penalty pronounced 
 
 Def.'mtants 10 ijy the Ordinance, the Plaintiffs' Declaration recites one 
 
 fulfil tliiit piange of tho Original Grant of tho Ficf^ the only one on the 
 
 obligation. ^^^^^,^,^ ^j^> n^iHe^ to be found therein. It is an obligation 
 
 imposed on the Grantee, his heirs and assigns in these words : 
 
— 27 — 
 
 " De donner avis & Sa Mnjcstfi ou k pous ct i. nos successeurs, des 
 " mines, minidres etmin6raux si aucunsso trouventdans ladite etendue." 
 
 Now the non fulfilment of that ohligation beincf an act of 
 ingratitude, should have been (had it been known to the 
 Crown) not only a bar to any further liberality of the 
 Sovereign ; but it would, according to Potiiikk, "following 
 DuMouLiN, have even entailed Coimnise or forfeiture of the 
 Firf upon the Seignior. Note the hmgnago of Potuikk, 
 Traite dts Fiefs, Part 1 eh : 3, Sect : 2, Art. 1, § 1 P. 97 : 
 
 " De ce rnpport entre la commise pour felonie et 'a revocation des 
 " donations pour cuso dMngratitude, qu donnent lieu i\ la revocation des 
 "donations, et (nii sont rappoitoes <n la loi da Cod ; de rervc. donation, 
 " peuvent etre adoptees ik lacoinniise pour felonie ; c'(istVa\\s do rJiunoiilin, 
 " qui decide sur Vart. 33, f/hm. 1, qmmt. 37, quo pour savoir les causes qui 
 " doivcnt donnor lieu k la commise, il ne faut avoir rerours ni i\ celles 
 II exprimees dans les livres de Feudis, ni aux causes d'exheiedation des 
 "enfunts ou des peres, mais aux causes de revocation des donations 
 '• exprimees en la loi du Coo. de rcvocnnd. donation." 
 
 " Ces causes rapportees sont au nombi'e de cinq. 
 
 * * -» ********** 
 
 " La cinquiSme raison est : ' fii conventiones donationi apjiositna 
 ' ' mviime implere voluerit ; ' cette raison a rapport au desaveu dont il a et6 
 " parlo en la section prec^dentw'." 
 
 t ^eC, 40. According, then, to those authorities, the The 
 
 Grant of a Fief, or of a Eoyal Permission,— of anything, in 
 line, v.dnch constitutes an act ot liberality, a gift (donatio) 
 from the Sovereign to the subject, is revoked by any act of 
 ingratitude,— the neglect or refusal to fulfil any condition or 
 stipulation annexed to the Grant {conventionem donationi 
 apjxmtam). What greater act of ingratitude could the 
 Alessieurs de Lery have been j^uilty of, than this thirteen 
 years' neglect, on their part, to intimate to the Sovereign the 
 discovery of mines which the Defendants pretend to have 
 belonged exclusively to the Crown,— this faihire of the 
 Grantees to fulfil the condition annexed to their Grant of the 
 Ae/,— and their failure to comply with the conditions of the 
 Patent. The non-fulfilment of tlie conditions annexed to the 
 Grant of the Fief, and to the Patent, must therefore be 
 considered as having revoked the Grants. 
 
 ^eC. 47. The rw^7^i!ApEOP08inoN of the Plaintiffs 7V-W//A Pro- 
 18 to the effect that « thpv hnvo not h^ their Pe"!"""!! or Position, as to 
 Shown the Defendants to have compUed''with the conditionStia of 
 
 same. 
 
28 
 
 li'ifi" 
 
 Defendant's " of tho Grant." It is true, the *' dkJjKry- Patent " recites that 
 
 oMhe*min"J *^® Patentees had notified the Crown of the discovery ; but it 
 
 also eata-" ' ^oeB not assign any date to such notification. Now the 
 
 blished. , PlaintiflTs' Declaration supplies the omission ; it is there 
 
 averred that the notification to the Crown was made only in 
 
 May peccediiig the issue of the Patent. If the Di fendants 
 
 conceive that, by alleging them to have knowingly and 
 
 unlawfully refrained, during thirteen years and upwards, 
 
 from notifying the Crown, the Plaintiffs have shown a 
 
 compliance, on tlie part of the Defendants, wMth the condition 
 
 of the Grant, then the Defendants are heartily welcome to the 
 
 harmless delusion ! 
 
 Sixteenth Pro- ^ j q 
 
 position, aato ^GC, 4o. nie-S/aj^feM^A PROPOSITION ofthePlaintiffs 
 
 nonfulfile"*^* ^^^6^'^s ^^^^^'^ "right to urge the non-fulfilment of the 
 ment of con-" conditions of the Original Grant and of the Patent." A few 
 ditions, made quotations, with comments showing their application, will 
 manifest suffice to make manifest that Proposition. 
 
 In Hakrison'b Digest, vbo. Grant, P. 3154, we find the 
 following : 
 
 " Grants from the Crawn, for the leneft of the King, ly augmenting 
 " the revenue, founded on inquisition ad quod bonum, must be confonniiblo 
 " with the finding, — tnvst he for the advantage of the Grown, — must be acted 
 " upon PROMPTLY, — must be upheld by possession and enjoyment, — and the 
 " Grantees must fulfil all continuing considerations, or the right of 
 "possession will not pass thereby from the Crown." (Attoiisey General 
 " v» Parmeter, 10 Price, 378.) " 
 
 The same. ^GC« 4»7. From that authority it appears that, in 
 
 the case of a Grant, intended for the benefit of the Crown, the 
 Grant must b: acted upon promptly, and all continuing 
 considerations must be fulfilled by the Grantee ; else the 
 Grant is absolutely void, and produces no effect, since the 
 right of possesion has not passed from the Crown. Now who 
 will deny that the Original Grant of the Firf was intended 
 for the benefit of the Sovereign, — that the Sovereign had in 
 view the rapid settlement of his new and interesting Colony, — 
 the increase of his revenue, — an increase to the supporters of 
 his throne and dynasty by reason of an increase in the number 
 of his devoted subjects, and of his one-tenth Royalty on the 
 mines which the settlement of the country would naturally 
 bring to light ? Who, also, can doubt that the Sovereign 
 intended the " dk LERY-I*atent " to enure to Her benefit, by 
 
 ij 
 
 i ' 
 
 ll 
 
 w 
 
4, we find the 
 
 ,ntee : else the 
 
 — 29 — 
 
 reason of the tontli-Royalty , and the expected rapid development 
 ot the mineral resources of the Seigniory? How those 
 legitimate expectations of the Sovereign, in bo^h instances, 
 have been disappointed,— how none of the continuing 
 considerations or conditions of the Grants have been fulfillecL 
 theFlaintifls Declaration has clearly pointed out. And the 
 two (rrants, in the words of the authority, have passed nothing 
 to the (grantees ; they have produced no effect as regards the 
 iirantees ; as respects the Grantees, and as a converse of the 
 maxim : " Quod nullum est, nullum produoit nffectum'' they 
 are absolutely void, and are polluted with the taint of absolute 
 nullity. In reference to the mdlite ahsolue, mark the language 
 ot DuNOD, as quoted by Guyot, vlo. mdlite, P. 422, M : m 
 oct : i& P. 250, M : va qtiarto : 
 
 «• mnil^^"^ nulUapeut etre ohjecUe, non seulement par la partie publique. 
 " d'office." ■' *'''■* '■ "' '" •"«« P«"t y prendre 6gard 
 
 ^eC . OU We shall perhaps be told that the nullity A"«^" ♦<> 
 of theOriginal Grant afiects the Plaintiffs' present claim to '^'' '""• 
 the mines, as cemitaires of that Seigniory. The answer is 
 obvious. The only person affected by it is the Sdgnior; the 
 tommise of the /'i./does not affect the censitaire; according 
 to the maxim : " Ifulle ierre sans seigneur, the censitaife 
 merely exchanged one Seignior for another ; when the rights 
 of the Grantee of the Fief stand in abeyance, or have reverted 
 back, the censitaire holds from the Sovereign, by whom the 
 sub grants are supposed to have been made. ' 
 
 ^eC. Ol. We shall perhaps be also told that Other objec 
 Harrison's Z>i>e«^, and the other English authorities herein ^'°°- 
 before cited, are drawn from English Law, and are not 
 applicable to this case. While admitting that the Law of 
 J^ower-Canada, when it has provided for the case, should 
 govern in tbs matter, with the single exception, perhaps of 
 the formalities required to validate LetteKs-Patent, the Plaintiffs 
 nevertheless claim, that, when our own Law is silet.t, a resort • 
 1 .f^^i'^^ '^ sanctioned by the very highest authority, 
 that of Parliament itself, which, in the " Promissory Note Act?' 
 C.S. forLC., eh: 64, §30, P. 525, has declared that, in such a 
 case, as to Bills, recourse shall be had to the Laws of Ei^^land ■ 
 and the Plaintiffs, moreoyer, in the researches they have 
 
ii!l! 
 
 Ilfttl 
 
 iiiiiii 
 
 Mill! 1 
 
 riii! 
 lii 
 
 f| 
 
 iiii 
 
 Ii 
 
 And to other 
 objection. 
 
 — 80 — 
 
 made on this subject, have been drawn to the conclusion, that 
 there is a closer degree of assimilation between English Law and 
 ours, in matters affecting the Crown, than most persons would, 
 at first blush, be inclined to admit. Much light is thrown 
 upon this subject by the fact that the Norman conquerors pf 
 England brought over with them their Cautume de JVormandie, 
 which, although tempered for the better, in England, by some 
 good old customs of the sturdy Saxon, is yet observed in its 
 purity in Jersey, and other Channel Islands,— that most of 
 the old Law — books, and not the loast valuable among them, 
 are written in Norman French, that the langnago long spoken 
 in British Courts, as well as the Law administered there was 
 French, — that, to this day, the technical Law-terms, in 
 England, nearly all betray their French Origin. In any case, 
 English authority will have with us, the same weight, as 
 writers on French Law have always given to Koman Law, in 
 Provinces governed by Coutumes ; it must, assuredly, be 
 regarded as sound written reason. 
 
 Sec. 52, We may again be told that, in urging 
 
 the non-fulfillment of the conditions of the Grants, the 
 Plaintiffs are making nse of the rights of third jiersons, and 
 
 ?'eading the droit d'autrui. Such an objection to the 
 'laintiffs' argument can only proceed from a fast and firin 
 believer in the exploded doctrine of the " right divine of 
 Kings." At thi3 day, in all civilized countries, but more 
 especially under consritutional forms of government, euch as 
 ours, the Sovereign is supposed to represent tlie aggregate wil 
 of the people; When the Sovereign is deceived, so are his 
 subjects, (NoKMAN on Patent)^. P. 20, Eng. Ed :). Even under 
 the absolute sway of the Bourbons in France, the same idea 
 had dawned, though dimly, on the public mind, since we find 
 such a writer as Coquille, Tome 2, P. 566, assert : 
 
 " Qui trompe le Roi, trompe le peuple." 
 
 If, then, when tlie Sovereign is deceived, so are his 
 subjects, and whatever thus injuriously affects the Crown is 
 in like manner hurtful to the people, it follows that the 
 Plaintiffs (two of whom are Her Majesty's subjects) may 
 complain as of a matter interesting them, of any thing 
 injuriously affecting the Crown, without laying themselves 
 open to the imputation of pleading the droit d'autrui. 
 
 ii '< 
 
— 31 
 
 Sec. Do, Moreover does not every thing that tenda The game. 
 
 to diminish the pnblic revenue, even in the matter of a royalty 
 on mines, injuriously affect the subject, aye even the alien 
 indweller, of the Eealm, and heighten the fiscal burthens of 
 those persons. 
 
 Sec. 04, ^Tlie Seventeenth Proposition of the 
 
 Plaintiffs involves the Plaintiffs' " right to recover from the 
 " Defendants other damages than the mere agricultural loss. " 
 Before entering on the discussion of the Plaintiffs' right to 
 recover such special damage as they shall establish to have 
 boen snfferd by them, by reason of the Defendants' unfounded 
 assertion of right to the precious metals on the Plaintiffs' 
 lands, it is perhaps fitting to cite a few authorities to show 
 tiiat the mere assertion of an unfounded claim to a man's 
 property, a bare denial, even extrajudicial, of his rights, 
 constitutes a molestation in law {trouble de droit) and gives to 
 that man an action at law to complain of it. 
 
 The Ancien-Denizart, vlo. Champart, P. 54, Ed: of 
 1761, cites two arrets, the one rendered on the 5th March 
 1718, and the other, on the 27th January, 1737, holding that 
 the bare denial of the droit de Ckainpait, gives rise to the 
 action en Oo?nplainte. One of those Arrets, that of 1718, is 
 reported by the Ancien Dknizart, vbo : Complainte, P. 168 & 
 169, in these words : 
 
 ur^ "^".Arra rendu le 5 mars 1718, en la Grand' Chnmbre, sur lea 
 ^^ Lonclusions de Mr. Chauvelin, Avocat General, a juge qu'un Seigneur 
 
 peut intonter Coinplainte pour raison de terragp, champart, et luitres 
 
 droits seigiieuriaux, meme centre le debiteur qui donieles devoir, et refuse 
 
 de k's payer. " 
 ^ ^ " La question d6cidee par cet Arr^ ne s'etait pas encore presentee 
 ans des termcs aussi precis : en voici I'espece. 
 " Les Dues de Guise jouissaient depuis longtemps d'un droit de terrage 
 ^^ sur les torroirs de la Neuvilleet d'Etreux, meinbrus de leur Ducho, et les 
 
 habitants de cos deux Paroisses convinrent, au niois de Juillet, 1717, dan» 
 ^^ des Aetos d'Assemblees de refuser le droit, jusqu'a ce qu'on leur eAt 
 
 produit,^ ou le titre primordial, ou des declarations ou reconnaissances de 
 
 leurs predecesseurs." 
 
 i< * "i^'"'' ^'■'"•'' "^^^'^^ d'Assemblees, et le refus de payer furent pris pour 
 
 .. trouble. Madame la Priticesse, et la Duchesse do Brunswick, {h qui le 
 
 ^^ Uuche do Guise appartcnait alors) fonnerent leur demande en Complainte 
 
 aux ICequetes du Palais, contre les deux Communautes en nom collectif." 
 
 After reporting Maitre Oin's argument for tho fcmitairea, 
 Denizart proceeds to say : 
 
 Seventeenth 
 Propoaition, 
 as to right to 
 rocorer be- 
 yond mere 
 flgricultaral 
 loss, baaed on 
 authorit/. 
 
32 -. 
 
 'I 
 
 
 " Maitre Huart, avocat des Seigneurn, ripondait que la Complninto 
 " n'eHt pas seulcnient un combat do posseRsion entre aeuz perHonnes qui 
 " prfitendent, ou le mfimo heritage, on lo mfiino droit : c'est, disiiit-il, iino 
 " action que lea Loix, les Coutumcs ct lea Ordonnances nccordcnt k touto 
 " personne qui est troubl6e dans la possession d'un horitnge ou d'un droit 
 " r6el : ' Or, le trouble ro fuit par la dcnogation ou cessation de pnienient, 
 " de mfimo qu'il est, excite par lu pretention d'un tiers : ' re sont les ternies 
 " do Maitre lluart ; il citait Fabur, Guypape, Pontaiuis, Papon & Ldisel." 
 
 C'est sur cm prinripes qu'est intervi;nu I'arrot du 5 mars, 1718, qui 
 maintient Ls Dues de Guise dans la possession, &c., «&c." 
 
 Lanok in Ilia JVonvelle Pratlr^ue, vol. 1, livre 3, ch : 7, 
 P. 259, Las the following : 
 
 " Par combien de manidres pouvons-nous 6tre troublcz en notra 
 
 " poRseRfiion ? " 
 
 " Par devx mani^res, par pauoles et par fails." 
 
 " Comment par parole ? " 
 
 " Qiiand on nous dknie un droit dont nous sorwnes en possession, on 
 '* quand par qvEhiiVE Acte on exjihit on se qualijie possesseur de ce dont 
 '• nous jouissons ; alors nous prenons V A<yiz ou Vexploit pour tkoublb, et 
 ^*formons notre complainte." 
 
 " Comment conclure en Complainte ? " 
 
 " A ce que nous soyons niaintenus et gardez en la possession ct 
 •' jouissance d'un tel h6ritage, en laquelle nous avons ete troid)Ii;z : \a,partie 
 " adverse conramnee & nous restituer Xcajridts qu'elle a perfus, on qu'eJIe 
 " 710US a empecM depercevoir, et en tovs voa do)n7nages, in<ere7« et depens." 
 
 The same. SgC 0D» Tlie doctrine thus laid down and 
 
 confirmed by the Arret of 1718, to the eft'ect, that : " le 
 *' I'KouBLK se fait jmr la deneyition ou cessation do paiemcnt 
 
 " \)V, MKMK QU'lI- KST KXOITE I'AK lA PKfeTKNTION d'uN TIERS," 
 
 estabiishes conclusively the IMaintilfs' right ot action ; and 
 the statement of Langk to the efFe(!t, that ihe Defendant shall, 
 in such cases, be condemned i '' d restituer les fruits qu'elle 
 
 " nous A KMPf:CHE DE PERCEVOIK, et EN T0U8 NOS D0MMAGK8, 
 
 " INTERETS, ct dcpcns^^'' bears thcPlaiiititfsoiit triumphantly in 
 their claim for such loss as they may show themselves to have 
 sustained by the Defendants' conduct inlaying, to the precious 
 metals on the Plahitiff's' lands, a claim which the Defendants, 
 at the time, knew to be unfounded, and further by the 
 Defendants' conduct in blasting and quarrying on the 
 Plaintiflfs' quartz reefs, and removing thencefrom the rich 
 bunch of visible gold, so as to destroy the then promising 
 appearance of the veins. 
 
 Defendants ScC. 5G. Tliat both the Defendants, who are 
 
 aware that w^-.~>-^m 
 
 Pateat void, vendor and vendee in the Deed of Ssale of the 9th September 
 
ivre 3, ch : 7, 
 
 oublcz en notro 
 
 d down and 
 
 ~ 33 — 
 
 to bo u tcrlv un oiMuled, is evrdont iVoni tho i'aci, that i7, K 
 \SKyxv.K^^xofanyli,d,^riA the Dorei.dant, Dk Lfcuv st , , ate^ 
 *^ o/)^^i/^af fo r«-/72&«m thepurohase-money / / / '^ * "^ 
 
 ^eC. 57. TIh! oi)!iiioii oPLanoe, to tlio effect, tliat^''"'""''*"" 
 
 tlie Dctendant shall be condemned to mv tn O.o pu- i-ir ""*'''"■" «" 
 .r. tne daraagcs tl.o^ may haveTnffct^^dZt o„ oe" n tf^^^ 
 very lountofOhristranity itself, as oxponnded l/v ] e Jolden^'^''- 
 i.le of doing unto others as we would wish " tl a? !>uS 
 Bhonid do unto us ; that doctrine, moreover, under ies he 
 eiita-e Law of Damage in tho French system. The Weau 
 
 /^.,692, has the folloAving, upon this point : ' 
 
 P. 6^,\rtirfJ!io;it" ^^""^" ^^ ^'^^'^^^' § ^' ^- ^• 
 
 T^.P ?^?' ^^-"7^1^ ^^"' °<> <i0«bt> be said, that the Object ioa and 
 iJetendanls cannot be held responsible for having urffed their ^°«^'"' 
 daims to the precious metals. The answer fs pfa'n • tb^ 
 Defendants knew that their claims are unfounded I lee wha? 
 W ^,^^5,1°^"*^-* f traordinary clause in the safe V^^ 
 |JLert to CoMANofthe Putent^rights, witholding the usual 
 
 ^olClkZiT^ '.*?P"''^'"^ th^t thepurchase-ioney sS 
 not be lelunded m the event of the Patent bein<r set aside 
 
 dedtl r • ' ?f^."d^^^^ bave, bv the assertionTf'=an unfoun: 
 ded and "njnst claim, damnified the PlaintiffB. nM mu=trcrSr 
 the wrong suffered by the Plaintiffs. Tl)e' positTon of ^tho 
 
V ii' 
 
 — 34 — 
 
 Defendants in this respect is not to bo distinpfuialied from the 
 case of the man wlio brings an unjust suit, and of vrhotn 
 GuvoT, vbo. Dommagea et intcr^ts^ P. 122, quartq Ed : 
 ppcaks thus : 
 
 " Suivant los lois romainos, eiux qui intentaient de* proein hidemment 
 " injuitet, devaient &tre eondamnia idea dommaffet ct intirStt, ovtkk hts 
 *' DfipEHs. Francois premier trouva ces dispositions si judicieuses, quo par 
 " son Ordonnanco de 1539, il voulut qu'on touto matifirc on adjuge&t des 
 " dommages et intfirfits proportionn^s k la t6m6rit6 de Taction de celui qui 
 •' succombcrait ; mais cetto loi est tomMe en desu6tudo, et le juge 
 •' neprononce ordinairement de domrmiges et interet^i que pro]iartionnemenC 
 " auprejudice owdlaperte quo souSre celui k qui il Ics adjugs. " 
 
 mi 
 
 I 
 
 S'8Mill"? Sec. 59. A like liability attaches, rncier English 
 
 under English Law, to all those who, by an unfounded assertion of title 
 ^'^- to an immoveable have mjured the owner thereof, either 
 
 by destroying the owner's chance of selling, or otherwise, 
 as the case may be. The action, to which, by English Law, 
 resort is had in such cases, is called the action for slander of 
 title. Upon an action for slander of title, the Plaintiflf is 
 
 entitled to recover whatever actual special 
 
 damage 
 
 he 
 
 may 
 have alleged and proved himself to have suffered ; as for 
 instance, the loss of^a customer, to whom the Plaintitf wonld 
 have sold but for the Defendant's unfounded assertion of title. 
 The doctrine laid down by English Law upon this subject, 
 may be found stated in any one of the following English 
 reported cases : 
 
 Lawe va. JSarwoodi — Geo : Car : 140. — Jones' Kep : 196. — 
 
 Ley 82. 
 Jiowe V8. Jioach, — 1 Mattle & Selwtn, 304. 
 Crush vs. Crush, — Yelverton, 80. 
 O^reshamva. Grimaby, — Yelverton, 88. 
 Gerard va. Dickinaon, — 4 Co : 18. — Oro : Eliz : 197. 
 Smead va. Badley, — Ceo : Jao : 397. 
 Taahhurgh va. Day^ — Cro : Jao : 484. 
 Earl of J^o-rthumberland va. Byrt, — Cro : Jao : 163. 
 Pennyman va. Bayhanka, — Cro : Eliz : 427. 
 Malachy va. Soper^ — 3 Bingham. 371. 
 Bold va. Bacon, — Crc : Eliz : 346. 
 Millmann va. Pratt, — 2 Bingham, 486. 
 Hargrave va. Le Breton, — 4 Burr : 2422. 
 Hartly va. Herring,— 9> T. R. 130. 
 Manning va. Avery, — ^Keb : 153. 
 Cane va. Goulding^ — Style's Rep : 169, 176. 
 
— 35 — 
 
 Walson vs. licynolds,—! Moody & Malkin, 1. 
 JSinith vs. Spooner^—'i Taunton, 246. 
 Pitt v.t. Donovan,—! ^'vulk & Selwyn, G39. 
 •Fairman vs. /ves,~-5 B. & A., 042. 
 Bannuter vs. Bannister,—-^ Co : 17. 
 Mildmay^a caaeyl Co : 177. 
 
 Sec, 60. Tlio Plaintiffs flatter themsolvos that ^'••'*'" "''''*"- 
 
 iioiliin^^ can bo more satisfactory^ than the ovidence in tljuirBuffeMrbif" 
 
 Kbp: 196.— 
 
 ^ ......>.,.., v^xtwicii, imu uuc'ii lu ireaiy, naa It not been lor 
 
 the conduct of tlie Defendants, in causing the negotiation to 
 be broken off, by tlieir unfounded assertion of title to the gold 
 on that property. 
 
 Sec. 61. Moreover the Defendants' conduct iuDefendsnia 
 
 entering on the Plaintiffs' lands, and in blasting, quarrying «oi^%°/bfi. 
 
 and renroviiig the gold-bearing quartz, and thus destroying 
 
 the promising appearance of the reefs, is a voie defait, for all 
 
 the direct and immediate consequences of which, even to tlie 
 
 loss of a customer, the Defendants are indubitably liable. 
 
 So much for the Plaintiffs' right to recover olher' damage 
 
 ilmu the mere agricultural loss. 
 
 Sf*C. o2. In order to establisli the nineteenth 
 
 Peo:'osition of the Plaintiffs, whicli is to the effect, that tlie 
 Plaintitls have denied the Defendants' right to all the minerf,, 
 niiuoials and metals referred to in the Patent, it is nieiTly < 
 neces.-ary to reproduce a portion of the Plaintiffs' Declaration 
 on that point. At Pages and 10 of their Declaration, the 
 Pliviiititfs state : 
 
 •"J'hn t, uvidcr the Letters-Patent aforesaid, the said Defendants lay elaim 
 '' to all the (/old and all ot/ier preciou» metuLi, to be found or cxistini; on 
 " the said jiieces of Jaiid so owned by the said 
 
 {PUdntiffs* vendors) 
 *' and in and beneath the bed of the said River so fronting the same ; and 
 •^ that, nnder the Letters-Patent aforesaid, the said Defendants, as weH by 
 1^ themselves as by their retainers, and representatives, have claimed and 
 " sought to exercise, and do still claim and seek to exercise, the right of 
 " passing and repassing, at will, in and over the said pieces of laud, without 
 " the cpiiBuut of the said 
 
-80- 
 
 {Plaintifs) 
 
 " for tlio purpose of working all iniiicH of iho precious metals lo be (bund 
 *' on tlie Huid pieces of land. 
 
 if * •::• # +' •» ^t <} tt * <;■ n » ■:^ 
 
 " And that, on tbo first day of Juno, one thousand eis'ut luimired nod 
 
 sixty-two, and on divers days between that day and the (IrsL day of 
 
 Noycmber, one tiioiisand eight hundred and sixty-tiiiee, tlio Vnid 
 
 '' Dclcndants, as well by themselves as by their hired servants andrediipers, 
 
 ' unlawfully entered ill and upon the said pieces of land, and in and upon 
 
 ' the liver bed so fronting the Kanvj as aforesaid, and so then and there 
 
 ' beinp;, did work, mine, blast and quarry into the aforesjud gold and oilier 
 
 metal— bearing veins and courses, and thencefroin did imlawfully extract, 
 
 " !nko and carry away, against the will of the Plaintilfs, laiRe quantities of 
 
 'gold and silver, and other meUls, and did further then and there 
 
 ' unlawtii,y extract, take and carry away thenceiiom all the gold the ro 
 
 ' being visible in position in the said veins and courses, and did thereby 
 
 " then and there so aisflgure and destroy the appearance of the said veins 
 
 "and courses as to destroy the Plaintiffs' chance of profitably selling and 
 
 '' disposing of the said several pieces of land, and of the river bed so 
 
 1^ fionling the same ; anil that the said D^endanis, hij their unlaie/ul 
 
 '^ proceed ill (fa in t/itpremiieD, aMdJyTUEiK unjust ano lnfouni>'',d akssektion 
 
 " OF UlflilT ON TIIEIR I>A|!T TO TUE COLO AND OTIIEK METALS tO bo fouud in and 
 
 '• beneath the said pieces of land, and in and beneath the river bed so 
 " fronting the same, have deterred eapitalisls arid miners /rom purchasing' 
 " or UaHugjrom the Plaintiff^ the said several pieces of land and the river 
 " bed so fronting the same, the whole thereby causing to the Pnintid's, 
 " dn-na-e, amounting to the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollius, 
 " current money of this Province, which tlie Defendants have severally 
 " J edisicd to pay to the Plaintiffs although thereunto requested. 
 
 _ , It is til erefore clear, that the Plaintiffs, by tlieir Declara- 
 tion deny, in the most emphatic terms, the Defendants' n<,'lit 
 ;o, all the precious metals, the only metals referred to in the 
 •' Dii LiiiiY'Fatent." 
 
 Ilavinpf thus established, as the Phiiniiffs conceive, the 
 insufficiency of the Demurrer, they proceed to make ont the 
 
 MW 
 
 CHA-PTER 11 
 
 SUFFrCIIiNCY OF THB DeCLAUATFOX. 
 
 Pia"S'°Il- ^^C. 63. In orderto attain Iheir obleei, tlie Plaint- 
 
 legations of iffs deem it right to reproduce, from their first Factum, a 
 
*>7 
 
 svnop'iis of !lio n"ogation9 of tlieir Declaralion. 'Iliov 
 
 etalb to be (bund 
 
 III lege 
 
 tliore f'o'. "nJ ot>' 
 J«ctions to 
 Piilent. 
 
 1 * 'I ho insiio of ll)o obnoxious Pa(ent, nt Montreal, on the ISlh 
 September, IS'O, and llie enrolment tlicrcof on the same day by tho 
 Pcgisiinr of/Iecorda. • 
 
 20 Tl>e possession and ownership, bv the Defendants, of iliai Patent, 
 ns wel' bv succession as by assignments thereof. 
 
 C® TIio (diginal Grant 10 Flenry <le la < /orgendUre by the Governor 
 
 nnd liitendnntof Canada, at Quebec, on the 23rd September, 1730, of the 
 
 ' eisniory now constituting tho Parisii of St. Francois de la Heaiico ; and tho 
 
 oynl Confii ination of that Grant at Vorsnilles on the 80th April 1737 ; tho 
 
 .. ily stipulation as to mines to be found in that Origin:il (irant and in tho 
 
 roviil Conllrnmlion thereof being an obligation imposod 011 the Grantee, his 
 
 liens i\-c., in thcso vyords : " de donneracU A Sa MajrMii on tl mm et d not 
 
 f'yemurK,de»miii-:s,riuiuhe9ebmiiieravjsti uiiciniee (loi'veiUdam la 
 " tUieiieiidue." 
 
 4« The Judgment of tho Seigniorial Toimre Court, having force of 
 ii,os:nigee by stjituto as between tho Plaintifls iind tho Defendants; by 
 oliich JudgTiient it was adjudged and declared that all reservations of mines 
 oy tiie Seignior were and are illegal, null and void, when tho original Grunt 
 
 contains no such reservations ; which judgment also adjudged and declared 
 . le riparian proprietor of any stream not navigable and not floatable to bo 
 inoprietorof one half tho stream fronting bis properly. 
 
 c.® The Seigniorial Tenure Act, and iho Judgment of Commi.ssioner 
 I incotte, homologating the schedule of tho Seigniory, by which all tlio 
 No'gnioi- s rights hdi vice were liquidated, and declaring that tho Crown 
 i>:iu no casual rights therein. 
 
 (I® The discovery of gold was not made by tho Grantees, but was a 
 tJ..coveiy so ancient that the oldest maps of tho Seigniory designate the 
 <-ilbert Riveras the " RlvUrodow ", iho " IVmcre dea mines dW " ; and 
 a largo nugget of gold, to the knowledge of tho Grantees, was found in tho 
 Seigniory by one Gilbert, some IS years belbro tho issue of the Patent; 
 and tiiat the Grantees, though cognizant of such discoveries of gold, guvo 
 tile Crown no notice of such discoveries until they applied for the Patent, 
 >viien, by way of inducement for tho Grant, tliey falsely alleged themselves 
 I ) be the discoverers of the gold there. 
 
 70 Possession by the Plaintifls and their awir«(//'«, os proprietors, under 
 good and valid titles alleged, of certain lands and tenements in the Seigniory 
 now called Ei,qaud- Vaudreuil, and in Plaintilfs' l>eclaration particularly 
 (iescribod, during thirty years and upwards; such possession oxtendirg 
 even to a period anterior to the British Conquest of this Province ; and that 
 SUCH lands and tenements front the Jliver Chaudiere, a Puvcr not navi-ablo 
 and not tloatable. 
 
 8 * The existence, on those lands and tenement,'!, of the precious metals 
 PS well til 8itu, as in alluvial and diluvial form ; the discovery of gold-beuring 
 quartz there by the Plaintiff, O'Farrell ; and his denunciation of such 
 discovery to the Crown in compliance with the original Grant ; and that the 
 ViaintiflFs are ready and willing, and have ample means, to work all such 
 mines of the precious metals on those lands and tenements. 
 
 9 o The claim set up by ihe Defendants to the exclusive ownership of 
 all such mines of the precious meta'sas are (bund on those land.", nwd tene- 
 ments a"il this under" the Patent above referred to. 
 
— 3S — 
 
 10 ® Divers trespasses committed by the Defendants on the PlaintifTs 
 lands and tenerfients, in assertion of the Defendants' right to the precious 
 metals found on those lands and tenements; and that the Defendants' 
 conduct and acts, in that particular, have destroyed the prorois'ng appearance 
 of the gold-bearing veins, and annihilated the Plaintiffs' chances of profitably 
 selling the said veins ; whereby the Plaintifis have been, and are, damnified 
 to the extent of $250,000. 
 
 11 ® The illegality of the " Db Lery Patent,'^ resulting from the 
 following causes, namely : 
 
 , I. The deceit, surprise, fraud and mis-representation practised by the 
 Grantees of thu Patent on the Government of the day, as to the Grantees 
 being the discoverers of Gold there, and as to other material facts. 
 
 II. The recital of the Patent that it is granted for a tract of territory 
 . originally conceded en Fief to Pierre Eigaud de Vaudreuil ; that being a 
 
 misrecital ; because the Grant to Rigaud de Vaudreuil lies to the N. E. of 
 the parish of St. Francois (originally conqeded to Fleury de la Gorgendidre) 
 and constitutes the parish of St. Joseph de la Beauce (.originally granted to 
 de Vaudreuil). 
 
 III. The uncertainty prevailing in the description of the thing granted ; 
 the weight of this reason will strike the eye on a perusal of the terms in 
 which the Grant is conveyed. 
 
 IV. The non-observance of certain formalities essential to the validity 
 of all such Grants, namely :— the Warrant for the Bill— the Bill itself— the 
 Warrant for the Privy Signet— the Privy Signet itself— the Warrant for the 
 Great Seal — And the Great Seal itself. 
 
 V. The Crown had no interest to grant ; in as much as, by the Laws 
 then in force in Lower-Canada, the rights of the Crown, in private lands, 
 were, and are, restricted to one-tenth of the metals extracted. 
 
 VI. The Mines belong to the Plaintifis as owners of the soil in those 
 lands and tenements, no part of which ever belonged to the Defendants as 
 owners of the soil; and that the Patent issued without notice to the Plain- 
 
 ■ tiffs' auteurs, as owners of the soil, and without the Plaintiffs' auteura 
 having been called on to work the mines. 
 
 VI). A Royal Permission to work a mine could only issue on the reCusal 
 of the proprietor to work the mine, after regular and judicial notice to the 
 proprietor, and a formal judgment to that effect by the Tribunals of the 
 country. 
 
 VIII. Such Letters-Patent could not issue under the Great Seal of this 
 Province, as they have done, but only under the Great Seal of the Uoited 
 Kingdom ; and such Letters-Patent issued illegally and unadvisedly. 
 
 IX. The noi)-fulfilinent by the Grantees of the several conditions of the 
 Grant. 
 
 X. The Patent is, in any case, superseded by the Seigniorial Tenure Act, 
 and its amendments, and by the two Judgments above referred to, and by 
 the completion and con^rmation of t!ie schedule of the Seigniory. 
 
 The Plaintiffs then proceed to conclude against the Defendants' assumed 
 right of entry on the Plaintiffs' larjds, in assertion of the Defendants' claim to 
 the precious metals th*rein, and that the Defendants be declared and 
 adjudged to have no right to such precious metiils on those lands or in the 
 half of the river fronting the same; that the Patent and its enrollment be 
 declared null and void, and inoperative as regards the Plaintiffs and their 
 lands, and be set aside, cancelled, reygked and annulled ; and that the 
 
luHing from the 
 
 — 39 — 
 
 Defendants be rtdjudged and condemned to pay to the Plaintiffs their damaccs 
 amounting to $250,000, with interest and costs. . ; 
 
 ^eC. o4. In 01-der the better to grapple with the Text of the 
 
 objections taken by the Plaintifis to the " De LtRY-Patent,^' P&t^at, 
 the Plaintiffs give the text itself of that instrument, and liave 
 italicised sneh portions of it as bear on some of the points 
 made against it by the Plaintiff's. 
 
 " Whereas our loving subjects Dame Makie Josephte Fraseu, of Our 
 " City of Quebec in Our Province of Canada, widow of the late Honorable 
 " Charles Etienne Chaussegros Delery, in his lifetime also of the same place, 
 " Esquire, Charles.' Joseph Chausseoros Delery of the same place 
 " Esquire, and Alexandre R^n^ Chaussegros Delerv, also of the same 
 " place, Esquire, Jiave humbly represented unto US by their Petition in that 
 " behalf that they are Seigniors and Proprietors of the FieJ and Seigniory 
 " oj RiGAnD-VAUDREuiL, situatc in our District of Quebec in our said Pro- 
 " vinceand described lying and being, as follows, that is to say " an extent 
 " of ground three leagues in front by two leagues in depth on both sides 
 " of the River of the Chaudi^re Falls with the Lakes and Islands in the said 
 " River," and that there are supposed to exist within the limits oJ the said 
 " Fief and Seigniory certain ores, minerah and mines containing gold and 
 " other precious metals of which s apposed mines THEY HAVE MADE 
 " THE DISCOVERY, and are now deb<rous of digging and working for their 
 " own profit and advantage should they obtain Our Royal Permission to 
 " that effect, and further that in obedifif^ to the conditions of the Original 
 " Deed of Concession of the said Fief and Seigniory to Sieur Pierre Rioaud 
 " DE Vaudreuil dated at Quebec the twenty-third day of September one 
 " thousand seven hundred and thirty-six and signed " Beauhamois " and 
 "" Hooquart," and confirmed at Versailles on the thirtieth day of April 
 " then following by His Most Christian Majesty, Louis the Fifteenth, they 
 " did denounce and declare to VS for the expression of Our Royal Will and 
 " Pleasure the existence of the said mines within the limits of the said Fief 
 " and Seigniory at several places therein, of which they will Better inform 
 " VS after further researches under Our said Jioyal Permission, which 
 " they humbly pray US to grant, in conformity with the laws and usages in 
 ''Jorce and applying in that hehalf so that they may search, dig for and 
 " work the said mines by themselves, or by other experienced persons, 
 " offering to pay US the net one-tenth part of the whole produce of the said 
 " mines, praying also to be allowed a remission of the said one-tenth part for 
 " a limited time, after the melting of the said ores shall be in operation, to 
 " compensate them for the first outlay required therefor : Now Know Yb 
 " that in consideration of the premises, WEoi Our especial grace, certain 
 " knowledge and mere motion, have given and granted and by these Presents 
 " do give and grant unto the said Dame Marie Josephte Fraser, Charles 
 " Joseph Chaussegros Delery, Alexandre R6n6 Chaussegros Delery, their 
 " heirs and assigns for ever, our Royal permission and authority to make 
 
 such researches as mat be required in order further to ascertain the 
 " position and extent of the said mines and to dig and work the same by 
 '' themselves or by other experienced persons at any one or more place or 
 
 places within the limits of the said Fief and Seigniory, and for that purpose 
 ' to erect furnaces, buildings and other apparatus that may be required to 
 
 molt and render available lor the profit and advantage of themselves and of 
 
Ill < 
 
 — -10 — 
 
 their heirs and assigns all such ores and minerals which thoy mav have 
 found, the whole in as ample a manner as raajr be necessary lor tiie duo 
 effect of these Presents, the wliolo on condition that, our said graaien^ 
 their heirs and assigns for ever skall siriethj conform to all law* and 
 itmges in force and applying in that behalf, that they shall well and truly 
 repay to other our loving subjects such damages and compensation as may 
 from time to time accrue in consequence of the ground occupied, tbo 
 opening of Roads and other like causes resulting from the operations i a 
 working the said mines. And also upon condition that before woitKisu 
 THE SAME they do transmit and deposit with our Secretary of our said 
 Province, a true and correct statement of the nature, sliuaiion und extent 
 of the said ores, minerals, and mines. — And further vpon condition of 
 irammitting in each and every year to our Receiver General for our said 
 Vro\'mce a true and correct account of the gross prodvce of the same, \ii 
 such form and manner as We, our Heirs and Successors may hereafter bo 
 pleased to direct, and also upon condition of well and truly paying and 
 delivering in each and every year from the time of melting the said o' es 
 for the flrst time in working furnaces, nnto onr Receiver General or sucil 
 other person as may have authority from US our Heirs and Successors 
 one net tenth part of the whole gross prodxtce of the said ores minerals and 
 substances thereunto appertaining whatever, the said one tenth part being 
 melted, cast and prepared in the same manner as the like may be for the 
 behoof of our said Grantees, and refined according to the Laws »f France 
 as confirmed by the Edict op His i-atb Mosr Christian Majestv, op mn 
 MONTH OF Junk one thousand six hundred and one. And itis furthe- 
 our Will and Pleasure that our said Grantees have a remission of the said 
 one-tenth part for five years from and after the date of these Presents." 
 
 first objec- 
 tion to Patent 
 
 [if! I 
 Hi 
 
 lit 
 I 
 jij 
 iililii 
 
 11 
 
 
 Sec. o5, — 'The first objection, taken by the Plain- 
 tiffs to the " De LkRY-Patent" is founded on the deceit, 
 " surprise, fraud, misinformation and misrepresentation, 
 " practised by the Grantees on the Government of Canada, 
 ^^ in relation to the person by whom the discovery of gold 
 " in the Seigniory was made, and in relation to ot/ier material 
 *^ facts." "Hie deceit, fraud and misrepresentation practised 
 by the Grantees in this respect is made apparent by the 
 recital of the " De Li^nY-Pateni ; " in one of the italicised 
 portions thereof, it states : 
 
 " WHEREAS our loving subjects Dame Marie JosepJite Eraser, 
 " de.. &e., (&c., have represented unto US, that they are Seigniors and 
 ^1^ proprietors of the Fief and Seigniory of jRigavd-Vavdreuil &c., dc, dc, 
 " and that there are supposed to exist, within the limits of the said Fief 
 " and Seigniory, certain ores, minerals and mines, containing gold and other 
 " precious metals, of which supposed mines thbt have made tab disco* 
 
 " VERli 
 
 Ift t(t l(t )ft ^ (|( 
 
 Thus their " De LtKY-Paient " recites, as the first and 
 main cause or consideration of the Grant, the representation 
 of the Grantees to the Governinent, that the Grantees had 
 
I;he first and 
 
 ruuiccs 
 
 — 41 — 
 
 made the discovery of those mines. Xow, as a-ainsfc tl,o 
 Defendants, whom the Plaintiffs allege to be the beareis of 
 that Jnstrnmen that recital of the Patent is cone] n.ive evi- 
 dence of the trnth the recital, because the " de J^kuY-Patent " 
 18 the Defendants' title, and establishes conclusively, us 
 against them the truth of that recital. It only, now, remains 
 
 or the Plaintiffs to shew that the Grantees, ■Vnie^reseil 
 by the.r Petition the gold to have been discovered by them^ 
 related a gross and wilful falsehood. The Plaintiffs' Declara 
 
 r'; luf *^'^ allegat ons of fact are by Law held to be 
 
 allegations : 
 
 "ff 
 
 " That the dheover,, of the existence of alluvial and diluvial aoU m iW 
 
 '^7Xv£rst&^^^^^^ ^'"'-.r^ <?/..c.«.r/had been 3 
 
 aiiJl ^^"'^* *' '^''s*^ r^?^y t^o i^ve ol said LeUers-Patent as evidenced bv 
 
 de lIv fe"'-'^''"^^J^ ^''y' ^^'l"''-^' «"<i Alexandre eIho SaussC'S 
 -S iSVnowcnlIpd''R-^'°.%''t''^? pvoprietors in possession of TsiS 
 " an n 'hl^lll T ^'^"^d^^'Saud.Vaudreuil, yet the said Marie Josephte Fraser 
 
 " insets dritv^r"'^^^^^^ ^^'l"''-^' ""-i Alexandre S6 
 
 " t^ nnnc!^.? de L^ry, Esquire, utterly /aifeZ avd neglected to disclose or 
 
 in the month of May preceding the issue of the same." 
 
 ih.t Ji ^ V '5°'"^' ''^^^'*' ^^^ ^" *^^6 purposes of the Demurrer 
 «iat the Gran ees were guilty of deceit, surprise, fraud ind 
 misrepresentation m that respect. Let" us nWs^e, whether 
 better foundation for that other statement ol 
 leir being ^meto/'« of Eigaiid-Vaudreuil. 
 Will.,!., ^>, jor lO uixi^ ocigiiionai Act, governed 
 
 Under the Lawwhi'-!- --i-ior ■'r- n-,- w_.--.- • . « , 
 
 M«;™. • • .,.•'•' i'-'^* i^o i"c ocigiiionai Act, ifOVerniMi 
 
 beigmonea m this couatiy, the beisuio^ was a mol-o^ IW 
 
— 42 — 
 
 of the Crown for settlement-pnrposes, receiving, for his 
 services, rewards, some of which were Incrative and others 
 merely honorary ; but, apart from the manor-house and 
 tenement, and the Banal mill and its dependencies, and such 
 lands as he might have acquired from the censitaire, he did 
 not own, and was therefore not proprietor of, one square inch 
 of the soil within the Seigniory. Such is the scope of the 
 Judgment of the Seigniorial Court : such is the plain deduction 
 from thnt clause of the Seigniorial Act (C. S. C, cha' ter 41, 
 §85), which conveys, en roture to the Seignior, all lands 
 nnconceded and unoccupied, at the date of that enactment. 
 The Seignior was, no doubt, the owner of all that which the 
 " Seigmorial Act,^' has fitly termed " Seigniorial rights / " 
 and in that sense only was he termed proprietor of the 
 Seigniory ; but he was not proprietor of the Seigniory, that 
 is, of the soil, — in that sense in which an English Lawyer 
 reading Letters-Patent in the English form would be apt to 
 construe them. 
 
 It was, by thus carefully concealing from view the fact of 
 the Centitaires being owners of the soil in that Seigniory, that 
 Government was induced to make the Grant in question. 
 What worse species of fraud could have been practised than 
 that exhibited in this connection by the Grantees ? Moreover, 
 in the sixth reason assigned by the PlaintiflFs in their Declara- 
 tion against the validity of the " dk Li^RY-Patent ", it is 
 expressly stated that the Grantees never were the owners of 
 tbe soil of the tenements in respect of which the Plaintiffs 
 have l>rought their present action; that allegation must, for 
 the endrt of the Demiirrerj be taken to be true ; and it stamps, 
 at once, the Grantees' representation as a falsehood, a deceit, a 
 misrepresentation and a traud. 
 
 Sec. OD. Having thus brought home to the Grantees 
 
 the surprise, deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation charged 
 against them, it is perhaps as well to notice the Second, Third 
 Fourth, Eighth and Ninth objections taken by the Plaintiffs 
 to the " DE Jjknr- Patent ", in as much as the Law-authorities, 
 which bear out the first objection, are applicable to the 
 second, third, fourth, eighth and ninth objections. 
 
 Second ob- SgC. d7. ^The second obiection to the " de LiRT- 
 
 jection to 
 
 Patent. Patent is 
 
 " IL The. recital of the Patent that it is granted for a 
 
described in " de Li«T-Fatent." 
 
 " An extent of ground three lea- 
 ' gues in front by two leagues in 
 ' depth on both sides of the River of 
 ' the Chaudidre Falls with the lakes 
 ' and islands in the said River." 
 
 — 43 — 
 
 "i o^-^* *^ J territory originally conceded en Fief to Pierre 
 u ff ^^"'^ ^^ Vaudreuil ; that being a misrecital ; because 
 the trrant to Ihgaud de VaudreuU lies to the N. E. of the 
 1 arish ot bT. Franjois (originally conceded to Fleury de la 
 (rorgendievf) and constitutes the Parish of St. Joseph de la 
 Beauce (originally granted to Eigaud de Vaudreuit). 
 
 To shew that the " de L^ivly- Patent " issued, as stated 
 
 above, the Plaintiffs re|Toduce the description given in the 
 
 Patent of the territory affected by the Grant and place it side 
 
 by side with that contained in the Original Grant to de 
 
 Vaudreml, for the purpose of shewing that they are identical : 
 
 Terrptory, 
 
 Described ir, Covcemon to de 
 Vaudkeoil. 
 
 A tract of land of three lea- 
 gues in front by two leajnes in 
 depth on both sides of the Kiver of 
 the Sault de la Chaudi^re, together 
 with the lakes, islands and islets 
 lying and being in the said River. 
 
 Tlie description of the territory granted to de VaudreuU 
 IS quoted textually from the Englisli translation of the 
 Un^inal Grant to de Vaudreml, as found on Page 245 of the 
 " Ittlfs and documents relating to the Seigniorial Tenure " 
 printed bv E. R. Frochette as the Return to an Address ot 
 the Legislative Assembly of Canada of the 29th Augns ,1851. 
 llie Original Grant to de Vavdreuil is dated the 23rd 
 September, 1736, the very day assigned to it by the " de L£ry- 
 Jnteni ' ; and the Plaintiffs, who have had access to the 
 Jiegh4re de Vlntendant, No. 8, where the original Grant is 
 enrolled, can vouch for the accuracy of the translation In 
 order to shew that the ^"eigninry granted to de VaudreuU 
 constitutes the present Parisli of "St. Joseph, it is only neces- 
 sary to look at Page 243 cfe seq : of the same Return ; Pages 
 lU et 244 contain the Grant to Siour Thomas Jacques 
 Ja^chereau (now constituting the Parish of St. Mary, Beauce) 
 —1 ages 245 and 246 contain the Grant to de Vaudreuil 
 tocmmience running (as stated in the Grant) " and ascending 
 " the said River, from, the end of the concession which wo 
 ^^ have this day granted to the Sieur Thomas Jacques Tasche- 
 ' REAu, and to end at another concession ascending along the 
 " said River, which we have also this dav crranted to the 
 
 v^^ *^^ - 1 natrwra'^' te'f- 
 
— u — 
 
 m 
 
 Tiiird objec- 
 tion to Patent 
 
 i 
 
 " Sieur Joseph Fleory de la Gorgendieeg." The Grant 
 to de Vaudrcuil constitutes the Parisli of St. Joseph dc )a 
 Beauce ; and at Page 247 of the same Return ia to be found 
 the Grant to de la Gorgendiere, which constitutes the Parish 
 of St. Fran§ois de la Beauce. Now the Plaintiffs' Declaration, 
 which must be taken to be true for all the purposes ot this 
 argument, distinctly avers that the Plaintifls' lands and 
 tenements are situated in the Seigniory now called Rigaad- 
 Vaudreuil, and that such Seigniory was oi-iginally granted to 
 Fleury de La Gorgendiere. Such being the case, it appears 
 undoubted law to the Plaintiflfe, that a Patent affecting only 
 lands in the Seigniory originally granted to de Vandreuil, 
 cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be held to embrace 
 within its scope tlie Plaintiffs' lands, which are within another 
 Seigniory originally granted to de la Gorgendiere. In any 
 case the variance must assuredly bo held to be a fatal 
 misrecital. 
 
 Sec. 68. ^The TniED objection to the " be Lery- 
 
 Patent " is 
 
 " III. Tlio uncertainty prevailing in the description of 
 " tho thing granted." 
 
 "What, greater uncertainty can there be in the description 
 of the thin'; hiteuded to be granted, than is conveyed in tho.^e 
 words of the Patent " <Aa< i/tere are supi'oskd to exist toli/iiu 
 <' the limits of the said Fief and Seigniory certain ores, 
 " minerals and mines, containing gold and other precious 
 " metals of which supposed mines, &c., &c " ? And if any 
 tiling were needed to convince one how little the Grantor 
 and 'Grantee knew, at the time, of what was being given by 
 tho one, and received by the other, it would be found in those 
 other words of the Patent : " they did denounce and declare 
 " to Us tho existence of the said Mines within the lirnii.voff/ie 
 " said Fiif and Seigniory, at several places therein, of which 
 '' they will bettfr inform US after further researches " f 
 Where are those several 'places ? what is tjie extent of those 
 ."evtrai places ? Is it gold in position in tho quartz-reef? Oris 
 it only the loose gold to be found in the gravel of tho ancient 
 detrituR ? or of the more modern alluvial i If it bo gold in 
 situ, what is the course of the reefs 'i Can any thing convey a 
 moic misty notion of the object of the grant than to say, as 
 <i}oes the Patent, that " they will better ivform. Us, after 
 
— 4: 
 
 " »E LkKY- 
 
 "FunTHER RESKAKOHES " ? Afifain what 18 the scope of the 
 Grant ? Such as it is found in the Patent, it appears to 
 ainount to very little. The Patent states the Grant to be • ' 
 
 Onr Kojal permissio?}. and and authority to make such 
 ' researches as may be required in order further to ascertain 
 
 the position and extent of the said mineM *********** 
 •' UPON CONDITION that BEFORE Working the same they do 
 " transmit and deposit with our Secretary of our said Province 
 ''a true and correct statement of the tiaiure, situation and 
 
 extent of the said ores, minerals and mines:' Could any 
 language be framed more vague in describing the object of 
 llje trrant, than the words above quoted from the Patent « 
 The intention seems to have been, less a grant than a mere 
 permission, not even exclusively in favor of the Grantees 
 to search for mines, in order that any sabseciuent discovery 
 miorht be the subject of further disjiosal by the Crown. 
 Evidently the Crown, before finally disposing of the mines, 
 desired further, and more precise, information on the subject 
 and intended, after obtaining such information, to follow up 
 the " DE Li.UY-Paient'' by some further action. In rnycasc 
 the utter ignorance of the Crown as to the nature, situation^ 
 extent and value of the njiiios, is evidence that the Crown was 
 not possessed of that cntd scicniid. so essential lo the validity 
 of a Crown Giant. Moreover, the want of further infonnr- 
 tion, as expressed in the Patent, necessarily i,nplies that such 
 uirther information was requii-ed for further aciion, cither 
 executive or legislative, with regard to the mines, and thit 
 the " DB L^iiY- Patent, " was neither a final nor an absolute 
 grant. And yet such is the instrument, under which the 
 Defendants lay, to the precious metals on the Plaintiffs' 
 lands, a claim which the Defendants well know to be unfoun- 
 ded, as is evident from the absence of the usual Warranty 
 clause from the Deed of Sale from de Leiy to Conian, as is 
 hereinbefore noticed. 
 
 . J, ^nd herein may be remarked en passant \\mt iha letter 
 information VG(i\\\Y(id oi the Patentees as a condition oiiXia 
 Grant was never furnished to the Government, and that such 
 a condition seems to the Plaintiffs to be one suspensive of the 
 operjition of the Patent, even if it does not void the Patent 
 altogether ; but of this more liereafter. 
 
 The foregoing obsetvations may perhaps serve as an 
 illustration of the wisdom of the rules recjuirec! for the validiiy 
 of Crown Grants, as -developed in tho following seetions. 
 
. — 46 — 
 
 tionto Patent ^GC, 0,1, The FouRTii oljection to the *' db LfeBV- 
 
 Patent "is 
 
 " IV. The non-observance of certain formalities essential 
 " to the validity of all snch Grants, namely : The Wan^ant 
 " for the Bill— the Bill itself— the Warrant for the Privy- 
 " SiGNKT— the Piniyy-Siynet itself— the Wairant for the 
 " Gkfat Seal— And the Cheat Seal itself." 
 
 The Plaintiffs' Declaration, it will again be borne in 
 mind, is admitted to be true for all the purposes of the Demur- 
 rer ; and that Declaration charges the omission of quite a 
 number of formalities which the Plaintiffs shall presently 
 shew by authority to be essential to the validity of all such 
 Grants, There is, it may bo said, no essential difference 
 between French and English Law on this head ; and the 
 reason of the rule in this rrspett is stated, by English and 
 French writers alike, to be for the purpose of protecting the 
 Sovereign against undue solicitation, and against hasty and 
 inconsiderate Grants. 
 
 Eighth objoc- Cn/^ "TH m -n 
 
 tion to Patent i^tl^. 4U. The EiGHTH oO;<?ci?on to the " DE L£;ky- 
 
 Patent " is tliat 
 
 " VIII. Such Letters Patent "ould not issue under the 
 " Great Seal of this Province, as they have done, but only 
 " under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom ; and such 
 '* Lettcra-Patent issued illegally and unadvisedly." 
 
 Unless it can be shewn that Pome positive Law has 
 transferred from the Sovereign herself to her Representative 
 here the right of issuing such an instrument as the " de L^ry- 
 Patent ", it is clear from the observations of Attorney 
 General Talmer and Lord Chelmsford in the case of Hughes 
 already quoted at Pages 9 i&seq : of this Factum, that such 
 an Instrument could only issue under the Great Seal of 
 England. Now the Plaintiffs affirm, without fear of contra- 
 diction, that there is no such Law. True, there is a statute 
 concerning Patents of Invention, and another relating to 
 Grants of land ; but the instrument under consideration docs 
 not profess to grant land ; and it is certainly not a Patent of 
 Invention. 
 
 Moreover, if, as some English writers have claimed it to 
 be, gold and silver mines be royal mines, on the principle 
 that gold and silver are the King's metals and essential to hia 
 
J- 
 
 Royal Prerogative of coinage, liovv can one suppose that the 
 Government of Canada, which did not, in 1846, and one may 
 say, does not even yet, possess the right of coinage, cou'd bo 
 pupposed to own, and consec^ueatly grant away, those supposed 
 Royal Mines. Tlie maxim : " accessoria rtm sequhur,'^ 
 forbids any such supposition. 
 
 " DE L6ry- 
 
 SeC. 71. Hie Ninth objection to the 
 
 Patent " is 
 
 " IX. The non-fulfilment by the Grantees of the several 
 " conditions of the Grant." 
 
 Five clearly expressed conditions were annexed by the 
 Crown to the Patent ; the Grantees were bound to conform 
 to all laws and usages in force,— to obtain the consent of the 
 owners of the soil,— to supply further and exact information 
 as to the nature of the mines— to furnish a correct account of 
 the working and produce of the mines— and to pay the one- 
 tenth Roj^alty. Not one of those conditions, as the Plaintiffs' 
 Declaration states, has ever been fulfilled ; and the Plaintiffs' 
 allegation that such conditions have not been fulfilled, must 
 for all the purposes of this argument, be taken to be true. ' 
 
 Having thus stated the Fibgt, Second, Third, Fourth, 
 Eighth and Ninth objections raised by the Plaintiffs, it only 
 remains for them to cite the authorities which bear them out in 
 their pretensions ; and although the authors cited speak in 
 some places of Patents for Inventions, yet CHrmr on Prero- 
 gative, P. 390, note 6, in speaking of Crown Grants, refers 
 back to his remarks on Patents for Inventions for a statement 
 of the formalities required in Letters Patent, conveying 
 Grants of the Crown. 
 
 DE L£ry- ^'°*** *'*>J««" 
 tion to Patent 
 
 feeC. 7^ ^The First, Second, Third, Fourth, ^''t'^oritiM 'n 
 
 _ ith and Ninth objections to the " de I 
 are fully borne out by the folloAving authorities. 
 
 Eighth and Ninth obiections to the "de Li:Ri-Pafc«r' TrsTsecond. 
 
 third, foQrth, 
 eighth and 
 
 CnrrTY on Prerogative, ch: X, sect. 2, p. 188, 189. 
 
 Fourthly. How a Patent is obtained. , 
 
 / 
 " To obtain a Patent, a Petition for it must be prepared, together with an 
 affidavit of the inventor in support of the Petition. These are then ta.i'°i to 
 
 ninth objec- 
 tions. 
 
— 48 - 
 
 '.he oflFicc of tlio fjccretnry of state foi tho Homo Department, where they 
 arc lodged. A fuw days after, the answer to the Petition, may commonly bo 
 Ind, containing a roferenco of it .0 the Attorney or Solicitor (ieneral, which 
 must be taken to eitlier of their Chamlx-rs for the report thereon ; and ir a 
 few days afterwards, tho Clerk will deliver it out. Tho report is then tnkon 
 to the secretary of ntate's office for the Kin;j;'s "Warrant, and tho clerk will 
 then inform the person lo.iving it when it may be called for. The Warrant 
 if. directed to the Attorney or Solicitor General, and is to be taken to their 
 Patent-Office for the Hiil. When the Bill is prepared it is taken to tho 
 Secretary of state's office for tho King's sign manual to tiio Bill. As soon as 
 this is obtained, it is carried to the signet office to be passed there, when 
 the Clerk prepares a Warrant for the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, where- 
 upon the clerk of the Privy Seal prepares his Warrant to the Lord ChanruUor. 
 This Warrant is then taken to tho Lord Chancellor's Patent Office, where 
 the Patent itself is prepared, and will be delivered out as soon as it is sealed. 
 The specification should then bo prepared, acknowledged and lodged at the 
 enrollment office, to have tho usual certificate of tho enrollment endorsed on 
 it; this is comn)only done in about a v.eek or a fortnight afterwards, and 
 then the Patent is in every respect complete." 
 
 CuiriY on Prerogative, ch : JCVI, seel. 2, j?. 389. 
 
 " It is a dear Rule, that, as well for tho protection of the King as tho 
 security of the subject, and on account of the high consideration entertained 
 by the Law towards His Majesty, no freehold interest, franchise, or liberty, 
 &c., &c., can be ti'unsfe'red from the Crown but by matter o{reeord(2 Co. 
 16, b— 17 ViN. Ab. 70. Prerog. C. J.— Con. Dm. tit. Patent.— "ii Ela, 
 Com. 346.) This is effected by Letters Patent under tho Great Seal, which 
 is a Record and evidence per se, without further proof ; and that such seal 
 may not be affixed without due caution and consideration, several prelimi- 
 nary steps are requisite. Grants of Letters-Patent must first pass by Bill 
 (see ante P. 188, 189 ; grants of Patents for Inventions), which is jjrepared 
 by the Attorney and solicitor General, in consequence of a Warrant from 
 the Crown (no officer which the King Ms, nor altogether, may, ex officio, 
 dispose of the King's treasure, though it be for the honor or profit of the 
 King Jdmself, 11 Co. Ql,b. " Ihey cannot witlumt the King's own Warrant." 
 Ibidem 92.), and is then signed, that is, subscribed at the top, with the King's 
 own sign mamtal, and sealed with his Frivy Signet, which is always in the 
 custody of the principal Secretary of State; and then sometimes it imme- 
 diately passes under the Great Seal, in which case the Patent is subscribed 
 in these words per ipsum regem, by the " King himself," otherwise the 
 course is to carry an extract of the Bill to the Privy Seal, who makes 
 out a Writ or Warrant thereupon, to tho Chancery, so that the Sign Manual 
 is tho Warrant to the Privy Seal, and the Privy Seal is the Warrant to tho 
 Great Seal ; and in this last case, the Patent is subscribed per breve de 
 pnvato sigillo, " by Writ of Privy Seal " (9 Rep. 18.-2 Inst. 555.)" 
 
 "When Chitty here says, that " the Lettees-Patent under 
 " the Gbeat Seal is a Kkcobd per «e," he has reference to 
 the enrollment thereof in Chancery which has just taken 
 
49 
 
 where tlicy 
 >iiimonly bo 
 leral, wliich 
 1 ; and ir n 
 
 then tnkon 
 e clerk will 
 he Warrant 
 ken to their 
 okeo to the 
 
 As soon as 
 here, wiien 
 5eal, where- 
 Chanrullor. 
 ftlce, wliere 
 
 it is scaled, 
 dged at the 
 indorsed on 
 rwards, and 
 
 89. 
 
 King as the 
 entertained 
 , or liberty, 
 leord (2 Co. 
 t.—2 Ela. 
 Seal, which 
 It such peal 
 ral prelimi- 
 )ass by Bill 
 is iirepared 
 irrant from 
 /, ex officio, 
 TO fit of the 
 Warrant." 
 \ the King's 
 n-ays in the 
 es it imme- 
 subscribed 
 lerwise the 
 who makes 
 ign Manual 
 rrant to tho 
 ur hreve de 
 55.)" 
 
 !NT under 
 erence to 
 iiBt takeu 
 
 place (sec Ilnghea' case P. 9 et seq : of this Factum, and aluo 
 the authorities cited ia the following pages.) 
 
 CHirrV on Prerogative^ ch : VI 1^ sect. 2, No. 2, p. 90, 91, 
 
 " Wkere any lkoal Riont or benbfit is tested in a subject, tub Kino 
 
 CANNOT AFFECT IT." 
 
 CuiTTY on Prerogative, ch : XVI, sect. 1, p. 385. 
 
 " The King's Grants arc void whenever they tend to prejudice the 
 course and ien^t of public Justice." 
 
 " Nor can the King exempt any one from civil responsibilities to a 
 fellotB subject." 
 
 Chitty on Prerogative, ch: XVI, sect. l,p. 386. 
 
 " It is scarcely necessary to mention that the King's Grants are invalid, 
 when they destroy and derogate from rights previously vested in another 
 subject by Grant 
 
 Chitty on Prerogative, ch : XVI, sect. l,p. 386. 
 
 " A Grant from the Crown in derogation of the common Law is voir, 
 for the King cannot irMke Lam or Custom by his Grant." 
 
 Chitty on Prerogativo, ch : VII, p. 119. 
 
 " And it is a clear principle that the King cannot by his mere prero- 
 
 fative diminish or destroy immunities once eon/erred and vested in a subject 
 y Royal Grant" 
 
 Chttty on Prerogative, ch: XVI, sect. 3, p. 394. 
 
 " In the second place, the construction and leaning (of Crown Grants) 
 shall be in favor of the subject, if the Grant shew that it was not made at the 
 solicitation of the Grantee, but ex ^eciali gratid, eertd scientid et mero 
 motu regis (Pincd, L. 100.— 1 Rep. 40.— 10 Rep. 112.— Com. Dio. Grant, 
 G 12. — ViN. Ab, Frerog. E, e. 8.). Though these words do not of themsel- 
 ves protect the grantee against false recitals. (10 Co. Rep. ll'i.-~-8 Leon : 
 2492.— Salh: 561)." 
 
 Chitty on Prerogative, ch : XVI, sect 2, p. 894 <& 395. 
 
 " In considering the cases in which a roVal grant may be ineffectual, on 
 account of mistakes, deceit, &c., &c., it may be proper to divide the subject 
 into the following branches : 1 Vheertainties, 2 Misrecitals ; and herein of 
 false suggestions and deceit." 
 
 " 1 A decided uncertainty will avoid a grant from the Crown, not only 
 as against the Patentee, but also as against the King, because it raises a 
 
— 60 — 
 
 ||i 
 
 presumption of deceit (Bitlstr. 10.— 17 Vim. Ab UO,Preroff. F, c,-6 Bac. 
 Ab. fi02, Prerog. F, 2.— Co. Enyk. 884.), as if the King urant a piece of land, 
 parcolofa wa«te Ac, Ac, without dflHiffnatitig what piece; or grant land 
 or a rent, in which there may bo various interests, without limiting or 
 Bpecifying any particular estate in the gift ; and in this caw the patentee 
 take» RO WTER18T whatever (Rol. Ab.84B.— Dav.08, 46.— 1 Bla, Rep. 118)." 
 
 Chitty on Prerogativ€y ch : Vlll^ p. 125. 
 
 " The King cannot take away, abridge, or alter any libtrtiei or 
 privilegte granted hy him or his predecessors, without tub consent o/ the 
 individuals holding them (1 Kvd. 67.-3 Buab. 1050.)." 
 
 Ohitty on Prerogative^ ch : VIJI, p. 182. 
 
 " It is a principle of law, that the Jung is bound by his own and his 
 ancestor's grants, and cannot therefore, by uis meke phekooativb, take 
 away veetea immunities arid privilegea," 
 
 Chitty in a note adds : 
 " That this doctrine was admitted In the King & Amery (2, T, R. 515)." 
 
 Chitty on Prerogative, ch: XVI, aect. B,p. 396. 
 
 " 2. With respect to misrecitals and false scooestions or deceit, 
 these also will, in certain cases, invalidate a Grant from the Crown, (2 Bla. 
 Com. 84S.)" 
 
 " And here it may be noticed, that to prevent deceits, it ie in general 
 neees$ary that a grant by the Crown of any reversion should recite the 
 particular previous term, estate or interest, still in esse and which is of 
 record (17 Vin. Ab. 108, Prerog. (J. b. 2— Com. Dig. Grant 0. 10), and if 
 the King (by matter of record, as is necessary), hose la id to B,, and after- 
 wards grant Yma a new lease, without recitino the first, the hkst Charter 
 IS VOID, without regard to the effect it may haveou the 6rst (Cbo. El. 231)." 
 
 Chitty on Prerogative, ch : XYl, sect. 8, p. 89t. 
 
 "But it seemi that Royal grants are always void where the King 
 evidently mistakes his title in a material point to the prejudice of his tenure 
 or profit (5 Bac. ab. 608, Prerog. F. 2.) " 
 
 " So if the recital of a thing in a Patent which sounds to the King's 
 benefit be false, the grant will be void ; for the King is in point of Law 
 deceived (2 Co. 54.— 1 Co. 48, (?.- Dteb, 852, a.— 11 Co 90.— 2 Rol. Ab. 
 188,1,12.)" 
 
 ************ 
 
 " And if the false recttal, ac, ac, arise from the scgqession of 
 
 THB PARTY APPLYING fOT the grant, such ORANr WILL BE VOID." 
 
 " And, if any thing menti aed at the consideration of the grant, or 
 
 tfM 
 
 3S?3r 
 
 I^IIVU b V.I 
 
 ting, (be it esecuted or eseeuic 
 
61 — 
 
 F, c,-6 Bac, 
 pieco of land, 
 r>r grant land 
 t limiting or 
 the patentee 
 I, Rep. 118)." 
 
 / libertiei or 
 0RSE5T of the 
 
 own and hia 
 ooATivB, take 
 
 , T. R. 515)." 
 }96. 
 
 N8 or DECEIT, 
 
 :own, (2 Bla. 
 is in general 
 
 LD RECITE the 
 
 id which IB of 
 7. 10), and if 
 3., and after- 
 LAST Charter 
 !ro. El. 231)." 
 
 m. 
 
 iere the King 
 ! of his tenure 
 
 to the King's 
 I point of Law 
 I. — 2 RoL. Ab. 
 
 SO0OKS8I0M OF 
 
 tJie grant, or 
 
 matter of record or in pais,) be rALas, the King is deceived, ond the grvnt 
 will be VOID (5 Co. 94, a.— 2 RoL. An. 188, !, 25 ; 199, 1. 80, 50.— Lane, 
 75,109.)' 
 
 Currrv on Prerogative, ch ; X Vl, sect. 4, p. 399. 
 
 " In tlie ease of lauds, the grantee dots iu)t, by taking them from the 
 Crown, acquire any particular privileges. He is not thereby protected 
 against the common law remedies ami rights which others may ponsess in 
 rt'Hpect of the property, however such remudios and rights might bo impeded 
 whilst the King held it." 
 
 Cmrrv on Prerogative, ch : XI 1, sect. 3, p. 330. 331. 
 
 " The King Ih, generally speaking, bound by his own grants ; but this 
 is ONLY when they arc not contrary to law either in themselves; or VOID 
 for UNCERTAINTY or DECEPTION ; OR UNJUST 88 INJURIOUS to the rights and 
 interests of third persons. In these cases tub Kino, jure regio, for the 
 advancement of justice and right, tnav r«p«a2 his own grant (4 Inst: 88), 
 as if the King grant what, by law, he is restrained from granting (8 Bi,a. 
 Com. 2t)0. Though if the Patent be void it itself, non concessit may bo 
 pleaded without a «cir«yacta«. 2 Rol. Ab. 191. S, pl.'i.): or the grant 
 oe obtained by fraud or a false suooestion (Bro. Patent 14 \—l'etition 
 11.— 11 Rep. 74, b.— 2 Roi,. Ab. 191, Z— Dyer, 197): or 6c uncertain 
 (5 Bac. Ad. Prerogative 602)." 
 
 " If a Crown grant prejudice and affect the rishts of third persons, the 
 King is by Law bound, on proper petition to hitn, to allow a subject to use his 
 royal name, to repeal it in a scire Facias, (Buo. Ab. Title, Scire Faciiis, 
 (19,185.-2 Ventr. 844.— 3 Bla. Com. 200), and it is said that, in such 
 case, the party prejudiced may, \i'on the enrollment of the grant in 
 Chancery have a scire Fa'' lo repeal it as well as the King (tl 
 Modern 229. — 2 Saunders, ,2 q.); os in the instance of an unfounded 
 patent for an invention, or where the specification is incorrect. So in the 
 case of a grant of a mart or fair, &c., Ac, whereby another ancient mart 
 or fair is prejudiced (Dyer 276, 6.-3 Lev, 220.— 2 Ventr. 344.). Whfi-e 
 the name thing is ghawkd twice, the tirbt patentee is entitled tea Scire 
 Facias to repeal the subsequent grant (4 Inst. 88. — Dyer, 187, b. 198, 
 a.— 2RoL. Ab. 191, iJ,pl: 2)." 
 
 CniTT^- on Prerogative, ch : XIII, sect. 1, p. 342 tfe 343. 
 
 Speaking, in note a, of Staiindford, says of him : 
 
 " Staundford was frequently cited by the Counsel and Court in the case 
 in 12 East, 96." 
 
 Chitty then cites Staundford {Prcerog. Itci/isy ch : 22, fol. 
 74, a, to 7i"), h) as follows : 
 
 " To declare specially, says Staundford, where a Petition (of Right) 
 lieth and where not, it were a long matter to intreat of." 
 
— 62 — 
 
 " Also whore the King doth enter upon me, having no title by matter of 
 record or otherwise, and put me out and detain the possession from me, that 
 I cannot have it again hy entry without suit, I have then no remedy but 
 only by Petition. Jitit \f lie suffered to enter, 'mine entry vt lawful, and 
 no intrusion ; or if the King grant over the lands to a stranger, then is my 
 Petition determined, and I may novr enter, or have my assize, hy order of 
 the Common Law, againtt th^ said stranger, being the King's Patentee. 
 (Vide— 4 Ed : IV, f. 22.--24 Ed : III, f. 65.— 10 Ed : iii, f. 2.) " 
 
 " Like Law it is if I have a rent charge out of certain land, and the 
 tenant of the land enleoffeth the King b^ Deed enrolled ; now during the 
 King's possession, I must sue by petition, lut if his Highness enfeof a 
 Stranger, I may distrain for my rent on the Stranger ; and so it is in all 
 the cases before, where a man may have his traverse en monstrans de droit, 
 if the lands be once out ef the King^t hands, the party then may have uia 
 REMEDY tJutt the common Law giveth him. 
 
 2 Saundkes, Pleading <& Evid : Civil cases, vho : Letters 
 P(Ueni. 
 
 P. 635. — " In pleading Letters-Patent it is necessary to state the Grant 
 to have been enrolled in the Court of Chancery." 
 
 1 Co: 48. 
 
 1 Saunders' Reports, No. 2, p. 119, 187 ot 271. 
 
 Norman's Law of Patents,^. 19 (a.) t& p. 4 {e.) 
 
 " At Common Law, the Letters-Patent must have been enrolled in 
 " Chancery, otherwise they are void." 
 
 P. 19 (a.) p. 4 («.) 
 
 " If they (L. P.) can be taken to enure to a double intent, they shall 
 " be taken to the intent that shall enure most to the King's beneQt." 
 
 P. 19 (a.) <fe J). 6 {e.) 
 
 " A bad grant is void, not against the Crown merely, but in a suit 
 " between ^he Patentee and a third person." 
 
 P. 20 (a.) (& p. 5 (e.) 
 
 ■' The consideration of the grant failing, the Patent is void." 
 
 " Such Grants are intended for the public woal ; if t'lc consiilorntion 
 " fail, the grant is void ; for the King was deceived. So it is void, if the King 
 *' grant a greater estate than be can lawfully do." 
 
 P. 131 (a). & p. 168 [e). 
 " That no specification was enrolled in Chancery, is a good Plea." 
 
 P. 149 (a). <& p. 194 (<?.) 
 *' Scire Facias is founded on the Record remaining in Chai\cery." 
 
by matter of 
 om me, that 
 remedr but 
 lawful, and 
 THEN is my 
 hy order of 
 's Patentee. 
 )" 
 
 mi, and the 
 ' during the 
 ess enfeqf a 
 o it is in all 
 ans de droit, 
 <iay have uia 
 
 ?: Letters 
 
 ,te the Grant 
 
 I enrolled in 
 
 t, they shall 
 lefit" 
 
 >ut in a suit 
 
 !onsii1erntion 
 , if the King 
 
 1 Pica." 
 
 — 53 — 
 
 P. 159 (a.) tfi p. 209 (<?.) : 
 
 " The Judgment of Q. B. on Scire Facias is that the Letters Patent bo 
 " restored into Chancery there to be cancelled." 
 
 It has already been shewn moreover, at Pages 10 and 13 of 
 this Factum, that, under English Law, Letters ratent must be 
 recorded or enrolled in some Court of Common-Law Jurisdic- 
 tion. It remains, however, to be established, that, in that 
 respect, English Law is borrowed from the French Law 
 which was brought over by the Normans under William, at 
 the Conquest. A work published by Hocard in Paris, in 
 1776, under the the title " Anciennea loia francaiaea recueiUiea 
 
 far LnTLKTON " contains an elaborate collection of the 
 'rench Laws engrafted on the English System and establishes 
 this point conclusively. But, as the Plaintiffs have not now 
 that work in their possession, they are compelled to resort to 
 other French Wnters, in order to shew that Crown Grants, 
 such as that invoked by the Defendants, must be enrolled in 
 some Court of record ; and that the Instruments purporting to 
 convey the Grants confer no rights until such time as the 
 parties interested against the Grants have been heard in 
 Court. 
 
 P. 482: Edition in quarto^ 
 
 icery, 
 
 Gdyot, vho. LettreS'Patentes. 
 has the following : 
 
 " Lettbes-Patentes. Ge sent des Lettrcs emanSes du roi, scell^cs du 
 '' grand sceau, et contresignoes par un Secretaire d'etat. 
 
 " On les appelle Patentes, parccqu'elles sent ouvertes, k la difRrenco 
 '* des Lettres closes oi de cachet, qu'on ne pcut lire sans Ics ouvrir." 
 
 " Les Lettres-Patentes neproduiaent leur effet qu^apris qu'elles ont ete 
 *' emk£oistr£es par la Couj k laquUle clles sont adress^es." 
 
 " Les Lettros-Patontes accord6es h, un corps ou a un particulicr, sont 
 " susceptiiles d'opposition, lorsqu'cUes pr6judicient k un tiers." 
 
 Tlie opposition spoken of in Guyot is precisely the opi)o- 
 sition preferred before the Chancellor to the sealing of Letters- 
 Patent, as mentioned by Nobman and Ciutty ; and the 
 suspension of the effect of Lettres- Patentes as referred to by 
 GcYOT is equivalent to the axiom laid down by Chitty : 
 " The King cannot grant except by record." 
 
 In ffpeaking''of that peculiar form of Letters Patent, called 
 Ltttrea JaoyauXj the same author, at Pages 482 & 483, says ; 
 
 " Lettres-Royaux. On appelle ainsi toutes sortes do Lettrcs firaan^ea 
 " du roi, et scelloes du grand ou du petit sceau." 
 
 *****-»•* «• * -It 
 
 * i» 
 
 W- 
 
— 54 — 
 
 *' Ces sortes de Lettres ne aontjamau tenseea Ore aecordSei au pbISjd- 
 " DICE des droits du roi, ni de ceux cPun tiers ; c'est pourquoi la clause, 
 " savf le droit du roi et eelui d'autrui, j est toujours sous-entkndub." 
 
 " Tellesiont e-i g^n6ral les Lettres de don, et autres qui contiennent 
 " quelque liberalite ou quelque dispense." 
 
 Can words more clearly express than does Gityot in that 
 quotation, the statement of Chitty herein before set out, that : 
 " The King cannot by his Grants prejudice the rights of 
 individuals ? " 
 
 GcTOT, vbo. Chanoelier, P. 100, JUd : in quarto, has an 
 article, from which one might almost fancy that Chitty, 
 Blackstone, Forster and Norman had drawn their statements ; 
 Guyot eays : 
 
 " Et par une autre Ordonnance de 1818, le Ghancelier ne dev&it appo- 
 " serle grand sceau qu'aux Lettres auxquelles le seel du secret avait 4t6 
 " appose : c'etait celui que portait le chambellan, k la difference du petit 
 *' signet que le roi portait sur lui." 
 
 " Charles V ordonna aussi len 1356 que le chancelier ne ferait pas 
 " sceller les Lettres passees au conscil qu'elles ne fussent sign6es au moins 
 " do trois de ceux qui y avaient assist^, et qu'il n'en pourrait Stre scelle 
 " aucune portant alienation du domaine, ou don de grandes forfeitures ou 
 " confiscations qu'il n'eAt d6clar6 au conseil ce que la ehose donnee pouvait 
 " VALOiu de rente par an" 
 
 Gdyot, vbo. Chancellerie, P. 110, Ed : in quarto. 
 
 " Philippe V, dit le Long, fit au mois de F6vrier, 1321, un rdglement 
 " g^n^ral, oil il est dit quo le Chancelier sera tenu d^eerire au dos des 
 " Lettres la cause pour laquelle il refusera de les sceller, sans les d6p6cer." 
 
 " On voit par les lettres de Charles V, alors rfigent du royaume, " qu'il 
 " y avait doja dus rer/istrea d la Chancellerie, oil Ton enregistrait tertainca 
 " ordonnances et Lettres- Patmites du roi." 
 
 The NouvKAu-DiiNizART, vho. Lettres- Patentes, P. 137, 
 M : of 1771, eays : 
 
 " Lettres-Patentes. 1. Ce sont des lettres du roi, scellfies du grand 
 " sceau : elles ont pour objet, et il faut les obtenir, lorsqu'il s'agit de quel- 
 *' qu'6tablissoment, privilege, gr&ce, octroi, etc., etc." 
 
 " Les Lettres-patentes n'ont force de hi 0u'apk6s qu^elles ont 6t6 
 " viriJUes dans les parlemens, les parties interess6es ouies ou dAment 
 " appel^es." 
 
 " Le roi finit ainsi ses lettres patentes : " Sauf en autbk chosk notrb 
 «' DROIT et L'AUTRUI EN TOUTES." " 
 
— 53 — 
 
 137, 
 
 BosQCET, jDiotionnaire raisonni dea Domamis^ vbo. Lei- 
 tres-patenteSj says : 
 
 " Ce» diSerentes lettres dont le detail va s'ensuivre dans I'ordre alpha- 
 *' h&tiq\ie, ne sont pcu asivjitiea d itre insinuiea dans un vemps fixe maia 
 " seulement, avant que db pouvoir s'en sekvib, et de lesfaire enregtstrer ; 
 jusqu'alors, lefermier ne peut en demander let droiti, ainsi qu'il a 4t6 
 decide au conseil, le 28 Juin 1741, par des lettres d'^rection ; ******* 
 II y a des lettres patentes et des lettres do chancelleries sujettes k I'insi- 
 nuation, quoiqu'elles ne aoient pas expressSment nomm^es dans les rdgle- 
 ments : I'idit du mois de D^cembre 1703, rapport6 ci-derant, verb. 
 Insinuation, n. 4, page 647, porte que la formality de I'insinuation sera 
 6tendue aux actes, dont il importe au public d'avoir counaissance • et 
 
 apport6 
 
 In reading the abor^e extracts, one immediately notices 
 the derivation of all the formalities of the Great-Seal, the 
 Privy-si( H. otc, etc., referred to in the English I.aw- writers 
 herein ' juoted ; they contain, m fact, the counterpart 
 
 of the iviiowiug statements of 
 
 2 Blackstone, Commentaries^ P. 346, 347 et 348. 
 
 " The King's grants are also matter of public record. For, as St. 
 " Germyn says, the King's Excellency is so high in the law, that no freehold 
 *• may be given to the King, nob derived prom bim, lut by matter or 
 " RECORD. And to this end a variety of offices are erected, communicating 
 " in a regular subordination one with another, through which all the King^ 
 *^ grants must pass, and letmascnhfA, and enrolled; that the same may 
 " be narrowly inspected by his oflScers, who wi'l inform him if any thing 
 " contained therein is improper, or unlawful to be gran ed. These grants, 
 " whether of lands, honours, liberties, franchises, or oug ht besides, are 
 " contained in charter, or letters patent, that is, open letters, literm patentes : 
 " so called because they are not sealed up, but exposed to open view, with 
 " the great seal pendant at the bottom ; and are lawfully directed or 
 " addressed by the King to all his subjects at large. And therein they diflFer 
 •' from certain other letters of the King, sealed also with his great seal, but 
 " directed to particular persons, and for particular purposes : which there- 
 " fore, not being proper fcr public inspection, are closed up and sealed on 
 " the outside, and are there upon called writs close, literaa clauses ; and 
 " are recorded in the close-roUs, in the same manner as the others are in 
 " the patent-rolls. 
 
 " Grants or letters-patent -Axini first pass by bill : which is prepared by 
 " the attorney and solicitor general, in consequence of a tsarrant from the 
 " crown ; and is then signed, that is, superscribed at the top, with the 
 " King's own sign-manual, and sealed with h\a privy-signet, which is always 
 " in the custody of the principal secretary of state ; and then sometimes it 
 " immediately passes under the great seal, in which case the patent is subs- 
 *• cribed in these words." per ipsum reaem. bv the Kine himself" Otherwis« 
 " the course is to carry an extoact of the bill' to the keeper of the privy seal, 
 

 — 56 — . 
 
 who makes out a writ or warrant thereupon to the chancery ; so that the 
 SIGN ANUAL IS the wamint to the great seat : and in this last case the 
 pate: , is subscribed ; per breve de privato ngillo, hj writ of privy seal.!' 
 But there are some grants, which only pass through certain offices, as the 
 admiralty or treasury, in consequence of a sign manual, without the 
 confirmation of either the signet, the great, or the privy seal : *♦♦*♦** 
 When it appears from the fece of the grant, that the Eitig is mistaken or 
 deceived, either in matter of fact or matter otlain, as in case at false sug- 
 gestion, misinformation, or misrecitat of former grants ; or if his own 
 title to the thing granted be different from what he supposes, or if the 
 grant he informal; or if he grants an estate contrary to the rules of 
 law ; IN AKV OF THESE CASES THE GRANT IS ABSOLUTELY VOID. 
 ***** And, to prevent deceits of the King, with regard to the value of 
 the estate granted, it is particularly provided hy the statute 1 Hen. IV, 
 c. 6, that ru) grant of his shall be good, otless, in the ^n,nXx^& petition 
 for them, express mention he made of the real value of the lands. 
 
 Here again, in the Statute 1 Hen : iv cA : 6, one finds 
 an exact counterpart of the very Ordinance of Charles V of 
 1356, quoted by Wuyot, verbo Chancelleries P. 100 and herein 
 before cited. 
 
 The Ordinance of 1667, Title 1, Art : 4: et 5, requires the 
 EnregiBtration of Ordonnancea, Edits, Declarations wa^ 
 Zettres-Patentes in the Courts of Law ; and it is a fact that 
 every Chant of the French Kings in Canada, is enrolled in 
 the Beaistre de VIntendant, who dispensed justice in the 
 name of the King in Canada, prior to the conquest. And to 
 this day, in the Superior Court is kept a Register for the 
 enrollment of such Letters-Patent as may be brought there to 
 be recorded. What prevented tht Grantees in this instance 
 from seeking to have their Letters-Patent recorped in the 
 Superior Court, and from thereby giving the Plaintiffs and 
 other interested parties an opportunity ot oeing heard against 
 the validity of the Grant. 
 
 Could any thing more clearly prove the necessity which 
 existed for the enregistration somewhere of the instrument 
 known as the " de lik&Y -Patent, before it could even be 
 pretended to confer any rights upon the holders. Until the 
 moment of such enregistration. It remains a piece of useless, 
 harmless parchment. And the Plaintiffs have already at 
 Page 14 of this Factum, shewn that the enrollment of it 
 with the Registrar of records here, does not supply the want 
 of enregistration in some Court of Record, because the Statute 
 creating that Office applies only to grants of lands, and not to 
 grants of mining rights. 
 
 HussoN, in a Memoire of the most profound research, to 
 be found in Yol : 2, (Euvres da Dupleasis, P. 142, has some 
 
- f»7 ~ 
 
 I'cnlarkB on the subject of alienation of the Crown Domain ; 
 and, if the pretensions of the Defendants be trne, that mines 
 are a part of the Domain, the citation is conclusive against 
 the validity of the Patent. Simonf speaking of the alienation 
 of the Grown Domain, says : 
 
 ** n est Trai, qu'outre 1» justice de la cause exprimie dans le titre de 
 " I'ali^nation, la verity on doit 6tn connue, et mfime Ton doit examiner, si 
 " elle ne serait point prijudiciable k TEtat : et c'est une discussion dont nos 
 " Rois se sont d6charg6s sur les scins et sur la fld61it4 des OfSders de leura 
 " Oours Souveraines. auzquds les Lettres Patentee de I'aliination sont 
 " adress^spour en faire la verification et I'enregiBtiement ; car qu'oiqu'au 
 " sentiment d'un illustre politique : " EegtMntU seiitrntia jmieiwm de 
 " tolia actibut mimat^" not Eois n6anmoins par une sage pr^vojance et par 
 " une prudente moderation ont trovvi d propos que lefi dispotitions qu'ils 
 " feraient de lent Domaine, fussent examiniai par des Magistrate, dont la 
 *' tigilanee et Vaffeetion pussent les garamtr eontre lee smiPRisEs des 
 
 " UPBTRANS. 
 
 " II y a quantity d' Arrets de verifications et d'enregistrements interve- 
 " nues sur de semblables Lettres-Patentes d'tUi6natioti.'° 
 
 Sec. 73. ^The grounds on which the Plaintiffs have Objectiocs not 
 
 thus far urged the nuUitv of the" de LfcBr-<Pa&n<» may, at first K'^'"''" 
 sight appear to be purely technical in their nature ; yet this is 
 far from being the case ; those oWections have their source in 
 grounds of the highest public poBcy, and prove the necessity 
 which existed for guardmg the fipvereigu against inconsfiderate 
 
 Sants ; and if so much precaution were then taken to guard 
 e then absolute Sovereign from inconsiderately granting to a 
 stranger what was considered at least to be the Sovereign's own 
 >roperty how much more jealously should the public domain 
 )e now guarded, since the subj^^ under our system, has it in 
 lis power to grant the Crown domain not to a stranger, but to 
 limself. In any case the grounds hitherto urged against the 
 " DE LkBY'Fafmt,** are grounds which, as tilfe authors agtee 
 in declaring, make the Patent absolutely void. 
 
 The four remaining objections t6 the « de IjkB.rFatent ", 
 namely : the FntH, SIdcth, SavBinrtt and iWra objections, 
 are decisive of the real question at issue betWen tiie parties 
 hereto as to 
 
 8 
 
 I i 
 
58 — 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 THE OWNBRSraP OF THE MINES. 
 
 RemRlning SgC. 74. Of the four remaining objections to the 
 
 tSpS. « DE L^^Y-Patmi. ' the Tenth which claims^ th. J the « de 
 LBEYPrtfen^ has been superseded by the Seigniorial Act, will 
 be incidentally noticed with the otlxer three, but will moreover 
 form more especially, the subject-matter of the next Chapter. 
 Tlie FiETH, Sixth and Seventh objections to the " de Leey- 
 Patent " are thus stated : 
 
 « V. The Crown had no interest to grant ; in as much as, 
 « b ' the Laws then in force in Lower-Canada, the rights 
 « of the Crown, in private lands, were, and are, restricted to 
 "one-tenth of the metals extracted. „, . .„ . 
 
 " VI The Mines belong to *he Plaintiffs as owners ot 
 « the soil in those lands and tenements, no pa '♦, of which ever 
 « belonged to the Defendants, as owners of t-^e soil ; and that 
 "the Patent issued without notice to the Plaintife awfeui-a, 
 « as owners of the soil, and without the Plaintiffs' auUus 
 "having been called on to work tbft mines. 
 
 " VII A Royal Permission to work a mine conld only 
 « issue on the refusal of the proprietor to work the mine, after 
 "reffular and judicial notice to t> propnetor, andatormal 
 « iudgmcflt to that effect by the Tnounals of the country. 
 
 How Plaint- SeC. 75. ^The question involved in those objections 
 
 KKfth. is BO well treated by Meelin, that the Plaintiffs reproduce the 
 
 Bijthand se- article almost entire. That author deiiion8trateB,l)eyond the 
 
 ▼enth object- gijj^^Q-^ of a doubt, that the ownership of OM mines, without 
 
 tion. to Pft- exception, was, by the Law of France, vested in the owhot of 
 
 the soil, and that such authors as have emitted a contrary 
 
 opinion, had evidently never seen the text of the Ordinances 
 
 of the French Kings in reference to mines, or studied the 
 
 Roman Law, on which those Ordmances are almost literall;^ 
 
 based. The Plaintiffs wiU further reproduce here in their 
 
 entirety the three great Ordinances promulgated by the 
 
 French Kings on the subject of Mines; and if one did not 
 
 know that the existence of the Clfl^'^ttZairc de St. Louis, 
 
 
— 69 
 
 Q8 to the 
 
 the " DB 
 Act, will 
 moreover 
 Chapter. 
 
 DB IJlEY- 
 
 miich as, 
 lie rights 
 tricted to 
 
 iwners of 
 
 hich ever 
 
 and that 
 
 i' auteu.'g 
 
 onld only- 
 line, after 
 I a formal 
 intry." 
 
 objections 
 
 'oduee the 
 eyond the 
 B, without 
 owner of 
 I contrary 
 •rdinances 
 udied the 
 t literall;)^ 
 i in their 
 1 by the 
 e did not 
 3t. Louis, 
 
 touching treasure-trove had been denied in open Court by one 
 of the most eminent of French Jurists, and that none of the 
 Ordina ces had been printed and published in France until 
 1763, and that the Ordinances respecting Mines had not been 
 published until the revolution, one might not be able to 
 account for the ignorance of the Law of Mining displayed by 
 certain French Law-writers. As it was, the French Jurists, 
 up to the period nearly of the French Eevolution, knew as 
 little of most the Ordinances enregistered in the several Par- 
 liaments of France, as we, Canadians, did for many years, of 
 the Edicts and Ordinances enregistered in the Superior Coun- 
 cil here. The PlaintiflFs, utter having cited Mehi,in, and the 
 text of the Ordinances referred to, purpose first giving, at 
 length, the opinions enunciated j?ro and con by the various 
 French-Writers, and then critically examining those opinions. 
 
 8 Meruit, Bejaertoire, vbo. MineSf No. i, P. 193. 
 
 " Tout ce qu'on peut tirer des Mines appartient au Domaine du Roi, etc." 
 *' lelle itait du moins avant la loi du 12 Juillet, 1791, la doctrine ePune 
 foule d'auteurt; mais j'ai d<hontk£ dans mon Meeueil de Questions do 
 Droit, Ai'ticlo MiyEs, § 1, qu'elle n'avait pour base qu'une interpretation 
 erronie des lois Eo.naines it des Aneiennes Ordonnances, et une confusion 
 du Droit deproprieteavee le droit d'inspeetim et la faculte de diisrioser en 
 ind«mnit,j,nt." 
 
 Merlin„ Quesiiona de Droit P. 304, 
 
 Mines. M. 1. " Quelle etait, avant les lois du 4 AoAt 1789, la natvre des 
 droits qu avaient suk les Mines, lea iSeigneurs hwt»-jasticieTsf Ftaient-ih 
 proprietaires fonciers des mines non encore dficouvertes ? L'dtaiont-ils au 
 moins de mines qui, en 1789, etaient d6couvertes et en pleine exploitation ? 
 
 No. 2. ''Lea droits d'entre-eens que \es Seigneurs hauts-Justiciers du 
 Hamiiut, .s'elaicnt r6serv6s sur les mines dont ils avaient permis I'ouverturo 
 et I'exploitation a des entrepreneurs, Staient-ils seigneuriaux, et sont-ils 
 suppKiMfis ^ar les lois relatives k \&/eodalite. 
 
 No. 3. "S'ilssontsupprim6senth^seg4n6rale,»an«-i&du moins cow«cjT<,'« 
 cn/fflBCMrdes ci-devanis seigneurs qui, posterieurement & la stipulation 
 prmiitivo dc ces droits, mais avant I'abolition du regime feodal, les avaient 
 tnod{/ies par des transactions pass6es avec les entrepreneurs ? 
 
 No. ,4, " La question de siivoir si une redevance promise k un ci-devnnt 
 seigneur haut-justicier, pour prix de la permission qu'il a donnec d'ouvrir 
 dfts mines de tharbon dans sa haute- justice, est purement fcnci^re et main- 
 tc.ae comnio telle, ou si elle est feodale et comme telle abolie ; a-t-clle pu, 
 avant la loi du 21 Avril 1810, faire la matidro d'uno transaction V 
 
 No. 5. " La loi du 21 Avril 1810 a-t-elle rendu sans effet les transtictions 
 qui antiSrieuremeut, et depuis I'abolition du regime f6odal, a^uient et6 pas- 
 jsocs stir des contestations de cette nature ? 
 
 No 0. " Qu'cntcndnit Tart IS du chnn, 122 d<?s chart^s-edn^ralcs de 
 
 Anthorities. 
 MerUn, 
 
 la 
 
— 60 — 
 
 0WNIR8BIP Hftinaut. par le droit de charbonnage qu'elles riputaient heritage ou 
 
 or Minis. immeublef 
 
 Aothoritieg. No. 7. " Quelle «tait en Hainaut avant le Code Civil, la nature des 
 
 Merlin. actions des soci^t^s charbonnidres f itaient-elles meubles ou immcubles f 
 
 lo. " Les TROis premUret quettioru u »ont priamteea dan* Ve»iple$ 
 tulvante. 
 
 •' Le 12 Janvier 1757, Contrat par lequel Jean J/)uu Deeanmdelet, 
 Seigneur, habt-Justiousb des territoires de la Hestro et de llaine Saint 
 Pierre, situis dans le Hainaut Autrichien (aujourd'hui dfipartement de 
 Jemmappes), p«r»iM«,;perp6tuelleinent et k toiyours, d AmouU DetehuyUner 
 etkaes associ&s, de drer eharbons, tela et tant qu'ils en trouveront sur les 
 dits territoires. 
 
 "Parle mfime acte, la socifitfi s'oblige de continuer le conduit dej a 
 oommenci, en vertu de la permission qu'elle en avait obtenue d'un fonde de 
 pouvoir du Seigneur. Dans le cas oil elle cesserait, pendant un an, de tra- 
 vailler k ce conduit et d'extraire du charbon, elle sera r6put6e avoir abaii' 
 donn^ I'entreprlse pour toiijours, sans pouvoir rien r6clamer de ce qui aurait 
 6t6 fait ; ni retirer ce qu'elle aurait mis ; et le tout demeurera au profit du 
 seigneur, sans prijudice des dommages-int^rfits qui lui seront d6s pour 
 rinexicutiondeVentreprise.— EmriN, ilestconuOTiw quele Seigneur aurak 
 son profit le omiime denier de tout ce qui serr. venda ou k vendre, franc de 
 tous frais, pour droit de cens et d'ent icens, k quoi les associis s'obligent 
 solidairement I'un pour I'autre. 
 
 " Le 16 Mars 1776 traneaetione eur quelqvetdiffmltit survenues dans 
 I'exioution de ce contrat " Les inaitres charbonniers (y est-il dit), conti- 
 nueront le conduit ju8qu'& la premidre veino travaillablc, et poursuivront 
 jusqu'aux veines de charbon dicouvertes snr la Hestre, lequel ouvrago so 
 reprendra sous quinze jours, aux frais des charbonniers qui travailleront 
 dor6navant, de bonne foi et aveo continuity, k foire valoir lo chnrbonnngc. 
 de lanieme manidre que le Seigneur le pourrait faire pour son plus grand 
 profit, consentant k tout d6dom!nageincnt au cas contraire.,,. ; etpour 
 qu'il ne soit port6 aucun prejudice au Seigneur de la Hestre, et qu*il puisse 
 jouir en tout temps de I'eztraction qui se fera sur sa Seigncurie, les char^ 
 bons ne pourront s'extraire k I'avenir sur la dite terre, que par des ouver- 
 tures placles sur son domaine ; et les galeries et ouvrages de ccs ouvcrturcs 
 seront pratiquics sur lestrifonds de sa Seigneurie, sans les pouvoir dutour« 
 ner sur des terrains Strangers." 
 
 " En 1785, PR0C*8 entre Ffangois Louin Hector Deearandelet, fils de 
 Jean Louis, * laSoeUth Deeehuytener, — Le prem er so plaint de ce que la 
 Soci^tS 4tend ses extractions de charbon jusques dans la tcrre de Redemont, 
 dont il est pas seigneur ; de ce qu'elle se livre de preference k I'exploits- 
 tton des veines qui s'y trouvent, et que, par U, elle n6g1ige I'exploitation 
 des veines de la Hestre ot de Haine-Saint-Pierre, ce qui nuit k ses intirgts ; 
 de ce qu'elle a perc6 des communications k Taide dcsquellcs les eniix du 
 Redemont s'^coulent dans le territoire de la Hestre etde Hainc-Saint-Pierre ; 
 enfin, de ce qu'elle extrait, par une soule et mdme fosse, le charbon de co 
 territoire et de celui de Riederoont D prend, en consequence, difTeruns 
 chefs de conclusions, «t il demande notammcnt que la soeiete soit con- 
 damnie d, lui pay«r, dans la proportion regime par I'acte du 12 Janvier 1757, 
 le droit d'entre-cen» de tout le charbon qu'elle extraira ailleurs que sur la 
 Hestre et Haine-Saint-Pierre, «* mieux elle n^aine eonaentir qiCil aeeorde 
 A d'authes le droit cPexploiter les veines de charbon de son territoire. 
 
 « ■» » * ft -.i «■ 
 
~ 61 — 
 
 lei'itage eu 
 
 nature des 
 ucubles ? 
 
 fttpict 
 
 ■ant 
 
 tearondeUt, 
 liaine Saint 
 irtetnent de 
 ktehnytener 
 Tont uur les 
 
 ;onduit Ai]^ 
 un fondi de 
 n an, de tra- 
 avoir aban> 
 le qui aurait 
 au profit du 
 it cms pour 
 leur aura k 
 re, franc de 
 is s'obligent 
 
 venues dans 
 I dit), conti- 
 toursuivront 
 1 ouvragc so 
 travoilleront 
 hnrbonnngc, 
 n plus grand 
 , . ; et pour 
 qu'il puisse 
 rie, les chart 
 ir des ouver- 
 8 ouvorturcs 
 iToir detour* 
 
 delet, fils de 
 de ce que la 
 e Redemont, 
 h, I'exploits- 
 'exploitation 
 !es intirSts ; 
 les eniix du 
 saint-Pierre ; 
 inrbon de co 
 ce, difFerens 
 He »oU con- 
 nnvior 1757, 
 rs que sur la 
 niHl aeeorde 
 itoire. 
 
 (Pa||e 806.) '* L« lef ventdse an S, le Sieur Dwcarondelet fkit citer cette Ot 
 
 eompagnie derant le tribunal ciTil da dipartement de Jemmappes, pour la or MnM. 
 flUre condamner an payement des Arr^rages de sa redevanoe. Authoriti«H 
 
 " Lo 15 flor^al, an 6,Jugement de ce tribunal, qui dklare la demande ■**»"'•'»• 
 Koti admUMle, " xTtEimt que le droit d'kmtkb cens r6c]am6 par le deman- 
 deur, ne lui compjtait i autre tltre que celui exprimien Tart ler du chap. 
 180 deb chartes du Hainaut ; qu'ainei, ce droit f tait rf odal, et que, par la 
 tol du 9 bruioaire an 2, l\ est difendu aux jliged, i peine de foriaiture, do 
 connaitre des droits f&odaux." 
 
 (Pag« 808.) '* Lei sieur Deschuytentfr et uo grand nombre de ses cons- 
 orits se poutToieat en oataation. 
 
 " Les questions que Vous pr6sente cetti aSaire (ai^je dit & Psudience de 
 hi section civile, le 10 v^ntAse an 12,) tont aussi importantes qu'^pineuses ; 
 iijii elles ont 4t£ agiticfs dansplusieurs tribunaux qui les ont jugees tantdt 
 dims Un sens, tantOt dons I'Autre. G'est au tribunal supreme qu'il appartient 
 delentr donner une solution qui parson grand ciractdre et par la justesse de 
 ses ffiotife, mettra fin mt contestations qU'elles font nattre joorndlenient, 
 r6|^erd4finitivenientle« intuits majenrsauxquels elles tiennent, et asseoir 
 sor une base intmuabfe Ia fortunirde plusieursmilKers de firniilles. 
 
 " La discus^on qn'ellto exijgirint de nbtr4 pttH, ne serait ni longue, ni 
 difficile, d nous ne d6vions noud Arrfter ixtt niotift du jdgisibcnt Atlaqufi 
 pai'latdemMdeur& 
 
 <f # » # ". # 
 
 (Page 814). ** Enfii*, il faut tonjoun en retenir d eette idee simple et 
 lumineuse : le $&i0^evir haut-juttieier h'£tait pas, avant m concession, 
 PROPBitTAint PONOUR DB LA MiMB ; H v!a done pat pu^ par sa concession, 
 ttantjirer k celui qu'il a^ par ce moyen^ rendu possesseur d'un droit de 
 charbonnage, une propriete foneiire, qu'il n'avait pas lui-m^me. Avant la 
 concession, le Sei^eur haut justicier n'avait sur la mine qu'un droit de 
 fouille et d'eztraetion, \m concession n'a done transiais que oe droit ; le eon- 
 eettivAnaire m'bst donc pas propriitawe fonder. 
 
 ♦ » » * 4» * 
 
 (Page 815). " Qu'kntend-on par droits teigneuriaux, et jwh sont les 
 droits qui, sous cette d£nomination, ont 6ti abolit par nos assemblies 
 nationales ^ Cene lont pae seulement les droits qui derivent on bail Ajiefet 
 ntr BAn A ems ; ce tonl encore torn eeux qui ont leur source, son dans la 
 puissance fiodale propement dite, soir dans la justice seigneuriale qui 
 n'4tait qu'une Sanation de cette puissilnce. 
 
 " Les droits qui derivent du bail i>flef etdu bait icens, ont sansdoute 
 iik abolis par nos assenibUcs nationales, comiue les autres droits seigneu- 
 riaux ; mais ils I'ont 6ii beaucoup plus tard. L'asseroblie consituahte les 
 ajait conserves, parce qu'ils itaient le prix des fends conc6d6s par les 
 ci-d^vAnt seigneurs k leUrs vassaux on censitaires ; elle s'^tait born^e, en 
 abotistant le rigime fi§odal, k les convertir en droits puremont fonciers, a 
 les assipiiter en tout point aux redevances purement fonci^res ; et ils n'ont 
 M sUpprim4s que par la loi du 17 Juillet 1798. — Mais les autres droits sei- 
 
 rieuriaux, les droits qui ne doivent leur origine qu'& la puissance f&odale ou 
 te Justice Seigneuriale, ont M abolis dis le 4 AoAt 1789 ; c'est k cette 
 grande £poque que les lois des 16 Mars I79p et )8 Avril 1791 en font 
 
62 — 
 
 OWHIUHIP 
 
 or HiNia. 
 
 Aathorities. 
 
 Mirlin. 
 
 " C'est done bien roal raisonnor que de dire : Tel droit exerc6 ou poi- 
 s6d6 par un Seigneur avant le 4 Aoiit 1789, ne derive ni d'un bail K fief ni 
 d'un bail a cens ; done il n'est pas supprinie. Non, il u'est pas 8uppriis6 
 par la !oi du 17 Juillet 1798 ; mait sHl iii-rive ou de la pu%s$ance/eodale 
 ou de la justice Seigrmiriale, il est &vPFHmi par les hit du 4 a(/«t 1789 ; et 
 sa suppression, dans cette hypothdse, n'est pas seulement plus ancienne, elle 
 est encore plus favorable, parce qu'elle porte un oaractdre Eminent de 
 justice et de raison, auquel il est impossible h tout bon esprit le r<Jsister ni 
 dc se m^prendre. 
 
 " Or, cst-ce de la puissant d fSodale, est-ce de la justice Soigneuriale, 
 que d6rive le droit dont il est ici question ? Incontestablement c'est de I'une 
 ou de I'autrc qu'il derive si on ne peut lui indiquer une autre source. 
 
 " Mais cette autre source, quelle serait-elle ? Dedeux choses I'une : ou 
 les seigneurs du Hainaut tenaient < j droii de leur puissance fSodale, de leur 
 haute justice, ou ce droit 6tait pour tux une dfirivation de la propri6t6 fon- 
 cidre. II n'y a point de miiiv,a entre ces deux propositions alternatives. 
 
 " Or, nous I'avons d6jlk dit, il est prouv£ par Tart. 18 du chap, 1^2 des 
 chartes g^nirales, quo les seigneurs du Hainaut n'itaient point proprietairea 
 fonciers des mines de charbon de terre. Oe n'est done pas do la propri6t6 
 foncidre de ces mines, que d4coulait pour eux le droit exclusif qu'ils avaient 
 d'en permettre I'exploitation ; ce droit exclusif ne pouyait done d6couler 
 pour eux que de la puissance fi6odale, que de la haute-justice, c'est done 
 aussi de la haute justice, que d6coulait pour eux la redevance qui leur 6tait 
 pay^c pour prix de I'exercice qu'ils faisaient en faveur de tels ou tels, de ce 
 droit exclusif; cette redevance a done 6t6 supprim6e en m6me temps que le 
 droit exclusif dont elle d6rivait en mdme temps que la puissance f4odale et 
 la haute justice desquelles derivait ce droit exclusif. 
 
 " Oes consequences, d6ji si ^videntes par elles-m6mes, acquerront un 
 nouteau degre de lumiire, par le rapprochement des dispositions des chavtes 
 g'nerales du Hainaut sur les mines, atee lea prineipea du droit naturel et 
 commun »ur lamime matii7'e. 
 
 " Par le droit naturel, les Mines qui existent dans un terrain, font 
 partie du terrain mSme ; at il est libre au propriitaire du fonds d'en 
 extraire les substances minSrales, comub il lui est libre d^en eouper Pherle, 
 coMMB il lui est libre de le cuUiver, comhb il lui est libre Wen recueillir les 
 fruits. 
 
 " Cette maxime do droit naturel a 6t6 de tocs temps reconnue par le 
 droit commun positif. 
 
 Sous la RfipuBLiquB bomaine et du temps des premiers empereurs, LES 
 MINES ETAIENT Fx-ITlilREMENT DE DROIT PRIVE ; le proprietaire 
 foncier en amit le domaine libre, iNofiPENDANT, absolu : en un mot, il les 
 possedait optimo jure, eomme le fonds qui les rScSlatt dans son sein. La loi 
 
 7, §. 17, D. SOLUTO MATBIMONIO, IcS lOIS 8 et 6 D, DE ACQUIRENDO BERUM 
 
 DOMiNif), et le §. 19, aux Institutes, db rerum divisione, sont Id-dessvs tres- 
 formels. 
 
 " Dans la suftb les Mines furent considerees comme des objets de droit 
 
 public ; NON que ces EMPEREnRS s'eN SOIENT jamais ATTBIBUfi la PBOPBlfiTfi : 
 
 aueun texte du Code Theodosien ni du Code Justinien qui ont des titres 
 entiers sur cette matidre, ne le pron&iice ; Tons, au contraire, y r£pi;gnent. 
 Mais cette partie de la richesse do I'Etat parut assez interessanto, pour quo 
 VUtat lui-m€me e'en resertdt la police, et assez fructueuse pour qu'il en 
 pm'tagedtle profit x\%c \,fi» ¥A.Kncvu^^Ri. 
 
 ^' Ccat de ce double point de vue que sont parties toutes lea lots des 
 
xerci ou pos- 
 bail k flef ni 
 )as supprim^ 
 iianee/eodale 
 wut 1789 ; et 
 ancienne, elle 
 ! Eminent do 
 '1e rosiiiter ni 
 
 Scignouriale, 
 c'est de Tune 
 tourco. 
 
 seH I'une : ou 
 0(1 tlo, de leur 
 propri6t6 fon* 
 srnatives. 
 chap, l'ii2 des 
 t proprietairea 
 ) la propri6t6 
 quMls avaiont 
 done d6couler 
 !e, c'est done 
 qui leur 6tait 
 ou tels, de ce 
 I temps que le 
 nee flodale et 
 
 lequerront un 
 >ns des chartes 
 •oit naturel et 
 
 I terrain, /t>n« 
 lu fondsdW 
 miper Vherhe, 
 , recueillir les 
 
 iconnue par le 
 
 npereurs, LES 
 le proprietaire 
 un mot, il les 
 1 tein. La loi 
 
 riRBNDO BERUM 
 
 Id-dessya tres- 
 oijeta de droit 
 
 LA PROPKl£Tfi : 
 
 ont des titres 
 , y r£pugnent. 
 into, pour quo 
 pour qu'il en 
 
 tes les lots dta 
 
 — G3 — 
 
 emjweurt. Les uncs, toUes quo los 1, 3, 8, 13 et U, C. Tnton., et les 1, 8, Owimratp 
 et fl, C. DB Mktallariis, concernent le regime dos mines ; ellea donncnt, or Mimi, 
 refusent, modifiont le pouvoir do les exploiter. Les autres, tel'es que los lois AnthoritiM. 
 8, 4, 10 et 11, 0. ThIod,, etles lois 1, 2, 8, 0. du mfime titre, dfiterminent i/«r/m. 
 le droit dA au flsc sur les produits deR Mines, et en rdglent la perception. 
 
 " Ci DROIT itait le dixiIme. Une administration, sous le nom des 
 PROCURATOREs METALLOBCM, OU intendftuts dcs Mines, itait chargfie do io 
 recuoilUr dans les provinces, et de le verser dans la caisse d'un magistrat 
 sup6rieur, appel6 Comes Metallorum, surintendnnt dcs Mines. Le prince 
 ne se rfiservoit, au-doli do cette prestation que le droit d'obligcr Texploitant 
 qui vcndait les produits de ses Mines, k les vendre de pr6fSrcnce ou gouver- 
 nement QUIDQUID AMPLIUS COLLIGERE POTUKRINT, PISCO 
 POTISSIMUM DISTRAHANT, A QUO COMPETENTIA EX LARGI- 
 TIONIBUS N03TRIS PRBTIA SUSCIPIANT. Co sont les termes de la 
 loi, 1, 0. titre d6]k cit6. 
 
 " Aumne de ces lois, au surplus, nb contrarie le droit du proprietaire, 
 au point de donnbr a UN <Ti'.ANOBR la foculti devenir nia,]gr6 lm,fouiller 
 let minea qni existent dam »onfond». 
 
 " J w verlte on trouve d&ns le Oodb Th^odosien, toujours sous le titro 
 DB mbtallariis, quatre !<>is qui permettent k tout lo monde indistinctement 
 defouiller lea Mines de marore, mdmo dons les terrains des particulierK, et 
 n'assujettissent I'extracteur envers ceux-ci qu'au payement d'un dixid'me 
 pareil 4 celui qu'il devait payer au fisc. 
 
 " Mais cbtte disposition, par eela seul qu'elle itait partictjli*re aux 
 Mines de marbre, formait evidemment unb exception d la rigle generale, et 
 elle prouve par consequent que la regie g6n6rale itait difiKrente pour lor 
 autres mines. 
 
 " Aussi remarquons-nouj qu'elle ne flit, relativement aux mines de 
 marbre elles-mdmes, que le fruit de circonstances et de besoins momentanis 
 et qu'elle fut ou rivoquie ou remise en vigueur, suivant que ces circonstan- 
 ces ou ces besoins cessaient ou renaissaient 
 
 " Oonstantin et Th^odose, auteurs des lois, 1, 10 et 11 du titre cit6 y 
 consignfirent cette disposition, pour porvonir avec d'autant plus de facilite k 
 rembellissement de Constantinople, dorenue la capitale de I'empire d'Orient. 
 JcLiEN la renouTola par la loi 2 du mime .titre pour embellir Antioche, dont 
 il voulait, disait-il, faire unc ville de marbre. Et le mime TnfioDosE qui, 
 par les lois 10 et 11, avaitpermis indiiinitivement d tova lea particuliera, la 
 fouilledea Makbres, leur retira eette permission par la loi 18. 
 
 " 11 fanLtd!ailleura6bseTier qtie leaqtuitre Uia Aaai\\s'&^i^ ne disent 
 point que la propriiti des Mines Xde marbre) riside dans la main des empe- 
 rours ; qu'il en risulte seulement qu'aux empereurs appartient le droit d'en 
 diriger I'exploitation pour le plus grand avantage de I'itat, qu'ellea ne 
 depouillentmeme paate proprietaire du droit d^ exploiter lea minea cachies 
 dans son propre fonds ; qu^en accordant a tout le monde, le droit de lea 
 fouiller partout, elles conservent, k plus forte raison, au proprietaire, le 
 droit DB fouiller lea aiennea chez lui ; et que >;0:i3fiQUEMMEi<fT ellea supposent 
 queeevK sera qU'a son repus, qu'un Stranger po^irr a s^ en empartr en Vin- 
 demnimnt. 
 
 "■ AiNsi, dam le dernier Stat des lois romaines, la propri^t^ des parti- 
 culiera SUB LES Mines ETAIT CONSTANTE; ie droit domanial o'w 
 Dixiftire sur leurs produits le droit de police sur leur exploitation, tellbs 
 SONT LES SEULBS RESTRICTIONS que eette proprietiait essuyeea de la 
 part det en^>ereura ; et il &ut convenir que rien n'itait plus propre il conci- 
 
♦{4 — 
 
 OwmmMir 
 or Unu. 
 
 Ant> >riti«f. 
 Jlwtm, 
 
 
 
 KM ir 
 
 llerl1ntAr«tdugouTemoraent,qui TOul«it que les llinw n« demeunwent 
 i>M InutllcB, *Tor I'intirdt de Ut propriit* priv4e, qui TouUlt que chkoun 
 p&Uiror de m ohos., tout le profit dont elle etait susceptible. 
 
 " Lt$ mojMimejiB lks plus RWOLfo d« notre hUtdin nout ojfrent u$ 
 mImm pwsoiPM eonttamtrunt tuinU far le fftrnvtmemtnt franfaU. 0^4 
 nous »TonB tu que, «">« Daoobbrt I, VEtat retirait duMttw une ritribu- 
 turn qui 6t*it qualifiie de ciws, quolqu'alors on ne commt encore ni fief, ni 
 seigneurie, ni justice seigneurlale, et c'eHt •Murfiment «m ^renve bird 
 clTiki qu« laroinU lapremiire race, on adoptant sur cet objet toutes lea 
 dispositions du droit remain qu'Us ayaient trouvies en pleine vigueur dans 
 lea Qaules, amient maintehu In proprUtaira fonei&n uam le droit drex' 
 plotter librement ka Mikes eaeMei dant Uurt Urrtt. 
 
 " Cependanton wnt, par u'owhhwasob tit OHARLM VI, de l^l^i If 
 plus ancienne de toutes celles que nous avons sur cette matidre, qve U$ Set' 
 Onrnn eherehaieRt dis lors d ifopproprier le droit exeh .ij de tmuUr ou 
 permettre de JbuiUer leeMinet emstantes dans lea foods de leurs vassauz ou 
 censitaires t mais on y voit en mSine t«mp» que, dia-lors, lb ooovbrmbubiit 
 S'BFFORQAIT ie riprimer leure entrepritee et de PiMyrioBK etmtre eux lis 
 
 PROPRliTAIRin rOKCUCBS. *• 
 
 " Cetteordonaneeart)Oi<ioijtte: lb pmjubb, <m ffarawwr dbs vexations 
 DBS SBxaNBUBS, Us morehondi et numm db TEES-FONDS dee Mines, 
 c'bst-a-dibb, lee proprUtaires gut expioUent par em-mSmee lbs Mines de 
 leure terrtdne, "pour ce afln qae dorteavaajb ils puissent ouvrer continuelle- 
 " ment sams en fee empiohW ou troubles en leurs ouvrages, et ouvrer 
 •' fi«ncbement et siirement, tant oomme ils voudront ouvrw icdles Mines ; " 
 le second, der68erverau gouvemement la dixidme partie purifiie de tous 
 mitauz, le troisidme, " d'assurer k tous mineurs la &oult6 de quirir, ouvrer 
 " et chercher Mines par tous les lieux o4 ils penaeront en trouver, et icelles 
 " tnure et fiii»* ouvrer, et vendre i ceux qui les feront ouvrer et fondro, en 
 " payant 4 nous notre dixidme fhtnehement, et en fiusan^ oevtiflcation, ou 
 " coQtenter k celui ou & ceux i qui les dit«8 ehoses setont ou appartiendront 
 " an dit de doux prud'hommea." , , , , ^ , 
 
 " ffette derntire di^toeiiion, absolumbnt oai.«dSb »ur leeloitdu Code 
 que nous examinions il n'y a qu'un momrait, ^ieent^ abeolvmeni le mime 
 rieuUat. Si eUe ionne a toot lk mondb indlstincteoaent letiroit de^ouiller 
 lea Minee d'autrui, d plut forte raieon ooKriBStB-T-BLLB a« pn^metaire fon- 
 cierfo droit de JouiUer lbs siBiiHEgj ee vieet mime qt^au proprietaire 
 foneier qob pbdt s'appuqdbb la elauee qui ^ermet de vendre le$ Minee k 
 ceux qui les fcront ouvrw, o'eat-i-dire, aux Min^urs, marchands ou maltrea 
 de Mines, que rordonnwice distingue des naatlres de tria-fonds ; ee eont 
 CBUXHs quttendent lea Minea, et lee premiere qui lee font <fumret/ondre. 
 
 " A eette ordoimMiee «» S09c»pB dtw Tordre chnuiologique, vn. autre 
 BBAucoup PLusctLtaBB: c'mt cbw-b quB LOUIS XI dopnara 1471 A 
 MoaaU-lie-Toure, et qoole Parlement de Pans enrenqti*, le 14 auHlet 1476. 
 
 " Par eette loi, LOUIS XI, ctte en titre d^oWoe un grand-maitre des 
 Mines, k qui il attribue, entre autre profits celui de chercher, par lui-in£me«t 
 par see Gominis, toutes lea Mines qui existent en France, et de les fcire 
 ouTtir, non-Muleraent dans les terres du doQWJne, pais ^coro dans oelles 
 des paitioulims et das sogneurB, en payant I'indeinwt* tUx ti<efonci«r8.«-^ 
 itnefautpae^aimre fue,par Id, tn pjopFisiiiAimBs, leveta dipoiitlUt dee 
 JTtiMS renfemiw dans leura fopde^ainsi que du droit de Jes exploiter et 
 au'iu n'aieni a rMlajner contre Ic» euuccssionnnaitss y" "fte- Srfnph tndvtn- 
 
emeunuwent 
 que chaoun 
 
 « oJjnre»t lit 
 nfait. DAJ4 
 uneritrwii- 
 )re ni fief, ni 
 prtute Bim 
 jet toutes lea 
 rigueur dana 
 ^ droit <r«(B' 
 
 [, de 1418, U 
 , que U$ Sei- 
 I fouilUr ou 
 B TkBsaux ou 
 
 mtre mu lbs 
 
 IS VEXATIONS 
 
 de$ Mines, 
 LX8 M isss de 
 r coniinuelle* 
 a, et ouvrer 
 lies Mines ; " 
 i84e de tous 
 [Uirir, ourrer 
 ror, et ioelles 
 et fondro, en 
 itificatioD) ou 
 >partieDdront 
 
 hiidvk Code 
 lunt lemime 
 it de/ouUler 
 yriitaira fon- 
 prOfHitavre 
 e Ut Minea it 
 Is ou DOftitrea 
 ads ; M mmt 
 ret/ondr*. 
 
 ue, un. autre 
 % m 1471 i 
 
 JuiUet 1476. 
 n4-nuiitre dea 
 jlui-mdtne«t 
 t de les fiure 
 « d«B8 <mU«9 
 fonciers.-^^ 
 '.^oitilUt det 
 
 eiiploiter, et 
 
 i*aM«k7.« San Mj^^** 
 
 — 65 — 
 
 PUIETE .T LKIIR DROIT D-RXPLOITATION : ell/porte gue, lorHqu'le?, M,"" 
 Mine aura oto .16couvorto par les agons du grand maltre, il lera, k compter Authoritiei. 
 flu jour de la xitjniJler/Uoniim en sora faito au projmitaire du fonds, aetorde Merlin. 
 A celui-ci un deUn de i;/ moit pour sr mettre kn Itat de i/expu.itbr 
 
 LUI-MEMK. ^ /ton. <i4/awi?, LE DROIT d' EXPLOITATION Olt domi d gW SlWNBUK 
 
 immIdiat; aw defant de ee dm-nUr, au Skionbur Suzerain, enfin, au difant 
 de tout, AU orand-maitre. • * » v > / 
 
 ,.v,l^nJ"^ DE HENRI IV, du mois deJuln im, dicide igalanent m 
 
 FAVEUR DE8 PR0PRI«TAIRES PONCIERS Ui que^im de la VHOVWi^t ntS MiNES. 
 
 Ilannonee dans son preambulo, que le* u„ -^.nec* nvUrieuree, la creation 
 d un surintendant on Krand-maltre, lo .f;lomc' t 'e ses fonctlons .lo scs pri- 
 vilegeHetde sea droits, nV«« en pov, hit quo ■ ^veiller Tmitoka dee pro- 
 pnetatree etde leeexeiter A exploit h . niKS mi., s. Enmite par Vart.ler 
 
 ?hZw/ •"'->""** ^ ''"'J™''^' '' '^">«'^ ' > dWdme m.r les Mines,' 
 abftn<lonn6 Jusqu'alors aux Burintendv , Pa- ^art. 2, pnrticuiier aui 
 mines de fer, decharbon ctdequolques n oc' vuibstances t^ri-cstres, le Rov 
 yar am>ur Y^xxr ses bona sujets PROPRitrAiREs des liecx, he exMe du 
 dix^dme. Par Vart. 8, commun a toutes les mines en gIcn^ral, iL pro- 
 
 d™Tl"/t;f r"*/'';"^''*'*^''' «°"t«««>«" dprmdre la permifsion 
 au grand-maStre. Tout eela proum encore bien clairement que Za pROPKifiii 
 roNciiRB DBS Mines Ti'ayawaM iti sSparSe de la PROPRiiTi des surfaces- 
 etquelesprofrrietairee de cellee-ld n'ont hbsoin que de la permission da 
 gouvernement, permission dont la neeesiiti tient d la rouclet mUlement 
 a la propribtb. 
 
 1 r.fto"n?l?!!'' contient 8ur les Mines de fer I'Ordonnance du mois de Mai 
 1080, n est pns moms d6cis.f. Cetto loi a su rfiunir le double avantairo 
 dWerlapropn6tedes Mines de fer aux maitres du sol, ot d'empffi 
 que Ied6faut d'usage do cette propri6t6ne toumAt au prejudice de I'Etat k 
 qui II importo quo ces Mines soient exploit6es. Le moyen qu'elle a adopt6 
 est simple. Le propr.6tano a la pr/ftrence pour I'exploitation : ce n'est 
 que sur son rcfus jundiquement constat^, que fe droit d'exploiter est donn6 
 «iun autre; et celui-ci est tenu de I'indemniser, en lui payant un sou par 
 chaque tonneau do minfirai decinq cents livres pesant Du reste. cette loi 
 ne djroge pas, mfime pour le propri6taire qui veut exploiter personnollemcnt 
 
 r^SfVf'^^'^P'"-"^^?"""^"* ^**^"« P«"f ''^ necessity del'obtention 
 pr6alable de la permission du gouvernement 
 
 rh.rhnn 1^/^^'^ ^"*' ^""1 "?.*5"?.''' ''^"'^^^ relativemeut aux Mines do 
 charbon de terre, par un Arrdt du Conseil du 18 Mai 1698, qui permit aux 
 
 vaient dans lours terrains. ^ 
 
 " Mais par un autre Arr4t du Conseil, du 14 Janvier 1744. renouveW 
 
 Z^Z^^'^'^r^'' ^^'^^ ll'^' '" gouvernement annonca qu'H TtSt 
 inform6 que les dispositions de I'Edit de 1601 et de I'AnAt de lf,U8 .6taient 
 presque demeur6es sans offet, soit par la n6gUgencodes propri6taires i faire 
 la recherche et I'exploitation des dites Mines, ^it par le Jeu de facult6 et de 
 connaissances de la part de ceux qui avaient tent6de falre sur cek quelque 
 entrepnse; que d'aiUleurs la liberty ind6finie laiss^e aux propri6taS?.w 
 lW6t de 1698 avait fait naltre, en plusieurs occasions, Sr?oncumico 
 
 m.S;?.«'1f;'^^."l'™'°*.?"? ''^'^> ''"™ entreprises respe^tives. En cTs^! 
 quence, 1 faut dire qu'4 I'aven ir, personne ne pourrait ouvrir et mettre Vn 
 exploitation des Mines dehouille ou charbon de terre, sans avoir prlalable- 
 Tn„.,?oi>.en«uneHe:-::iissionau controieur g6u6ral des finances," soit que 
 

 It I: 
 
 Oi 
 
 K> I 
 
 hll :!ill 
 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 ll 
 
 
 
 
 — 60 — 
 
 OwKiBsntp ccux qui voudraicnt faire ouvrir et exploiter les ditcs Minos, fussont soi' 
 or MiNBS. gneurs hauta-justiciers, ou qu'ils eussent la propriote des terrains oil elks so 
 Authorities, trouveraient. ^ , . . ^ 
 
 MerUn. " Tel fixAir, par raf port aux Mines de charlon, Vetat de la legislation 
 
 franfaise, lorsque I'Assemilee constituantes'oceupa de l' abolition des dkoits 
 SEiQNEOBiAnx. Alors, comme vous le yoyez, les droits despropri&iaires 
 fonciers sur les Mines etaient reconnus, etaient intacts, etaient consa- 
 cu(!s par des lois expresses. Seulement Vexerciee en etait suhord&nni A une 
 precaution de pure voucE, qui ne tendait qu'd rendre leur propnete plus 
 utiU d eux-memts etd VEtat. Seulement aussi, dans un tr^s petit nombro 
 de coutumes, notamment dans cello du Hainaut, dont une partie etait doji 
 reunie i. la France depuis plus d'un si^cle, et dans laquello existaient des 
 Mines de charbon de terro aussi riches quo nombreuses, la permission du 
 gouverneinent ne sufiSsait pas, soit k un propridtaire, soit k un concession- 
 nairo du gouvornement qui avait trait6 aveo un propriStairc, pour exploiter 
 les Mines existantcs dans lo terrain de celui-ci ; il fallait de plus lo conseute- 
 mont du Seigneur ; et ce consentement, lo seigneur pouvait lo refuser, en 
 ouvrant et exploitant lui-m6me les Mines dontle gouvernement avait auto- 
 rls6 I'ouverture et I'exploitation. 
 
 " C'est ainsi que I'usage et la jurisprudence avaient accordo et concili6 
 les dispositions des coAtumos qui donnaient aux Seigneurs lo droit exclusif 
 d'ouvrir et d'exploiter les Mines aVfec les rSglcments goneraux qui avaient 
 interdit toute ouverture et exploitation des Mines sans permission prealable 
 du gouvernement; et nous enitrouvons la preuve dans quatre Arrets du 
 Conseil, des 14 Ootobre 1749, 3 Dficembre 1754, 18 Mars 1755 et 20 Janvier 
 1750, qui ont autorise lo prince de Croy, le marquis do Cernay et le chapitro 
 do Saint-Qery de Valenciennes, k exploiter les veincs de charbon existantcs 
 dans lours Seigneuries respectives du Vieux-Cond6, de Raismes et de Saint- 
 Waast, nonobstant la concession que le gouvernement en avait precedem- 
 ment fiiite au Vicomte Desandroin, en vertu du rdglement de 1744. 
 
 " C'est ce que prouve 6ga1ementun Arr^t du Conseil, du 12 Mai 1771, 
 qui, malgr6 une concession faite par le gouvernement k la Compagnie 
 David, d'aprds le mfime r^glement, a permis au conseiller d'etat, Fonlon, 
 d'exploiter indistinctement toutes les Mines de cbarbon qui se trouveraient 
 dans sa seigneurie do Douay, r6gie par la coutume d'Anjou, dont I'art. 6, 
 renferme implicitement, pour les Mines, autres que celles d'or, une disposi - 
 tion semblablo k colle des Art 1 et 2 du ch. 130 des chartes generates du 
 
 Hainaut. 
 
 ************ 
 
 Page 802. " Un nOuveau trait de lumidre viont encore se joindre k 
 cette demonstration, par la lecture de la loi du 12 Juillet 17.91, concernant 
 les Mines. 
 
 " Par cetto loi, I'assemblde constituante a renouvelfi la plupart des dis- 
 positions des anciens regit: jents sur cetto matidre iraportarttc. Elle a d6clar6, 
 non pas comme le disent les demandeurs, que les Mines appartiennent a la 
 nation, mais qu'elles sont k sa disposition, en ce sens seulement qu'elles ne 
 peuvent 6tre exploitees que de son consentement et sous sa surveillance. 
 Elle a declar6 que les {iroprietaires de la surface auraient toujours la prefe- 
 rence et i.. iiberte d'exploiter les Mines qui pourraicnt se trouver dans leurs 
 fonds, et quo la permission ne pourrait leur en 6tre refusee lorsqu'ils la 
 demanderaient Elle a d^clar^ enfln que les anciens concessionnaires seraient 
 niainten . ^ pendant cinquante ans, dans leurs exploitations. 
 
 " Mais qn'a-t-elle fait en favour des ci-devant Seigneurs qui, dans le 
 
I, fussont soi' 
 ns oCi elles so 
 
 la legislation 
 
 ON DES BKOITS 
 
 proprieiaires 
 •aieiit coNSA- 
 rd&nnS dune 
 rropriete plu» 
 petit nombro 
 ■tie etuit d6j4 
 jxistaient des 
 •ennission du 
 n concession- 
 lour exploiter 
 s le consente- 
 lo refuser, en 
 nt avait auto- 
 
 io ct concili6 
 droit exclusif 
 X qui avaient 
 lion prealable 
 bre Arrets du 
 et 20 Janvier 
 ot lo chapitre 
 )on existantcs 
 s et de Saint- 
 iit precedem- 
 744. 
 
 12 Mai 1771, 
 
 a Compagnie 
 
 '6tat, Fonlon, 
 
 trouveraient 
 
 dont I'art. 6, 
 
 ', une disposi - 
 
 gen6rales du 
 
 e se joindre k 
 )1, concernant 
 
 upart des dis- 
 Ellc a d6c1ar6, 
 rtiennent a la 
 snt qu'elles ne 
 I surveillance, 
 lours la prifo- 
 ver dans leiirs 
 3 lorsqu'ils la 
 naires seraient 
 
 I qui, dans le 
 
 — 67 — 
 
 Hainaut francais et dans TAnjou, avaient traiti avec les anciens concession- Owkkbship 
 raires, et avaient moyennant une redevance quelconque, consenti i ce qu'ils of Mines. 
 iouissent de I'effet de leurs concessions? Rien; elle n'en a rafime point Authorities, 
 parle. Et pourquoi n'en a-t-elle point parl6 ? Est-ce par oubli ? Mais il y Merlin. 
 avait dans son sein des membres trds-int6res86s k I'en faire souvenir. On y 
 comptait notammentle due de Croy et le comte d'Aumberg de Lamarck, tons 
 deux deputSs du Hainaut fran^ais, tous deux ci-devant Seigneurs de terres 
 considerables, dans I'etendue desquelles s'exploitaient des Mines e^ldbres 
 encoro aigourd'hui dans toute la France ; et il est bien notoire que I'un 
 d'eux, le comte D'Aumberg de Lamarck, avait, avec Mirabeau, qui a paru 
 avec tant d'eclat dans la discussion de cette loi, des liaisons extrer. ment 
 intimes. On ne peut done pas supposer que le silence de Tassembitje con- 
 stituante sur lespr^tendus droits des ex-seigneurs du Hainaut sur les Mines, 
 soit I'effet d'un oubli. Ce silence ne peut avoir eu et n'a eu r^ellement 
 qu'une seule cause, c'est qu'ulors il n'existait plus en Hainaut, ni seigneurs, 
 ni seigneunes, ni justices seigneuriales, ni droits seigneuriaux ou justiciers. 
 •' Le proems, termini par cette loi, 6tait tout entier entre I'Etat et les 
 propri^taires des fonds oii il ee trouvait des Mines. Ce n'est < 'entre ces 
 deux parties que I'Assemblfie constituante a prononcfi ; et il est, d'apris cela, 
 bien impossible que I'assemblde constituante, en maintenant, sous certaines 
 reserves, les anciennes concessions dans toute leur ^tendue, ait eu la pens^e 
 de conserver k ceux des ci-devant Seigneurs de qui provenaient quelques- 
 unes de ces concessions, les redevances qu'ils s'^taient retenues, lorsqu'ils 
 l<is avaient accordees. En maintenant ces concessions, l'assembl4e consti- 
 tuante ne s'est occup6e que des conccssionnaires; c'est pour eux seuls 
 qu'clle les a maintenues ; et elle les a maintenues, non pour les assujettir de 
 nouveau k des charges dont elle les avait pr^cedemment affranchis, mais 
 pour les laisser jouir pendant un certain temps, du fruit de leurs depenses et 
 do leurs travaux. 
 
 Page 323. " Ici se presentent des questions absolument particulieres 
 k la cause du cit. Decarondelet, et la premidre consiste k savoir si la tran- 
 saction du. 16 Mars 1776 ne place pas le cit. Decarondelet dans un cas 
 d'exception, par cela seul qu'ellese pr^sente, suivant lui, coipme propri^taire 
 foncier des terrains sous Icsquels existent les Mines dont il s'agit. 
 
 " Cette question est mel6e da droit et de fait 
 
 " Dan8 le droit, la redevance connue dans le ci-devant Hainaut, tvnii le 
 nom d'entreckns, est-tlle comerv&e au profit des ex-seigneurs qui, avant 
 l' ABOLITION DU ufifiiME pfioDAL avuient concede des Mines existantes into- 
 gralemont sous leurs propres fonds? II y a, comme vous le savez, pour 
 rafflrmation un jugement du tribunal de cassation, du 11 nivpse an 8. La 
 soeiete charhonniire de Sars-Lonchamp attaquait un mgement 6i\x iv\h\\m\\ 
 civil du departement de Sambre et Meuso, qui Vavait eondarnne d, continuer 
 nu cit. Blueau, ci-devant Seigneur du lieu, le payement du droit d'entke- 
 CENs qu'il s'etait reserve, en conc6dant k cette compagnie I'exploitation 
 exclusive des veines de charbon qui se trouvaient dans ses propriet^s fon- 
 cieres ; vous avez kejet^ son recours ; et vous en avez motive le rejet sur le 
 prineipe, que la suppression des droits feodaux prononc6e par les lois de la 
 riSpublique, ne peut profitek qu'aux proprietoires de la superficie des terres. 
 
 Page 327. " Disons enfia que ce droit est essentiellement Seigneurial, 
 qiCil est dholi comme tous les droits Seigneuriaux, et qu'il y a nicessit\ 
 indUpensable d'annitiIjBr le ji.i.gemfnt "ui Va maint^nu. 
 
OWHRBBIP. 
 OF HiMS. 
 
 Anthcrities. 
 Merlin. 
 
 Ill 
 
 — 68 — 
 
 " CPeitdquoinouaeoneluons.''* 
 
 " Sub sks conclusions, arret du 16 ventose, an 12, au rapport de M- 
 Ruperoti, qui declare: 
 
 " Vu les art. 1 et 2 du chap. 130 des chartes nouvelles du pays de 
 "Hainaut, I'art. 4 de la loi dull AoAt 1789, I'art. 5docelledu25 Aofit 
 " 1792, I'art 1 de celle dn 17 juillet 1793, et les art. 1, 4 et 5 du tit de celle 
 " du 12 Juillet 1791 snr les Mines et Minidres ; 
 
 " Consid£ramt, en premier lieu, que, suivant les dispositions des chartes 
 " du Hainaut, les Mines ou veines de charbon, sont comprises sous la d6no- 
 " mination g6n6rique d'avoir en terre non extray6 ; 
 
 " Que I'avoir en terre non extray6, consistant dans le droit de fouiller 
 " la Mine et de s'approprier ce qui serait estrait, etait un attrihut de la 
 " haute-justice, un priTiUge ezcluBivement attaeM a la qualite de Seigneur 
 " haut-iusticier ; 
 
 " Que les ci-devant seigneurs du Hainaut qui ne voulaient ou ne {)0U- 
 " vaient exploiter par eux-m£mos les mir e^^ de charbon qui se trouvaient 
 " dans I'^tendue de leur haute-justice, 4taient libres de conc^der 4 qui bon 
 " leur semblaitla faculte de les exploiter, k la charge par les concessionnaires 
 " de leur payer une redevance conventionnellement regime et connue sous la 
 " denomination de droit d^entre-eena ; 
 
 " Que eette redeoanee, dSrivant d'un droit essentiellement dependant de 
 "la haute-justice, n'aeait point pour cause la cqvicessioth primitive d'cn 
 " FONDS, d'une PR0PRifiT£, mais seulement I'exercice simple d'une faculty 
 " attribute k la Scigneurie haute justicidre, comme I'a trds-judicieusoment 
 •' reconnu le tribunal d'appel lui-m6me ; 
 
 " Que du moment que la haute justice a 6te retir6e des mains des 
 " ci-devant seigneurs, leur droit d'avoir en terre non extrayo et celui d'en- 
 " tre-cens qui le repr6sente, ont d6 ndcessairemont cesser ; que les disposi- 
 " tions des lois pr6cit6es sur I'abolition des dioits scigncuriaux sont 
 " positives k cet egard ; 
 
 " Qu'il n'y a pas de parit6 entre le droit d'entro-cens et les terres vaines 
 " et vagues, les biens vacans, qui demeurent irrovocablement acquis aux 
 *' ci-devant seigneurs par I'art. 8 de la loi du 13, 20 Avril 1791 ; qu'en efFet, 
 " il s'agit, dans cet article, d'immeubles, de corps certains dont la consis- 
 " tance, une fois fix6e, ne pent recevoir d'accroissement, et qui ont ptisso en 
 " entier dans le domaine absolu des ci-devant Seigneurs, sans conserver le 
 " moindre rapport avec le titre feudal dont ils precedent ; qu'il n'en est pas 
 " ainsi du droit d'avoir en terre non extraje, en vertu duquel I'exploit uon 
 *' des Mines s'^tendait successivement sur les londs souterrains. aans que la 
 " W DANS AucuN 0A8, rendit le Seigneur proprietaire du fonds productij : 
 " (^eat-d-dire de la mine m£me, que, si un semblable droit etait encore 
 " maintenu aux ci-dovant Seigneurs, il en resulterait que la haute-justice, 
 " aprds avoir (' solennellement an6antie, n'en conserverait pas moins ses 
 " attributs et ses eflFets. 
 
 " Consid6rant, en second lieu, qu'il est Evident que, par les articles 
 " pr4cit6s de la loi de 1791, sur les MJnes et mini^res, portnnt que Ics con- 
 " cessions actuellement existantes subsisteront dans toute lour 6tenduo, lo 
 " 16gislateur n'a pas entendu parler de I'^tcndue des dispositioiis des 
 " contrats de concessions, mais uniquement do I'etcnduo supcrficiulle des 
 " terrains ; que d'ailleurs cette loi no peut Stre censee avoir conscrv6 aux 
 " ci-devant Seigneurs des droits de hauto justice qui avaient 6t6 doji 
 " formollemcnt abolis ; 
 
 " Consid^rant, en troisiSme lieu, que, si d'apres la transaction du 21 
 
pport de M. 
 
 du pays de 
 du25 Aoiit 
 1 tit de celle 
 
 3 des cbartes 
 lous la d6no- 
 
 '.t de fouiller 
 itribut de la 
 i de Seigneur 
 
 t ou ne pou- 
 ie trouvaient 
 ler ^ qui bon 
 sessionnaires 
 mnue sous la 
 
 Idpendant de 
 imitive d'cn 
 I'une faculty 
 dicieusement 
 
 3 mains dcs 
 it celui d'en- 
 e les disposi- 
 urlaux sont 
 
 terres vaincs 
 ; acquis aux 
 ; qu'en effet, 
 it la consis- 
 ont passo en 
 conserver lo 
 n'cn est pas 
 'exploit lion 
 , sans ', 16 la 
 's productif : 
 otait encore 
 laute-jiisticc, 
 IS moins scs 
 
 .r les articles 
 que Ics con- 
 r 6tenduo, le 
 ositions des 
 ;rficiolle des 
 onscrv6 aux 
 at 6t6 dcjii 
 
 iction du 21 
 
 — 69 — 
 
 IIH^v-*""® V^"^', "°® P"^*** ^^ '* redevance, convenue par cet acte est OwummiTip 
 «• '^P""?"J"^tement accordee, en con86quence des abandons faits par les of Muraa. 
 ^^ cit. et dame Uecarondelet, il n'en reste pas moins vrai que, mal a propos, Anthorities. 
 ^^ les jus;es d appel ont confirm6 la totality du droit stipule par cette trapsac- Merlin. 
 ^^ tion puiMue les Decarondelet y ayant express6ment r6serv6non seule- 
 
 ment lettet de la concessiou primitive de 1757, mais encore le droit 
 ^^ dentrecens, lecas 6ch6ant, k raison du onzidme dernier comme par lo 
 
 passe, dans le terram dit abonnement ; U en r^sulte qu'une partie de ce 
 
 droit a constamment une origino f^odale ; 
 
 ♦4 '!*^ j^'l^^'^ ^"®' P", <^**® transaction, les Decarondilet percevaient 
 ^^ quitte de frais la quantity de charbon convenue, on ne saurait y apercevoir 
 
 _ „.„.>, ^^ . »i..uuuoii uu regime leooai, qu'il ait df* d6rog6 aux 
 
 ^^ transactions, a foussement applique les lois sur la force et les eflfets de 
 ^ cette sorte de transaction ; qu'en eflfet, les lois qui ont aboli g6n6rale- 
 ^^ menttous les droits fSodaux, toutes les redevances et prestations seigneu- 
 ^^ riales, ont en m«me tempa et v6ritablement an6anti toutes les transactions 
 qui auraient pu 6tre passSes sur la quotitfi, le mode et l'6tendue de la 
 perception pour lavenir de ces droits, de ces redevances, par la raison que 
 ^^ la chose mSme sur laqueUe est intervenue une transaction, ayant lt6 
 .. °ui "!, ° *°^ sa substance et dans toutes ses consequences, il est impos- 
 sible de concevoir que cette transaction puisse continuer de subsister ; 
 ^^ tonsid6rant enfin que, quand on admettrait, dans toute sa latitude, le 
 ^^ pnncipe que la suppression des droits feodaux ne doit profiter qu'aux 
 „ ?'"°?"!^";^A^f '» superficie, il n'en r6sulterait pas quo le jugement, dont 
 11 sagit, dflt 6tre conflrme, attendu qu'il conserve aux cit. et dame 
 ^^ Uecarondelet la totality du droit d'entre-cens par eux r6clam6, alors m6me 
 qu Us avouent qu lis ne sont proprietaires que d'une partie du terrain de 
 la Hame-Saint-Pierre ; 
 
 •< 1 " -P^ l^r '^^^ *' *^** ?"* ^ >S'«« '^2 Bmxellea, en maintenant ainsi 
 ^^ les cit et dame Decarondelet dans la totality du droit d'entre-cens, stipul6 
 
 par lecontratde concession du 12 Janvier 1759 et la transaction du 21 
 <« "7<>"^?/787, ontawU Us his nouvelles sur I'abolition du regime f6odal 
 
 et les Mines et miftieres, et faussement appliqui les lois sur la force et les 
 
 ettets des transactions sur proems ; 
 
 " P^R CES MOTIFS , CASSE et annclle le jugement du tribunal 
 
 a appel de Bruxelles, du 12 messidor, an 9 ... " 
 
 A »!' ^' yi't' /l''"^ '® Repertoire do Jurisprudence, au mot entre-cens. un 
 Arret semblable du 23 vendemiaire, an 18. 
 
 Tliat atithority from Merun, liaped as it is upon n. 
 decision of the highest judicial tribunal of France, esfallishea 
 concimively 
 
 1^. ThatbyKoman Law, under the IlejMiblic, Minks 
 were the exclusive and itntminmeUed property of the. moiier of 
 the soil. i t J I / 
 
 2 « . That, in modifying tho Law of Mining, the EoirAN 
 
u 
 
 OwNiaiBip 
 or Minis. 
 Authoritiea. 
 Merlin. 
 
 — 70 . 
 
 Empeeobb never laid claim to the ownership of the Mines, bnt 
 constantly recognized the owner of the soil as being also the 
 owner of the Mine, and legislated on that subject with the 
 single view to prevent mineral wealth from lying profitless in 
 the bowels of the earth ; that the right of the /Sovereign over 
 Mines consisted in a mbee bight of Police or sv^eroision. 
 
 3 ® . That the Fbench Kmas, in adopting the Eoman 
 Law, whicMhey found in active operation in Gaul, mo/^e^ec? 
 their Ordinances on Minina closely upan, the Laws of the 
 Soma/n Empire, and likewise recognized the owner of the soil 
 as heing the owneb of the Mine, merely claiming a right of 
 Police or supervision over the Mine. 
 
 4 ® . That under the Roman Law, and under the French 
 Law, NO distinction whatever exists bekoeen Mines of the 
 precious metals and Minos of the baser tnetals. 
 
 6 ® . That the abolition of the Feudal Tenure, in France, 
 INVOLVED, in the particular case submitted to the Cour de 
 Cassation, the extinction of all claim, by the Seignioes, as 
 representing the state, to the Mines on pbivate lands. 
 
 It will be shewn hereafter that onr Seigniorial Tenure 
 Act has done no more and no less than the Law of the 4th 
 August, 1789, which abolished the Feudal tenure in France ; 
 and consequently a decision of the Cour de Cassation in 
 France, expository of the Law of 1789, may well be cited 
 to illustrate the meaning of onr Seigniorial Act. Bat more of 
 this hereafter. Another decision by the same supreme tribu- 
 nal maintained the owner of the soil in the exclusive right to 
 the Mines upon his lands. That decision is thus reported by 
 MERLIN, in the same article : 
 
 Page 837. " Avant la hi du 12 Juillet 1791, les maitues de forges 
 pouvawnt-iU, dans le pays de Liege, exploiter, sans lw consentbment dea 
 propnetmres fonciers, les Mines de feb existantes dans les heritages 
 d'autrui ? ° 
 
 " En brumaire, an 8 (ai-je dit k I'audience de la cour de cassation, 
 section civile, le23 vcnt6se, an 11), lo cit. Daoust, niaitro de forges, domici- 
 he k Hourbes, fit dans les terres d'une ferme dite Pommereuil, situoe dans 
 la commune de Ragnies, pays do Liege, et dependante de I'abbaye de 
 Lobbes, les fouilles necessnires pour en extrairo les Miner de fer qu'ellcs 
 recelaient dans leur sein. 
 
 " Pcu de temps npros la suppression de I'abbaye de Lobbcp r f jnoncfio 
 par la loi du 15 fi-uctiilor. an 4, lo cit. D/ioust, trouble c' is son oxpl»'tation 
 par lo receveur des domaines de Beaumont, p.irvint a s'y faire •.nainlenlr, 
 non pas, comme il rnssiire, par un arret dj I'administration du d6parte- 
 mentde Jemmapnes (du moins il n'en inpporte aucune preuve) mais de fait, 
 et d aprfia un simple avis du directeur des doniaines de co d6partement, dat6 
 
Mines, bnt 
 ig also the 
 f with the 
 rofitless in 
 '■reign over 
 ?roision. 
 he Eoman 
 i\, modeled 
 zws of the 
 of the soil 
 a right of 
 
 ',hs French 
 les of the 
 
 in France, 
 e Cour de 
 iGNioBS, as 
 
 [)8. 
 
 ial Tenure 
 of the 4th 
 n France ; 
 \s8ation in 
 il be cited 
 at more of 
 erne tribu- 
 te right to 
 sported by 
 
 eS DE F0R0E3 
 
 iNTBMENT dea 
 les heritages 
 
 le cassation, 
 rgep, domici- 
 , situoe dans 
 I'abbaye de 
 ) fer qu'ellcs 
 
 iP T'jnonc^o 
 cxp1'>'tation 
 
 re .iiainienir, 
 
 (^u d6parte- 
 <nais de fait, 
 
 •temcnt, dat6 
 
 
 nnr?i?TA?'-?i ^' t^ "°*^^ flurla feusse assertion avanc6e par lui, et que Owkmship 
 personne n6tait A m6me de contredire, quo le terrain sur lequel 1 avait cJTMiH.fl 
 
 SrceteJSrSX! "^"°"''^* ^"'" ^^'^-^-^^^^ propdeiltSea. 
 
 .it T'lfcL? "*'"r'' ''"i®' '* ^T°° 1^ f ommereuil fut vendue par I'dtat au '^ *"' 
 cit. Lefebvre : et par le proc^s-verbal d'adjudication, il fut d6clar6 qu'au 
 miheu des terres de cette ferme, so trouvaient des fosses dont on explSit 
 la M ne dc fer ce qui avait occasionne deux ou trois bonniers de dommago. 
 . ^.°^i ^':"°*"'°''' "*" ^' '° <='*• I'efebvre obtint du jugo do caix dii 
 canton deThuin^une ordonnance quid6fendit au cit. Daoust d'emporter les 
 
 Poramereuil, attendu que, d'apr^s la loi du 12 juillet 1791, il no pouvait 
 ^:':£^,TSZr '^ "" ^^^^^^.t.ra.nt Uel, et e'n lui ^p^aTanJ 
 
 an nX 'rapporl d^M? BuSSp!'^* ''' '^''^'"^ ^^^ ''''''' ''' '' ^^'^'^-• 
 j' ConsidiSbant, sur le preuier moyen (porte-t-il) qu'jl resulte des dis- 
 positions de Part. 13, du ch. 6 de la coutume de Liegp .insi qu" do Jelles 
 de 1 art 20 du ch. 11 do la mfimo coutume, g^u touted t^^'d^ Mine'onZ. . 
 
 tes et d ouvrir appartiennent en toute propriete avx PKOPRifiTAiBES de" 
 7fJf^^ ' /"'««<«''^« ^utre loi ou vsage weal n'autorise Ub min^XL 
 d extraire la mine defer am le terrain d'a:jtkui, sans le eomentementdes 
 
 Ui publication deU loi dun Juillet mi, le demandeur n'a pu acqSb 
 f^l\l^>^'>enttnient du j^opriitaiye, le droit d'extraire la mine de fer 
 
 " Par ces motifs le tribunal rejette la domando de Charles Daoust." 
 
 .1, *5^® ^i^^® decision is the more important from the fact 
 that tJie CmUm ot Li^ge, wliere the disputed Mines were 
 situated, 13 identical with the Cmtom of Paris as to the riffhta 
 ot the owner of the soil, as will be shewn hereafter. 
 *• *u ;r<^f ?"g ^"other qnfcstion, MERLIN, P. 337, throws 
 turther light upon this subject, in the following exhaustive 
 argument : * 
 
 " Dam let pays oH le droit d'exploiter les Mines de chaTlon, etait en 
 tout ou en partie setgneunal avant les decrets du \ ao6t 1789, le ci-devant 
 Seigneur hButjustmerqm atnit proprietaire des fonds sons UsqueU existent 
 fl£ZZT '• ^^^^""-^ i-'BXPLOiTATioN. avunt Pabolitioi du regZe 
 /eodal, PECT-iL aujourd'hui SE faire payer, en sa qualit6 de propriaain les 
 redevanoes quhl s'est riservees en cclle de Seigneur* 
 
 " Pour rSsoudre cette question enpleine conaaissanee de cause ilfaut 
 commencer parse former une.idke.mete des droits que les propriete 'res du 
 sol avaient sur les mines avant la revolution. proprietc. resdJ,, 
 
 .^11 ^f ^ ^"•' '^'J"!-'^ § ^' '?!'^ '^ ^^ romaines consideraient les mines 
 TZ.^Z7^''%''^^"T''*^ '^**^'"'^ ^"': ^ »-e<;e;az.n«, et par consequent 
 mdeferaientleplemdomame aux proprietaires de ces funds • 7naw oue 
 lesempereursentraverent d^aUrd, par m,es de Men public, Vexercice dice 
 
 tNOEnrDTxf^p"'^**"^'*'"* '"*"*■''' ^ P'"^''^' '"'^'^"'^ ^^^^^^' 
 
i 
 
 11 
 
 w 
 
 — 72 — 
 
 OwNiBiEtP " II n'en fallut pas ibvantage pour ouvrir auz chefs ih% jpfiv.pieada 
 
 or Muiia. Nord qui d6merabrSrent Tt^mpire romoiD, une carridre plut Sar^c ct leur 
 
 Authorities, inspirer des id&ey. plus 6tei><lueR. 
 
 Merlin. " lis ns prircit pas la />eine de disputer, -w Ugif^c^, aux v icp.iiiJi/.iBisg 
 
 Du SOL la propriety des if 'lies ; mais profitant dt Chahitude qu'avaicnt 
 contract6e leujs predecesseiii'S en souveraincta de reijUmenter h> matures 
 7nin£rales, et de h'en EfisEHVifn les prqfi's jraQu'A unb cbbtaine QDOTirfi ; 
 ik partirent de Idpour dire aur. proprUUU'' > foncUra : ' II importe peu 
 "quo les Mines qui existent. : uis vos t','-.v', en fassent partif ; nous le 
 " supposons avec vous : mai^ coinme Tinttrtst publique exige 4 la ibis que 
 " des propri6t6s aussi precieuscs se soient niise.^ en v i liur qu "> ious I'inspec- 
 " tion de I'autoritfi, et qu'olles ne d' ueurent pii? rnut ios, vnus na touchorer. 
 " a ces Mines, qu'api -'S en avoir obtenu de nous la perm't siion exprcwe, «ii; 
 " on lou'' •jinyant telies redevances. Si vous ne lesevploi c pas, n< ':s auto- 
 ■' riser"' .i'aatres k le faire ; et aiors, vous n'aurez d'itderanite ircvkmer, 
 " pouj /• <ioran>,'.ge C'a(is6 k la surface de vos terres." 
 
 " (.'' a-vv an ,r:;tvBM«NT a cbs dbux points que se reduiront toutes les 
 lots pvMMfi' *iN )~!>,AT^flK, suT F cxplottation des Mines, pendant plusieurs Sli- 
 des ; etcei.i ' 'tanuueivt ^a/M eet esprit que furent r4dig6cs la eeUhre 
 ordcnuMme ik- O/Jahlvs VI, du 80 Mai 1413, et Vidit de IIknri IV, du mois 
 de juin 160L 11 y en*; mSme quelqu "S nnes de ces lou; qui, laissant !e 
 droit de i»roi:iri6t6 fonciSre des Mines sous une sorte de rsnge, dficlardrent 
 expressimeiu que les Mines dtiiient de droit royal ot Uimanial: c'etait 
 notamment le langage de Philippe-le-Long, dans son OA'tionnanco du 5 
 avril 1821. 
 
 " Ce droit exclusif du souverain sur les Mines, Sprouva c^pendant des 
 contradictions, non de la part des proprietaircs fonciers, mais de cello des 
 seigneurs qui, ayant usurp6 plusieurs droits r6galiens, no pouvaient paa 
 manquer d'etondro leurs pr6tentionsj usque sur celui-ci. 
 
 " Cc fut en partie pour reprimer ces entreprises, que fut rendue, par 
 Chahles VI, rOrdonnance d6ja cit6 de 1418. " Plusieurs tant d'eglise 
 ' comme s6culiers (y est-il dit) qui ont Jurisdictiohs hautes, mo^ennes et 
 ' basses, ds territoires 4s quels les dites Mines sont ashices). riulent et s'ef- 
 ' forcent d'avoir en icelles la dixidme partie purifi6e et autres droits comme 
 ' avons, 4 qui seul et non k autre elle appartient de plein droit, laquelle 
 ' chose est contre raison, les droits et pr6minences royaux de la Couronno 
 ' de France et de la chose publique, car, s'il y avait plusieurs seigneurs pre- 
 ' nant la dixidmo partie ou autre droil^ nul ne ferait plus ouvrir en icelles 
 ' Mines doronavant ou peu, parceque ceux k qui elles sont n'anraient que 
 ' tros-peu et neant de profit de demeurant. Et s'efForcent les dits hauts 
 ' justiciers de donner grands empfichemens et troubles en maintes mani^res 
 ' aux maitres qui font faire la dite oeuvre, et ouvriersouvrant en icelles ; et 
 ' ne leur permettent ni soufirent avoir, par leurs dites terres et seigneuries, 
 ' passages, chemins, allies et venues ; caver ni chercher Mines, rivieres, 
 * bois ni autre chose k lour convenance et n6cessaires, parmi payant juste 
 ' et raisonnable prix ; et avec ce, venant et travaillant les dits faisant I'oeu- 
 ' vre et ouvriers, sous I'ombre de leur dite jurisdiction, en maintes et 
 ' diverses autres manidres, afln de faire rompre et cesser lad'te oeuvre .... 
 
 ' Pourquoi, voulant sur ce pouvoir et remedier , dir disoemons 
 
 ' et d6clarons que nul Seigneur spirituel ou temporel d ique 6tat, 
 
 ' dignit6 ou preeminence, condition ou autorit6 quelqr ' m en notre 
 
 royaume, n aui , 
 ' qu'elle soit, pot 
 
 doit avoir en quelque titre, 
 li autorite de prendre, en notr 
 
 i"-'". ;asion, quelle 
 '.e, la dixidme 
 
nance ot droit, du tout forclos, car k nous seul et pour le tout. A cause do o7m,J« 
 nos droits et Majo8t6 royaux, appartient le dixidme et non A autre?' luthSfl. 
 
 Les Seigneurs hauts-ju8ticiersr6clamdrent centre ces dispositions, non ^"''''*' 
 qu lis prfitendwsent tons disputer au roi le droit exclusif de I'extraction des 
 Mines, mais parce que, selon eux, lee traraux n6cessaires pour les exploiter 
 *rStio"na ""'^ protection qui devait 6tre pay6e par quelques 
 
 w.»i%'r/°"°"*''y!.u^ ^""i^"* accueUUes ; et le 10 Octobre 1552, le roi 
 Henri II donna un 6dit par lequel il leur accorda, pour prix du soin qu'ils 
 prendraient de tra.ter favorablement les mattres et ouvriers, le quarantidme 
 du produit des Mines de toute espdce, notamment de cellos de charboB ter- 
 restre, apres le pr6Idvement du dixidme royal 
 
 Hekri IV par I'art 2 de son Edit du mois de Juin 1601, exempts les 
 
 fc'da°mZrp2VT,''V''^^^T ••*'y»'5 «*> ^" '«« autresdisposi- 
 tionsdu m6me Edit, rigla le mode de recouvrement de ce droit sur les 
 
 hlSte-ustSrr"^ *"*^"°* mention du quarantidme des Seigneurs 
 
 «„n l^'^M-P'*'" ^'^n^y^ son Conseil, du 4 Mai 1604, concernant I'exploita- 
 
 hon des Mines mitalli ues, "afin que les Seigneure hauts-justicieVs des 
 
 heuxauxquelssont et seront ci-aprds ouvertes et travaiuLs les dites 
 
 " »:, *t^K.?n.f'^v°'"u ^'''''^^^^ "^ PUissentapporter aucun trouble ou traverse 
 autobunal dicelles, sous quelque pr6texte ou pretention que ce soiL 
 
 Octobre 1552, qui est leseul de Uma les rois qui leur a attrUme aucun 
 dm* que, confonn6ment A icelui, aprds que le droit de sa di<e Majestd 
 aura 6t6 entidrement pa;r6 et satis&it sur la part qui roste aux entrepre- 
 neurs, lesieurhaut-justicierpuisse prendre et recevoir, paries mains du 
 facteur g6n6ral, un quarantidme denier pour tout droit, et sans quM puisso 
 pr6tendreaucunechosedavantage,41a charge encore d'assister les dits 
 entrepreneurs de passages et chemins commodes pour leur travail, et de 
 toutcs autres comniodit6s ; et d'etre priv6s i jamais du dit droit ^t grdce, 
 tant les dits hauts-justiciers que fonciers ; s'ils font refus de laisser fairo 
 les ouvertures et chemins n4cessaircs pour les dites Mines." 
 
 Copendant il y avait alors, mfime e.. France, des pays oA, indipendam- 
 mant dcsentrepnses seigneunales que I'Ordonnance de 1413 avait r6primees. 
 et que 1 Edit de 15o2 avait reduites & un droit de protection 6valu6 au qua- 
 rantidme denier, la haute-justice 6tait parvenue k se ressaisir relativement 
 Ju'ex'loitotion ° *^"*'' '^™'* exclusif d'en permettre I'ouverture 
 
 Cetaient les provinces <?Anjou et du Mainb, dont les eoHtumes en 
 reaervant au roi lea Mdibs d'or, laisaaient aux hauts^ustieiws les Mines de 
 substances terrestres. •«» «« 
 
 Qtolle «tait d eette Spoque, la UgisUtum du Hainaut sur les Mines? 
 itait-elle nva ov moins facorable que celle de la France aux PROPwfiTAiBEs 
 DU SOL ? EixE DEVAIT l'Steb BEAtlCOUP MOINS, et par une rais^f^t 
 simple. •' 
 
 n estprouvf par differentes chartes cities an mot Ferrage, § 3. que cette 
 contree a forme hngtemps, et jusquc dam le quatorzieme sihle\n fiep 
 
 IMMfiDIAT DE l'eMPIRB GBBMANIQUE. , rmir 
 
 OR lespublicistes allemands sont unanimement S! accord que les Minks 
 appartienmnt ahsolument au souverain, et que les provrietaires du »r>7. n'» 
 
 ■ma aucun droit. ~ - <„ 
 
 10 
 
OwniBHHip Martini, dann ses " elementa juris-publici," imprimis 4 Viorme en 
 
 or MiNiv. 1778, dlt, No 169 et 171: " quoniam bona publica mnt in dominio 
 
 Authorities. " populi, nemo pos$idere, hit uti autfntipoterit, nisi is, ctd populus vel impe, 
 
 Xtrhn. " vans in quern jura populi translata sunt, permisorit : quari jus disponendi 
 
 "dehis est jus majeHtaticum. Uinc intelligitnr ad jura mperantis jus 
 
 "quoque veminationie, jus shbtbrbakeum, j«»minkkai.b, jm» in thesauros..,. 
 
 " esse r^srendq.^' 
 
 After citing Putter and Vi^arius to the same oflfect, 
 Mk«lin proceeds to say : 
 
 " Ces, maximes durent naturellemont s'enraciner dans le Hainaut: et 
 dans |£ (fit, nou^ tyouvons dans le placard dos archiduos Albert et Isabello, 
 do 161 8, 8ur la chasse, que les anciens souverMos de co pays: a-voient iti tel. 
 lament j^lpux d'y, exercertous les droits qui, en Allemagne, itaient r6put68 
 ro^fiHens, quo le droit de chasse (itm venenationis, que Ton n vu tout-i- 
 I'heure rang6, par Martini, dans la classe d«8 droits de souvorainoti) y est 
 ononco, Aplusicurs reprises, cooune appartenant exclusiveinent au prince, et 
 que les Seigneurs hauts-justiciers y sont repr6sent63 eorame n'en iouissant 
 qjq.]iar reQct. d9 sa. concession speckle. 
 
 n parftlt cependant que les Seigneurs hauts-justiciers de Hajnaut itaient 
 parvenus il se mettre, par rappoi^ aux Mines, dc,ijiv«au a,v«c ceujt d'Aoiou 
 ct cu I^ftipe. 
 
 By Oi'mmon C^ir. '^ft V 
 
 i.tiw, gold JSec. I O. It thus appears frqin J^bblin tlrat, in tho 
 
 bwne?of°oii P»"ovince9 of Anjou and Maikjs, as exGeptions to the Common 
 ' Law of the Kingdom,^ ffold-mines belonged to the Sovereign ; 
 nnd the same, ajB will .presently be shewn, may bq said 
 of Bbktaonk, Hence it is that, elsewhere in the Kijigdom, 
 e. g. under the, Ciistoo) of Paris, thepitecioua and tlie baser 
 metals were on precisely the same footmg. Indeed the Ordi- 
 nances treat of all Mines alike, and mention expresf' v gold 
 and silver conjointly with the other metals, drawing no 
 distinction whatever between them, as will be seen hereafter. 
 
 ^CG, 77 ^Before reprodncing the text of the three 
 
 great Ordinances of 1413, 1471 and 1601, the Plamtiifs enume- 
 rate all the Edits^ Ordanvancesy Diclarationa and JUttrea- 
 Patentes of the French Kings, on the subject of Mines, in 
 chronological oorder, with the date and place of qnregistration, 
 and the authority for the existence, of eiach one, Biis synopffls 
 is drawn from a 
 
 fomiSa " ^Compilation Chronologique, contenant un Recneil en 
 
 abr^ge, des Oi-donnances, Edits, Declarations et Lettres- 
 Patentes des Rois de France." 
 
 Bu BtAWCHARD, Paris 1716. 
 
i Vionoa en 
 in dominio 
 lug vel imptir 
 isditpanendi 
 ■perantis jus 
 thnaurot.,.. 
 
 ime ofi«ct, 
 
 Hftiiwut: et 
 t ct Isabello, 
 mnt hii U>\' 
 ient rdput^H 
 n vu tout'A- 
 ainoti) y ost 
 au prince, et 
 'en Jouissant 
 
 in^ut 6t&ient 
 eu]E, d'Anjou 
 
 Iff^t, in tho 
 ? Commnn 
 lovoroign ; 
 f^ b^ said 
 Kiiigdoo), 
 tlie baser 
 tlie Ordi- 
 28^,'^ gold 
 awing no 
 lereaftier. 
 
 'the three 
 
 (fs ennme- 
 d Lettres- 
 Mines, in 
 gistration, 
 iSBynopals 
 
 tBcneil en 
 ; Lettres- 
 
 ~t5- 
 No. l.—P. 223, A. D. 1413. 
 
 r..Jvrp^if=^°I**" »''«?.'""*''?*?/'" '*■ "'"«" d'argentdo plomb et de Owbimhip 
 S?I^f; ^ Im"* ■", ^,x""'«f ^"^ *''"^°°' •* S6n6cluiuM6e \ LySii, at resBort or If »». 
 a iceux. Et les privileges des ouvriers des ditcs mines. A Paris, lo 80 May. ^lanehartPt 
 iL f. J7^' V^ wx^i"'?.'":? dwcomptes le 18 Mara 1483. (Mem. de la Ch compilation. 
 
 No. 2.— P. 229, ^. D. 1416. 
 
 1. vnl J!?**?^ Patentes portant que ceux i qui appartienncnt les Mines pris 
 laVilledeLyon,porterontIfe8 matidres d'ot et dlirgenUu'ils auront. i la 
 
 lYrJS'''u^'''^''!L'*„*''ir'L'«- At>arUle8No?emb?eU16. (R^ JJ 
 la Oftur dea Men. OottS B. Ibi. 168)." 
 
 i^o. 3.— P. 251, A. D. 1437. 
 " ^'*' Po;**"* tontohnatjon de oeluy da 80 Hay i«8, qui concerne les 
 
 UiS iK^"it'"¥ J;*^*\*^8;.*°> Ch. des Qomptes le 18 Mars 
 jUtAWi^" "^ "*'*** ^' ''^ ''• ^"^ '• "* ^""' '^'^ 
 
 Ko. 4— P. 315, A. D. Uii. 
 w 1-y ^^^^ Pwtant reglemeftt ptfur les mines et minidres du Boyaume. Aux 
 Cott6F.fol.38r" "*"' *^" ^****"»*»" !*"• (» Vol des Ord. de Louis XI, 
 
 No. 5.— P. 365, A. D. 1483. 
 
 " Edit portant reglemeht pour les Mines et MiiiiSres dans lo Vicomt6 
 de V**?""""!: A« PJ-T"? «J" P?" Ida-TouTB, aU mois de May 1483. Reg. lo 
 12 Jum, 1483. (8 VoL dot Ordonnandea de Louis XI, OotU 0, fol. 186)." 
 
 No. 6.— P. 360, A. D. 1483. 
 
 " Edit portant defenses k toutes personnt„ de travailler aux mines de 
 Consorans, s'lls n'oht le droit dU Rot: A. Baugency au mois de Novembre 
 1483. Regv 1? 8 May 1484 (Vol. des Ord. de Ohtoles VIII, Cott6 H. fol. 6. 
 M6m. de la Ch. des Comptcs, Cott« P ' '. 89)." 
 
 No. 7.— P. 362, A. D. 1483. 
 
 ^A ^" ^>t portent COnfli-matioii de ceUx des 80 May 1418, et ler Juillet 
 W87, concernant led miOes d'argent, de plomb et de OuiVre du Batlliage de 
 Mascon, et de la S6r 'chaussie de Lyon; et les priviWges des odvriei'a detf 
 dites mines, etc. An Mobtils-lez-Tours, an mois de Fivrier 1488. Reir en 
 la Chainbre des Comptcs le 18 Mars 1488. (M6m. de la Ch. ded OompW' 
 Cott6 S. fol. 26. Reg. de la Cour des Mon. Cott6 G. fol. 15j." 
 
 ]^o. 8.— P. 388, A. D. 1498. 
 
 " Mit portatjk, . "nflrmatlon des privileges des Maifitres-Matchtods, 
 ftisan* 1 oeuvre, e* .' )uvrters et mineurs des Mines de Lyonnais. A Sois- 
 
 SODS ftU mois de .Tiiin. 14.0<^. iVj*! H* 1j* Amm As* TU^ Pr**!- rt ai «n\ ii 
 
 — ^. , ^ — ^. __ _ — -—. w«.r xSt/7fi vyeto VT'jitw Wjt 
 
-.'re — 
 
 J: 
 
 I' 
 
 OWMIBSHIP 
 
 or MiiiM. 
 
 JilanehartPt 
 
 compilation. 
 
 "^o, !».— P. 407, A. D. 1506. 
 
 " Edit r"^rt"it reglement pour I'exploitation dea mines do Conserans. 
 ABonrgeRaii laoisde F6vrier 1606. Reg. le 19 Mars 1506. (Vol. dos Ord. 
 de Louis X ii. Oottfi J. fol. 196.)" 
 
 No. 10.— P. 420, A. D. 1514. 
 
 " Edit portant reglement pour 'nniller ' . es d'argent, do cuivre et 
 nutres m6taux. A Paris au m.;i ue .luillet lOU. l^.^g. en la Oh. des 
 Cvmptes, le 14 Juillet 1514 et au Pari, le 12 Ao4t 1660. (1 Vol. dos Ord. 
 d'flenry II, Cott6 P. fol. 8)." 
 
 No. ll.—P. 436, A. D. 1516. 
 
 «' Declaration portant rdglement pour Targent qui provient des Mines 
 dii Royaume. A Paris le 6 Mars, 1516. ij^g. de la Cmr des Mon. CotU 
 (jt./ol. 66.) 
 
 No. 12.— P. 447, A. D. 1619. 
 
 " Lettres Patentes portant permission i Jaques do Genoilhac, Chevalier, 
 Seigneur de Oapdenat, de faire chercher des mmes d'or, d'arcent, de plomb 
 de cuivre >>% de tous autres mfitaux dans sa Seigneuriedo Oapdenat. A Chas- 
 toUerant le 29 Decembre 1619. Reg. en la Cour des Monnoyes le 27 P6vrier 
 1519. (Keg. de la Cour des Mon. Cot a G. fol. 68)." 
 
 No. 13.— P. 450, A. D. 1520. 
 
 " Declaration portant reglement pour Touverture des mines du Royaume. 
 A Pontalnebleau le 17 Octobre 1520. Reg. de la Ch. dos Comptes do Grenoble. 
 (Reg. do la Cour des Mon. Oott6, G. fol. 78)." 
 
 No. 14.— P. 464, A. D. 1531. 
 
 " DocUration portant d6fen.„« & toutes personnes Ue tirer et fouiller t'cs 
 mmes, sans la permission du TToy, et de porter des meUux hers du Royaume, 
 sans estre marquez. A Pontainebleati, le 18 Octobre 1521. (Reg. do la 
 Chambre des Comotes de Grenoble)." 
 
 iNo. lo.— P. boo, A. D. 1543. 
 
 ^ " Declaration portant reglement pour les mines (io far du Royaume. A 
 bomt Germain en Lay^, le 18 May 1548, Reg. le 25 Octobre suivant (4 Vol. 
 des Ord. d Vanco' I, .. ott6 N. foL 22 V 
 
 No. 16.— P. 698, A. I>. 1645. 
 
 " Edit portant confirmation de celu; • » Mois de Juillet 1614, foncer- 
 nant les mines d'argent, de cuivre * t auU' s m^taux A Paris au < .o»n de 
 Mars 1545. Rdg. lo 12 Aoust i (2^ ,L deu Ord. d'Henry II. Oott6 
 
 Q. fol. 85)." ' • 
 
 IVo. 17.— P ^16, J. Z>. 1547. 
 
 " Declaration portant suppression de i'lmpost qui ae is sur le fer 
 tire des Forges des Provinces de Bourgogne, de Champagne, ei de Bnc. A 
 Fontainebleau, le 14 Octobre 1647. Reg. le 19 Decembre do la mesme annee. 
 (1 Vol 4e^ Ord. d'Henry JI, Cott6 P. fol. 51)." 
 
- 77 - 
 
 No. 18.— P. 633, A. D. 1648. 
 " Doclaration portant permission k Jenn FrancoiH .Ic la Roque, Sieur de Owhbmhip 
 
 Koboryal, d ouvrir et rechercher les mines ct subsUvnces tant torrestres (luc 
 mfitalliques, ctf. A Lyou le dernier Septembre 1548. Reg. en la Cour des 
 Monnoyes lo 11 May 1565. (Reg. dela Cour des Mon. Cott6 K. fol. 258.)" 
 
 No. 19.— P. 649, A. D. 1540. 
 
 " Declaration portant Confirmation des Edits du mois do Juillet 1614, 
 et Mara 1545 concernant les mines d'argent, cuivres et autres m6taux. A 
 Fontainebleau, lo 6 Mars 1549. (Reg.le 12 Aou8tl550. (2 Vol. dos Ord. 
 d'llonry II, Cott6 Q. fol. 87)." 
 
 No. 20.— P. 670, A. D. 1661. 
 
 "Declaration portant reglement pour la recherche des mines d'or, 
 argent, cuivre, fer, plomb, aluns et i. res espdces de mines et malidres 
 mmSralos. A Fontainebleau, le 9 D6ceinbre 1651. Reg. kh la Cour des 
 K f T"l62 "^ Mars de I'ann/5ie suivante. (R6g. de la Cour des Mon. Cott* 
 
 No. 21.— P. 687, A. D. 15^2. 
 
 " Declaration portant reglement pour I'execution da celle du dernier 
 Septembre 1548, et pour roxploitation et la polioo des mines, Ac. A Rheims 
 lo 10 Octobre 1552. Reg. on la Cour des Mon. le 11 Moy 1555. (R6c. de la 
 Cour des Mon. Cott6 R. fol. 259)." 
 
 No. 22.— P. 720, A. D. 1654. 
 
 " Declaration portant reglement pour les mines d'argent et autres 
 m6tc-ix. Au Camp d'Estree, le 17 Aoust 1554. Reg. lo 7 SetUumbrc 1556. 
 (8 Voi des Ord. d'Henry IF, Cott6 T, fol. 387. Mom. de la Ch. des Comptes. 
 Coi i 3 X. fol. 227)." 
 
 No. 23.— P. 723, A. D. 1654. 
 
 " Declaiu n portant continuation en favour du Comte Reingrave, et de 
 Jeanne de Genoillac k ^ femme, de la permission de fairo ouvrir des mine^i 
 accord6e k Jacques de Genoillac, son pdre, par les Lettres Patentes du 29 
 D6c. mbre 1519. A Paris le 18 Novembro 1534. Reg. en la Cour des Mon- 
 le 19 Janvier suivant (Reg. de la Cour dos Mon, Cott6 K. fol. '^13)." 
 
 No. 24.~P. 730, A. £>. 
 
 1664. 
 
 "Lettres Patentes portant relief d'adresse k la Cour dos .Mo. aoyes 
 pour Penregistrement des declarations des dernier Septembre 1548 et SO 
 Octobre 1552, qui concernent les mines. A Fontainebleau !. 1 Mara lECii 
 Reg. en la Cour des Mon. le 18 May 1555. (Reg. de la Cour des Mon. Cott6 
 K. fol. 267)." 
 
 No. 25.— P. 792, A. D. 1559. 
 
 " Declaration portant reglement pour rexploitation des mines de Pont- 
 
 fibaut. A Paris le 7 Juin 1559. Reg. le 27 Aoust 1660, (Vol. des Ord. de 
 rancois II, Cott6 Y. fol, 287. M6m. de la Ch. desCoHiptee, Cotte, 8 B 
 fol 281)." ' 
 
 No. 26.— P. 807, A. D. 1659. 
 *' Lettres Patentes portant reglement pour It s priyiiegc^ des maitres et 
 
 or Mnn. 
 
 nianchard^i 
 ccimpilution. 
 
~?8-. 
 
 OwiMinr 
 or HiaiB. 
 BlMuhard'a 
 oompilatioB. 
 
 ouvriwi des mines dtns U Province d'Angoumoit. A 
 JanTier 1659. Rig. le 14 Juia 1560. (Vol • - - 
 fol. 237)." 
 
 Blois All mois de 
 dea Ord. de Fronfiois II, Cott* Y. 
 
 No. ar.—P. 808, A. D. 1569. 
 
 -. »»«" ^"^^^ Patontes portant confirmation de U IMclantion 
 1569, concernant I'eKploitation dcH minos de Ponteibaut. A 
 
 Y. fol. 808)." 
 
 Rig. lo 27 Aoust 1560. 
 
 du 7 Juin 
 
 „ „ Bloin, le2 
 
 (Vol. dM Ord. d« Frucda II, Gotti 
 
 No. 28.— P. 817, A. D. 1660. 
 
 " LettMs Patentwj porUnt permiuion k Claude Oruippon de GuiUlon 
 Escuyer, Sicur de Saint Julian, d'ouTrir Ics mines et minidres. qu'il 
 piirra trouver dans Teetendue du Royaume de Fruice : et reglement pour 
 1«H P"7»Iege* d«H ouvri«r« qu'll employers p«ur lea dicouvrir. A Fontaine- 
 
 rS 7 *^/.>io** ^^^^^ ^\ '•1*'."^ ^'^"2. (1 Vol. desOrd. de Charles IX, 
 Cotti Z. fol. 272. Mini, de la Oh. des Oomptes, Oott4 8 0. foJ. 187. Ponto' 
 non, t 2, p. 1161. Rec, des Ord. de Charles IX par Rob. Eat fol. 180)." 
 
 No. 29.— P. 834, A. D. 1661. 
 
 " Declaration portant confirmation (]«s privileges de ceux qui travaillent 
 trif,™',??^ *;* aux mimdres. A Saint Gerinaln desPrez lez-Paris le 11 Juillet 
 1561. Rig. lo 9 May 1562. (1 Vol. dos Ord. de Charles IX, Cotti Z. fol. 872. 
 Fontanon, t 2, p. 1163. Rec. des Ord. do Charles IX par Rob. Est. fol. 185.) 
 
 No. 30.— P. 847, A. D. 1662. 
 
 " Lettres Patentos portent permission k Estienne Lescot d'ouvrir tes 
 mines et mlnierea dans tonte I'estendue du Royaume. A Paris le 10 Mav 
 1662. R6g. lelO Mars 1565. (8 Vol. des Ord. de Charles IX, Cott6 2 B. f. 89 
 Rec. des Ord. de Charles IX, par Rob. Est. fol. 489)." 
 
 No. 31.— P. 856, A. D. 1663. 
 
 " Declaration portent reglement pour lo dixidme qui appartient au Rov 
 dans les mines et miniires. A Troy, le 26 May 1568. Reg. le ler Juillet <fo 
 la mesme annee, (2 Vol. des Ord. de Charles IX, Cott6 2 A, fol. 44. Fontenon. t. 
 2, p. 445. Rec. des Ord. de Charles IX par Rob. Est foL 268. Chopin, de 
 Dom. Lib. 1, tit 2, n. 6)." 
 
 No. 32.— P. 873, A. D. 1663. 
 
 " Lettres Patentea portent que le dixidme des mines de la Province de 
 Champagne se prendra en la forge et non sor le fer faQOnni. A Troyes le 2* 
 Mars 1568 avant P&ques. Reg. le 16 May 1664. (2 Vol. des Ord. de Charle* 
 IX, Cotte 2 A, fol. 273. Rec. des Ord. de Charles IX par Rob. Est fol. 402. 
 
 No. 33.— P. 880, A. D. 1564. 
 
 " Lettreft PaUntea portant wlief de suramiation pour renregiatrement de 
 celles du 10 May 1562, parlesquelles il est permis i Estienne I'lscot d'ouvrir 
 les mines. A Roussillon, le 12 Aoust 1564. Reg. le 2 Mars 1565. (8 Vol. des 
 Ord. de Charles IX, Cotte 2 B, foL 89. Rec. des Ord. de Charles IX oar 
 Rob. EstioD. ft)1. 4^2)." *^ 
 
- 70 — 
 
 No. 84.— P. 1060, A. D. 1677. 
 
 - ■ OwimtBtr 
 
 No. 35.— P. 1100, A. D. 1680. 
 (4 Vol. dc« Ord. d'Henrjr III, CoS,2 L fol 1 J) " " '* '"*""" •""^'' 
 
 No. 36.— P. 1300, A. D. 1697. 
 •* Edit portwit rigleiiwnt pour les minM ot miniires du Rovnum* • «t 
 
 No. 37.— p. 1341, A. D. 1601. 
 
 " Edit portant confirmation do ceux qui ont est* fAlt«'«iTf. i. ft.if rf-„ 
 
 ?t'E?fotfaT..?'"/"^^, -*»<'?" d'un office caVmndTitili^'sJprinttda; 
 et B6forroateur g6ueral des mines et miniiros, d'un de Controlleur S«.i 
 
 HnTflS '^^J'""' T?"",' ^r'^i'""."' «''^- A Fontaineblcaurau S'dr 
 
 M6m. d« U Oh. des Comptes, Oott6 4 V. foi. irj^" 
 
 No. 88.-P. 1345, A, D. 1601. 
 
 '^ Edit portant rdglemcnt pour les mincR et minidres oui sont dnnn In 
 Rpyaume. A Parisau mois d'Aoust IfiOl. R6b au Pari In h m«T ♦ 
 Ch. des CompteB le 1602 (4 Vof d«» nM S.« '.^^o^J? 
 
 2V fftl son u^». ^.vi /-lu J ^^ ^ vol. des Urd. d'Henry IV, Cott6 
 .« V. loL 890. M«m. de I» Oh. des Comptes, Cott6 4 T, fol. 240).''^ 
 
 No. 39.— P. 1347, A. D. 1601. 
 
 "Dficlaration portant rdgleraont pour les mines ft minidres du Rovaume 
 
 A ^'n^iT± "" ^/° '" ^^ Novembre 1601. mc le 14 Slav 1602 a V„1' 
 des Ord. d'Heniy IV, Cott6 2 V. fol. 400)." " ^ ' ^* ***'' 
 
 No. 40.— P. 2300, A. D. 1677. 
 "Declaration portant reglement pour la' rccherchB di>a minoB ^»«- 
 
 deTolt^m?'^''^^ *^«^«« Pro'vinJes d'Auw^;, de BoJrbonnai^ 
 
 ae Jore8t«,et deVivarais. A Versailles le 80 .luillPt ifi^T pa„ i «« 
 
 J«yierl678. (19 Vol des Ord. de Ix^uis XlV, CoX D.^?^^^^^^^ ^^ 
 
 No. 41.-P. 2663, A. D. 1703. 
 
 No. 42.— P. 2686, A. D. 1704. 
 
 A vZfl'if i"*i^5:ri::Ll^n\"&.n ^^' ^ r«='^«'-«»'« <J«« Mines d'Estain. 
 Ord. deLouifl"XIVrCott66 Ol. '288)7' "' "'" """"^ *"''""• ^^' ^°^* '*'» 
 
— so — 
 
 No. 43.—P. 2742, A. D. 1705. 
 
 Owirnsnip 
 
 OF Mrawt. 
 
 Blanchard't *'<J't pomnt reglement pour I'ouverturo des mines d'or et d'argont 
 
 compilation, nouvelleinent d^couvertes dans les Terres du Vigean et de I'lsle Jourdain en 
 
 \: 
 
 iHVi 
 
 Poitou, A Versailles au mois de Juillet 1705. 
 Cour des Aydes le 14 Aoust suivant)." 
 
 Reg. au Parties, etenla 
 
 ^eC. • o. Before j^roceeding to reproduce at length 
 
 the three great Ordinances, it is perhaps as well to make a few 
 remarks on the various other Laws and Letters-Patent enume- 
 rated by Blanohaed, for the purpose of shewing that the latter 
 were not of general application to the whole Kingdom, and do 
 not appear in most cases to have been received and enregiste- 
 red by the Parliaments, and also for the purpose of establislaing 
 that the French Law recognizes no distinction between the 
 precious and the baser metals. 
 
 No. 1, is the earliest one we have of the French Ordinan- 
 ces on mining. The Oa^itulaire de St. Louis, as will bo 
 hereafter shewn, concerns treasure-trove merely. No. 1, or the 
 Ordinance of Charles VI, of May, 1413, was drawn forth by 
 discoveries of w7«e>', lead and copper near Mascon <Ss Lyons, 
 but was made applicable to all the Mines in the Kingdom, 
 without distinction. That is evident from the words : " Nous 
 ,, a ete rapporto qu'en plusieurs lieux de notre JRoyaume, et 
 " spccialement de nos bailliage de Mascon et S6n6chans8ee de 
 " Lyon, et es renBorts, y a plusieurs Mines o^namrr, de ploinh 
 " et de cuivre, et autres m6taux qui deja sont tronves, etc, etc." 
 The general nature of the Ordinance still further appears from 
 these words : " esquelles Mines et autres queloonques 6tant en 
 " notre dit Eoyaunie, Noua avons at devons avoir, et k nous et 
 " non a autre appartient de ploin droit, tant a cause de notre 
 •' Souverainete et Majesto Royale comme autrement, la dixieme 
 " partie purifice de tous metaux qui en icelles Mines est onvre 
 " et mis au clair," In the face of that express mention of silver 
 Mines, and of the Royal claim to one-tenth of all metals 
 extracted from aU the Mines in the Kingdom, how can it be 
 pretended for a moment that, by the Common Law of France 
 gold and silver Mines belong to the Crown. The intention of 
 the Sovereign to apply that Ordinance to the "Whole Kingdom 
 is made still more manifest by the declaration of the Sovereign 
 that the Seigniors shall not have " la dixieme partie, ni autre 
 " droit de Mine esdites Mines, ni en autres quelconques assises 
 " dans le royawne:^ Again the Sovereign commands all 
 Seigniors, througliout his Kingdom, to give all necessary 
 facilities to the Miners, such as roads, timber, &c. And after 
 
 
)r et d'argont 
 
 Jourdain en 
 
 le 8, ct en la 
 
 3 at lengtli 
 
 Qake a few 
 jnt ennme- 
 t the latter 
 >m, and do 
 enregiste- 
 stablishing 
 stween the 
 
 I Ordinan- 
 18 will bo 
 ). 1, or the 
 n forth by 
 (& Zyotis, 
 Kingdom, 
 1 : " Nona 
 yaume, et 
 aansaee de 
 de plomb 
 , etc, etc." 
 sears from 
 !« 6tant en 
 . h nous et 
 I de notre 
 la dixteme 
 est onvro 
 a of silver 
 ill metals 
 can it be 
 of France 
 tention of 
 Kingdom 
 Sovereign 
 i, ni autre 
 les assises 
 lands all 
 necessary 
 And after 
 
 
 — 81 — 
 
 commanding his HaiUy de Mascon, and SdnSchal de L,,ons to Own.bsh.p 
 see to the execution of that Law, he lays a like injunction on : of M.h«. 
 tous nos autves jushciers et offiders de nostre E(yuaume'' Nature of 
 It is therefore, m conseqiience of that Law having been made J;7to bt" 
 applicHble to the entire kingdom, and having befn enregiste- ntl^ch^i. 
 red by the Parliament of Paris, that the Plaintiffs have 
 demeed it right to reproduce the Law in its entirety. Tlie 
 text reproduced 18 taken from P. 141 of Volume X of the 
 OrdommncesdesJioisde France," being the continuation 
 r? 11 J^^^f f ^^ f "^i Breqmgny of ds Lauriere et Seconsse's 
 Collection It 18 also found with confirmatory Declarations by 
 Charlhs VII, Chaeles Vllf, Louis XU et Frai^cois I, at 
 P. 6 of a very rare little work entitled : » Ediis, Ordon- 
 nances, Arrets et Reglements sur le fait des Mines et 
 Mimeres de France, avec les declarations du Droit de 
 Dixieme du au Roy sur I'Or, Argent, Cuivre, Acier, Fer, 
 llomb,Azur, etc.,ctc., etc.," otherwise called '' Mmes et 
 Mmtere^ ['.-Anonymous, Paris 1761 from the Edition of 
 1631. It IS also to be found at P. 386 ot Volume VII of 
 IsAMBERT 8 JieGuezl des anciennes lois Fmnq-aises, Paris, 1833 
 jN^o. 2, which indirectly confirms No. 1, is to be found at 
 length at Page 386, of volume X, of the « Ordonnances des 
 liois delmnce ; the King, who shortly before had establis- 
 lied a mint at Lyons complains that the Miners were not brin o-in" 
 their gold and silver to be coined there and states • " Poui" 
 "quoiNous vous mandons ot express6ment enjoignons que 
 par les Gardes do nostre dicte Monnoye de Lyon, ou autres 
 '^ telz que bori vous semblera, vousfaitesfairecommandement 
 ' de par Nous auxditz Marchana a qui sont les dictes 
 « Mfnes pros de nostre dicte ville ds Lyon, et a tous autres k 
 « qui il appartiendra que sur les peines contenues esdictes 
 '* Ordonnances toute la matidre d'or et d'argent ct billon 
 '* qu'ilz anront ou pourront avoir ou temps advenir, tant a 
 cause des dictes Mynes, comme autremect, ilz portent ou 
 ' tacent porter en nostre dicte' Monnoyo de Lyon, etc " If 
 the gold and silver Mines had then been the property of the 
 Jrown, what need would there have been for the Sovereign 
 to order the Miners to bring those metals to the Mint at 
 Lyons ? It is further evident that, in those days, any man was 
 free to work a ^old or a silver Mine with as little restriction 
 as any other Mine, by paying the royalty of one-tenth. 
 
 u ^ ■?°- ^' *^ ^^ ^^^"'^^ ^^ ^- 236 of Volume XII of the 
 Ordonnances des liois de France " and at P. 15 of Mines 
 ET MiNiiiRES, is a confirmation purely and simnlv of "NTn i 
 
 11 ^ ' 
 
— 82 — 
 
 OWIflRSHIP 
 OF MlNR<<. 
 
 Nutnro of 
 Laws refer- 
 red to by 
 lilancharJ, 
 
 No. 4, is the second general Law we have on the subject- - 
 It treats of gold and silveTt Mines, a& well as of the baser 
 uictals, and places them all on the same footing precisely. It 
 establishes conclnsively the pretensions of the Plaintiffs in 
 this cause It is to be found at P. 446 of Volume XVII of 
 the'' Ordonnanccs dea Mois de France" being the continua- 
 tion by the Mcinjnis de Pastoret, under the tirst empire, of 
 llie Collections of de Lauricre, Secousse, de Villevault and do 
 Jire<2mg>iy ; it is also to be found at P. t>23 of volume X of 
 havibert\t Collection. Tlmt Ordinance is a complete Mining 
 Code, and was em-egistered by the Parliament of Paris, with 
 certain modifications, wliich Plaintiffs reproduce witli the 
 Ordinance hereafter. 
 
 No. 6, was issued in April 1482, and not in May, as 
 Blancha/rd has incorrectly stated. It is by l^ouis XI, and 
 not by Loois XII, as the Code Henry, among its othor 
 manifold errors asserts. It was moreover not enreg'stercd in 
 tlio Parliament of Paris ; by Blanchard it has been impro- 
 perly styled an Edit ; it is, in fact, only Letters Patent, 
 making a special grant to private individuals of certain Mines 
 in Couserans or Vonserans ; its sole reference to the present 
 cause consists in the fact that it treats on equal footing of the 
 precious metals, and of the baser metais ; and it concludes 
 with these remarkable words ; " sauf qn'ils scront tenuis de 
 " payer nostre droit de dixiesme ot le droit du Seigneur foncier 
 " tout ainsi qu^il est accoutumS de faire en aiUre,9 7nyne8 du- 
 " Eoyawm^'' It is to be found at Page 105 of Volume XIX 
 of the " Ordonnances des Rois de France.'" and at P. 911, 
 volume X of Immherfs collection. 
 
 No. 6, is a confirmation of No. 5, and is to be found at 
 P. 175 of the " Ordonnances des Rois de France," and P. 10, 
 Volume XI of Isanibert^s collection. 
 
 No. 7, is a mere Confirmation of Nos. 1 «fc 3, and is 
 referred to in Note c, P. 277, volume XIX of " Ordonnances 
 " des Roi» de Fram^e ; " it is found at length at P. 17 of 
 Mixes bt Mini^kes. 
 
 No. 8, is a mere confirmation of the privileges conferred 
 on Miners by Nos. 1, 3 & 7, and contains no reference to the 
 subject under discussion ; it is to be found at P. 30 of Mines 
 
 ET MiNIERES. 
 
 No. 9, has not been found noticed any where else than in 
 Blanohard'B compilation ; and the text is not there given ; 
 moreover, the Plain tifls have not been able to procure the 
 work rc'feiTcd to bv Blanchard : but from the title it would 
 
 
— 83 — ; 
 
 seem to be a more confirmation of the special grant contained Ownibship 
 in JN o. 5. The fact of its having escaped the observation of °^ M'-'^^- 
 the host of keen observers, who searched the rolls of the f**"""" f 
 trench Parliaments and Oonrts for Royal Ordinances, at the reTto ''r" 
 close of the last and beginning of the present century, would Bianehard. 
 seem to establish that it nerer was enregistered, and that it 
 never received an application. 
 
 m. 10, to be found at P. 666 of Volume XI of Immhert's 
 collection, is a Declaration and not an Edit as Blanchard 
 aas termed it, confirming, in favor of two brothers, Pierre 
 and Jean de Besze, a grant previously made to their father of 
 the Ohitoy-Mines in Nivernois, and the Pontaubert-Mine in 
 Bourgogne and permitting the brothers to seek end open 
 silver, lead and other Bonrgogne-Mines elsewhere, on condi- 
 tion of settling loith the proprietors, aocoeding to the Obdi- 
 NAN0E8 of the Kingdom. 
 
 No one, surely, will pretend that a mere Declaration such 
 as that, one moreover enjoining on the Grantees to settle with 
 the proprietors according to the Ordinances, can have altered 
 tlie Law of Mining from what it was before. 
 
 No. 11, is found at P. 105 of Volume XII oi Isamhert's 
 Collection, and goes no further than enunciated in its title ; it 
 orders that the silver raised from the Mines of th^ Kinsjdom 
 shall be brought to the nearest Mint to be coined. Those 
 Letters of the King were speedily followed by others of the 
 ii7 December of the same year to the like effect, and found at 
 P. 100 of Isamberi'ft Collection. 
 
 No. 12. is noticed, but not given at length, at P. 171 of 
 Volume XII of Immherfs Collection; Isambert in a foot 
 note says : " Ces Lettres ne contiennent aucune disposition 
 *• d'intyret public. Elles se bornent a permettre an Seigneur 
 " de Genvilhac de faire chercher et oavrir des Minos sur ses 
 " proprietee." 
 
 No. 13, is to bo found at P. 179 of Volume XII of 
 Jsmnht'rfs Colk-ction. It is an Mit of general application 
 throughout the Kingdom. It recites the efiorts of previous 
 Monarchs to develope the Mining wealth of the Kingdoiis, 
 the benefits likely to accrue therefrom, and the clandestine 
 removal from the Kingdom of the gold and silver raised from 
 the Mines. It then goes on to state that the prosperity of the 
 country has been greatly retarded by the pretensions of 
 certain persons to the exclusive right of Mining in certain 
 parts of the Realm. And then it decrees the publication of 
 the Edit itself, and that within 3 months thereafter all 
 
— 84 -- 
 
 OWNIBBBIP 
 
 OK Minis. 
 Nature of 
 Laws refer- 
 red to by 
 Blanehard. 
 
 persons claiming Mining privileges shall be hold to exhibit 
 their titles to the King in Council to be examined, and 
 that no one shall thereafter open,'' or work at any Mine 
 whatever without the King's permisbion. It further prohibits 
 the exportation of metals without permission, and orders the 
 gold and silver to bo brought to the mint to be coined, under 
 pain of confiscation of those metals. The Ordonnance tiicn 
 provides for the collection of the Koyalty on all such Mines. 
 
 It is clear that, beyond the fact of "its having made 'the 
 Koyal permission a condition precedent to the working of a 
 Mine, that Edict made no innovation on the Law. The most 
 remarkable feature about it is that exclusive and large Mining 
 grants, of the description complained of in the Edi jf, were then, 
 as they are still, 3 centuries later, deemed, a 'iinirance to the 
 progress, of the country. 
 
 No. 14, is a reiteration of the prohibitions set forth in 
 No. 13 ; viz : to open a Mine, and to export metals, without 
 a Eoyal permission : It is merely noticed at P. 196 of Volume 
 XII of IsarnherVa Collection. 
 
 No. 15 is to be found at P. 810 of Volume XII of 
 IsamherVs Collection. It merely commutes the Koyalty on 
 Iron from one in kind to a money-payment. 
 
 No. 16, merely confirms No. 10, a private grant, to the 
 brothers de Besze, and has not been found noticed elsewhere 
 than in Blanchard^a compilation. 
 
 No. 17, has not been found elsewhere than in BlancJuircPs 
 compilation, and in the work referred to by him. It appears 
 by its title to be a mere suppression of the tax on iron ; and 
 it did not make any alteration in the law of Mining as aftee- 
 ting this case. 
 
 No. 18, was an exclusive grant to de Eoberval of all tlie 
 Mines in the Kingdom. His grant met with so much opposi- 
 tion from the several Parliaments that the Monarch, who 
 made the grant, died without seeing it carried into effect ; tho 
 struggle between the Monarch and his Parliaments on this 
 head is interesting enough to induce one to notice it apart from 
 tlie other Mining Laws. The grant is reproduced at length at 
 P. 57 of Volume XIII of laamherffa Collection and at P. 42 of 
 Mines bt Mini^iees. It will however be more fully noticed 
 hereafter. 
 
 No. 19 is a mere confirmation of Nos. 10 & 16, a private 
 grant to the brothers, de Besze. 
 
 No. 20, is a mere confirmation of de Roberval's privilco'es, 
 as set forth in No. 18 ; see P. 236, volume XIII of laamherVa 
 Collection where it is noticed. 
 
— 85 — 
 
 lance tlion 
 
 No. 21, 18 also a confirmation of de Eoberval's privi- Ownhbbhip 
 leges, and nofliinaj more. Soe P. 285 of Volume XllI of "^ ^wm. 
 hamhp.rt's Collection. ^iW'ax^ of 
 
 N^o. 22, is a mere confirmation of de Roberval's p:rant ; r'oTto'^by"' 
 see P. 400 of Yol : XIII of Isamherfs Collection, and foot Bianchard. 
 note (2) Ibidem. 
 
 No. 23, is a confirmation of the private j^rant, to de 
 G-envilhac, contained in No. 12 ; it is not noticed elsewhere 
 than in Blanchardh compilation. 
 
 No. 24, is Letters-Patent in reference to the ever disputed 
 de Eoberval-Grant ; it is not noticed elsewhere than in 
 Blanchard's compilation. 
 
 No. 25, seems a local afi'air, and is noticed by Bianchard 
 only. 
 
 No. 26, is a grant of privileges to Miners, and is not of 
 general mterest ; it is noticed by Bianchard only. 
 
 No. 27, is a confirmation of No. 25, is not of general 
 interest and is noticed by Bianchard only. 
 
 No. 28, is the de Robcrval-Grant again, in another shape ; 
 the Sieur St. Jnlien alleges himself to have been a partner of 
 de Eoberval, and obtains a grant to himself oftli; Mines of 
 the Kingdom for a limited time, see P. 41 of Volume XIV of 
 Isamheri's collection. 
 
 No. 29, is a confirmation of St. Julicn's grant and nothing 
 more. See P. 108, Volume XIV of IsawherVs Collection. 
 
 No. 30, is a grant to LEmoU and just such another grant 
 as those to de Eoberval and St. Jnlien, and, in No. 33, we sec 
 it revoked, as we have seen the others revoked. It is not 
 n ticed elsewhere than in Bianchard. 
 
 No, 31, is a re-iteration of the King's title to his royalty of 
 one-tenth; it is noticed only at P. 140 of Volume XIV of 
 Jmmhert's Collection. It is to be found at length at P. 337 
 of Vol : 2 of Fontanon, (second edition). It refers to all 
 metals without distinction and in that respect destroys the 
 absurd proposition that gold and silver are Eoyal Metals. 
 
 No. 32, is a transposition of the King's royalty from the 
 wrought iron to the roigh ora ; it is noticed by 'Bianchard 
 alone. 
 
 No. 33, is a revocvvi'ioii of VEscot^a grant, and is noticed 
 by Bianchard only : 
 
 No. 34, is anotli../ of thopo monopolies so frequently 
 granted in this and the two preceding reigns, to be shortly 
 after revoked. Woe P. S19 of Volume XIV oi IsamherVa 
 Collection. 
 

 f , 
 
 ) 1 
 
 '»!. 
 
 OWKIIRBRIP 
 
 OP M1NB8. 
 
 Nature of 
 Laws refer- 
 red to by 
 Blanehard. 
 
 Othtrs not 
 rpferred to by 
 Blanehard, 
 do not affect 
 question. 
 
 Enracistra- 
 tion of Let- 
 ters-Patent 
 necepsHry to 
 pive them 
 effec^. 
 
 — 8C — 
 
 TSTos. 35 and 36 are two others of those private grants ; it 
 is noticed only by Blanehard. 
 
 No. 37, is tliG third and last of the i^ro^t Ordinances 
 concoi-m'ng Mining, and was issued by Henry IV" in June 1601 ; 
 it will be reproduced at; length with the necessary comments 
 to shew its application to this case; suffice it to say, for 
 the present, that it places gold and silver, on precisely the 
 same footing as other metals, and recognizes in the clearest 
 possible language the right of the owner of the soil to work 
 the Mines in his own lands to the exclusion of all others. It is 
 found at P. 253 of Volume 15 of Isamhert's Collection, and at 
 P. 148 of Mines & Minikres, with an Atret du 'jrand 
 ConseU on the 14th May 1604, in execution of that Mil 
 
 Nos. 38 and 39 aa-e two others issued a few mouths later 
 than the preceding one and are confirmatory of its provisions : 
 they are noticed by Blanehard only. 
 
 ISTos. 40, 41, 42 and 43 are mere private grants in the reign 
 of Lo'.iis XIV, and need not be noticed iiere ; because even 
 supposing that the erinneiations contained in a private grant 
 were to be taken as being Law, a proposition which the 
 Plaintiffs clearly disprove hereafter, nevertheless with rcfo- 
 ronc(^ to those partieulnr grants, they were not enregistered in 
 this Colony, and have no force here, as will be shewn hereaftei-, 
 
 fe(3C. 7y. Over and above the Ordinances cited by 
 
 Blanehard, thei-e arc others, wliich it is as well to mention, 
 lest the Plainiiffs be accused of having w^theld information 
 on tlvs point; those other Laws and Letters Patent are 
 
 — 21 May. 1455— Letiers-Patent granting privileges and 
 exemptions to the iron-masters of France, noticed at P. 573 of 
 Volume IX oX Isambert'a Coilcctiou. 
 
 —February, 1G26— Edii-,t in jolation to the iron-mines of 
 the Kingdom— noticed P. 183 of Volume XVI of hamherCn 
 Collection. 
 
 —May, 1635— Creation of 2 offices of Controller-General 
 of Mines, P. 441 of Volume XVI of hamUrfs collection. 
 
 TJiose Laws and Lotters-Piitent do not affect the question 
 at issue between the purties in this cause. 
 
 ^OC oO. It has already been shewn at P. 54 and 
 
 scq : Sec._ 72 of this Factum, that Letters-Patent have no 
 effect until after their enregistratioii in Parliament, the parties 
 interested having first been heard or duly called. That 
 
- 87 — • 
 
 proposition of the riaintiffa is borne out 1)7 the following- 
 authoriiios: '^ 
 
 GiTYOT, vbo. LetUes-Pate,ntes, F. 482. 
 
 GuvoT, vbo. Ghancelier, P. 100. 
 
 GuYOT, vho. Chancellories P. 110. 
 
 NotrvEAu-DiNizAKT, vbo. Letii'es- Patentee, P. 137. 
 
 Bosquet, Diet. raisonn6 den Bom : vbo. LcUrcs-Patmtes 
 
 2 DuPLEssis, P. 142, 
 
 NouvKAu Djenizakt, vbo^ Chancellerie. 
 
 Sec, 81. The same necessity existed for the enre- Thosarae 
 
 ^istration of all Edits, Ordonnances and Declarations : and ?ff ''''*• 
 until such enrcgistration, the Law had no force. To establish and TXa- 
 mat proposition, it is hardly necessary to refer to the follow- tions. 
 mg authorities. 
 
 ITouveaij-Dekizart, vbo. Enve(jistreincnt P. 669. 
 
 Anoikn D^nizaet, vbo. Loix., P. 78. 
 
 JSTouveau Djenizakt, vbo. Edit, P. 422. 
 
 Ancien DfeNizART, vbo. Dedaration, P. 350. 
 
 Gpyot, vbo. EnregistremefU, P. 756. 
 
 PkIicis des Okdonnances, hj bk Montvalon, P. 300. 
 
 fteCt. O,*. In that Ordinance, wln'ch introduced Special pro- 
 as it were La^o and Courts of Law into this Country, the ,ta t°ei in 
 Ordinance of Aprd 1667, trtle 1, Art : 4 and o, to be'found Ordinance 
 at Page 108 of Vol : 1, EHUt et Ordonnances of Canada, it is "^ ^°°^' ''^ 
 expressly reouired that all Ordonnances, Edits, Declarations cXda 
 and Leitres-Patentes shall be omegistered ; and our Courts of 
 Law have, at all times refnsed to recognize as binding on us 
 such Laws, subsequent to that period, as had not been 
 e_nre^i^istered in Canada ; hence it is that the Ordonnance de 
 Marine never has been acted upon by our Courts, because no 
 trace of it has been found in the Eegisters here. 
 
 5^C. ao. With those observations, the Plaintiffs TEXT of 
 
 reproduce tlie text of the first of the 3 great Ordinances on ?"JZTvf 
 Mining, that of Charles VI, of the 30th Say, 1413. ' ^ " 
 
 Lettreg de Chablm VI, par lesquelles il dSelare qu^au Roi seul appar- 
 tient LA DixiiuE FARTiE metalUque tiree des Minon, aprds qu'ellc a 6t6 
 punfiee; etaccorde des privileges a coux qui travaillent aux Mines, et 4 
 ^eas qui }' loui i. r..».,^r . 
 
 J 
 
— 88 
 
 i I ' 
 
 TEXT of CHARLES, par la grdee de Dieu, Roy de Prance. Sftvoir faiaons k 
 
 Ordinance of tous prescns ct ndvenir, que pour co quo par plusieura de noz Officiers ct 
 0HABLK3 VI. autrcs peraoriiios notables, dignes de foy, Nous a estS rapport6 que en 
 plusieurs lieux de nostro Royaume, et especialemont en noz Bailliages do 
 Mascon et Seneschauc6c do Lyon, et ^s ressors d'iceulx, y a plum^lrs Myncs 
 <?AROENT. deplonib et de cuynre et d'autrea metmilx, qui desja sont trouvez, 
 et esquelz Ton a ja longucment ouvr6 et ouvre Ton chacun jour, ct est le 
 torrouer en icculx Bailliago et Senesclmuceo plus plain de Mynea, que en 
 aucun autre lieu de nostro diet Royaume, qui soit encores venu i^ la cognois- 
 sanco do ceulx qui en telles choses so cognoissent, si comme I'on dit ; 
 esquelles Mynes et autkes quelzconques estam en nostre diet Royaume, 
 Nous ayons et devons avoir, et a Nous et non a autre, appartient do 
 plain droit, tant k cause do nostro Souverainete et Majeste Royal, comme 
 autrcraent, La dixiesme p ahtie purifHee de toxia mcs'taulx qui en icelles 
 Mynca eat ouxire et mis au cler, sans ce que Nous soyons tenus de y frayer ou 
 despendre aucune chose, so n'estoit pour maintenir et garder ceulx qui font 
 f lire ouvrer, et sont residens, faisans feu et lieu sur la dicto ouvre, par eulx 
 ou lours depputy qui scavont la mani^ro et science d'ouvrer esdictes Mynes, 
 et a iceulx donner previleiges, franchises et libortez telles qu'ilz pftissent 
 vivrc franchoment etseurement en nostro dit Royaum 3, mesmement que une 
 grant partic d'iceulx sont do nacions et pays cstrangers, et en voit-on 
 plusieurs mourir et mutilcr en fsisant le dit ouvraige, tant pour la puanteur 
 qui est esdictes Mynes, commes par les autres perils qui sont d'aller soulz 
 la terro inynant ; pourquoy ils ont besoing d'cstro preservez et gardez do 
 toutes violances, oppressions, griefz et molestes par Nous, comme le temps 
 passe a est6 fait par noz predecesseurs Roys de France en cas semblable ; et 
 il soit aiiisi que plusieuks Seifjneura tant d'Eglise comme s6culiers, qui ont 
 juridicions haultes, moiennes et basses 6s territoires esquelles les dictes 
 •Mynes sont assises veulcnt et a^efforcentd'' avoir en icellea Mynea, la dixiesme 
 PARTiE puriffiee, autre droit comme Nous a qui SEUL et NON A autres, 
 ELLE APPARTiaNT DE PLAIN DROIT, comme dit ost, laquclle chose est contre' 
 raison, les drcitz et pr6h4minenccs Roynulx de la Couronne de France et de 
 la chose publique : car s'il y avait plusieurs Seigneurs prenans la dixiesmo 
 partie ou autre droit, nul no feroit plus ouvrer en icelles Mynes doresna- 
 vant, pour ce que ceulx a qui SONT LES DIOTES MYNES, n'auraient 
 que tres-peu ou neant de prouffilt do demourant; et s'efforcont les diz 
 Haulx Justiciers de donner gi-and empeschement et trouble en maintes 
 manieres aux Maistres qui font fairo la dicte ouvre, et ouvriers ouvrans en 
 icelle, et ne leur permettent no seufFront avoir par leuvs dictes Torres et 
 Seigneuries, passaiges, chemins, allees ne venues, caver n© chercher Mynes 
 ne Rividres, Bois ne autres ehoses k eux convenables ne neeessaires, parmy 
 payant justes et raisonnables pris ; et avecques co, vexent et travaillent les 
 diz faisans faire I'ouvro ot ouvriers, soulz umbre de leur juridicion, ot en 
 maintes autres ct diverses manieres, aflBn de faire rompre et cesser la dicte 
 euvre et pour les faire du tout suporceder au dit ouvraige ; et pour ce so 
 pourrait la terro legidrement reclorre des dictes Mynes qui sont desja 
 ouvrfies, et I'alleo des diz ouvriers estre cmpeschee et tout le fait perdu ; qui 
 seroit k nostres trds grant dommaige ; lesquelles choses sont entreprinses 
 contre Nous, nosti-e Majest6 Royal, et les droictz pr6h6minences de nostre 
 Couronne, au gi-ant prejudice, dommaige etdiminucionde nostro Dommaine, 
 et seroit encore plus se hactivement et dilhgeamment n'y estoit pourvu do 
 remede convenable. 
 
 PouRQpoY Nous, COS choses considerees, voulans sur co pourvoir de 
 remede ainsi qu'il appartient de faire en tcl cas, par grant et ineure 
 
— 89 — 
 
 deliberacion de nostre Grnnt-Conscil, et autres OfBciers aians conenoissanco 
 vies choscs clessus^ictcs ef, de leurs circonstancos et dep ,.niTnrc"^STn«r U^>'«"«""' 
 mamcre <le Ed,t. Stnlut, Loy ou Ordonnanco Royal in. . ,oSe '.// Xr T" ')''*''"• 
 et declaire,dm>ns, determimna et declairons par la tu.uur . c res n^itZ -l"'/'»^"'«- 
 ^w« ««Z Seigneur ospirituel ou temporel, de q, elquc es n d S ou dST' ^^ "*"''•'" '^^• 
 
 ir « • " ^ .q"clconquo tiltre, eause ou occasion quelle aue elle 
 
 SOU, pouvoir ne auctonte deprandre, reclamer ne demaudcr Mick, ^Mvnea 
 
 liarlZ 7 ! ''ffy}' '■ '"aia en sent et seront par nostredicte Ordonnance 
 et droict du tout forcioz : car d lioua seul et pour le tout 4 cause denoz 
 
 DPS VvNPr' ". ""^f ''^^^^'T '-f Makchans et MAISTRES Df/traVfons 
 fjfJfJ^f''i"'f'"}i''"^reretteaonvrier8 qui ouvrent esdictes Mvnes 
 faisans feu, heu et residence, ou leurs dopputcz, pinmnt ourrerrZttSuB 
 ment, sa,u< en re empcsche, ne trouMer en lenr mm-aige, et ouvZ-fmnchZent 
 
 ^MU^H MyncH. Voulons et ordonnons sernblabletnent quo les haulx Justi- 
 ciers, nioyens et bas, souz quelle juridicion et Seigneurie les dictcs M?nes 
 T^Z^Tl^' '••''"^"*''* ^''^"^^^■"* '^"«'Hts%>uvners Marchan.s 
 
 S d?e„ inf e vov^r'"' r^-'^'^T^ ^t P'^'- P'^y""* JuHte et raisonnnble 
 pns, ctiemiiis et voyes, entrees ct vssues par eurs Torres et nnvs Rni« 
 R.v,ereset autres cho.ses necessairc.-et prouiBtables nj;^^ ^^filrs^l fo-^e' 
 leuvroetOavners,6s lieux plus prouffitables pour leur ouvS faire et 
 pour lavancement .e la dicte bosoigne, et .noins don.m^tiStur EdiJ 
 be,gn,eurs qui Ics dictes choscs leu? vendront, ct autres fqiTs Hctes 
 choses seront, le mieulx que faire se pourra. ^ 
 
 (2) Item. VouJons et ordonnons que torn Mynevrs ft autres mn<,<,flr,t 
 
 iCELLEs T AIRE ET FAi.HE ouv.iER, OU VENDRE d ccj.v oui ks feront 
 
 faisnnt satisfaction ou contenter a celny ou a ,vnlx qui les dictes choscc 
 seront ouappartiendront, au dit de deux preud.s hon.m.". '' 
 
 (.i) Item. Semblablement avons voulu et ordonne, voulons et ordon- 
 nons pour la cause dessusdicte, que d'oresenavnnt les diz £rchans 
 Maistres faisans faire I'euvre, et les Ouvriers qui esdictes Mynes ouvr'nt et 
 seoccupent, et font residence sur le lieu du Martinet et MynelT ieuS 
 depputez par eulx, auront en nosdiz Bailliage et Seneschaulc^e, tant e^ 
 
 i£ ?'JV°"'"'^xt^''",*"*^'^"*' ""J"g« bonetconvenable, on'^ommis^ 
 Baire, et tel comme Nous leur ordonnerons, lequel congnoistra t detcrrSlra 
 detouscas meuz et A mouvoir, que lesdiz m.rchlns et o„vnV~rS 
 toucher; et auquel seront baill^es nos Ordonnances et Instr uiontnlr 
 pv^'flf;- h'"''""'.^-*^"''*'"'' f^^ Monnoyes, sur le fait desdictes Mynes 
 excepte de meurdre, rapt et larrecin; et duquel Juge ou Commissaire Pen 
 
 Mais reT 'de' no^Mr ^'"'^ "^T' 'V'? ^ '''^'''^^ devant no^Gene^auS 
 K L? ?• Monnoyes, en leur Sieige et Auditoire de nostre Ville de 
 Pans; et la partie qui aura mal appelle, payera pour son fol aonel XXX 
 hmspansis Aappliqueri Nous,nonobstant que les appel laL eUppeUa^ 
 
 HrHrM""f*''|PT''"'5'"°'''"" "^'^d'^ O'oit Escript;%t qui aSlem 
 desdiz Maistres des Monnoyes. I'appellacion ira en nostre Court deParlemenT 
 
 pouJ'sSn foff^p'el™ """' '^"'^'^ ^'^^"'^ ^<^''"*<' '''"^' P'*^'^'^ ^wS 
 -w:.„^£.^'^™-, Aypns_ voulu et ordonne, voulon et ordonnons nar ops 
 p..c.-nica yue ,os marcnans et ilalalres qui font ouvrer Jes dictes Mynee A 
 
 m 
 
- QO — 
 
 leurs proprep coustz, frais, missions et despens, et font feu, H 
 surlcsditz M irtinetz et Mynes, ou leurs dcpputez, les dc 
 Mineurs en uiig chjwun Martinet tant seukment, et aussi k 
 
 ouvraoa esdictes Mynes, avec noz Gardes ot non autres, soient quieten, 
 et exempts de toutes aides, Tailles, Gabelles, Quart deVin, Peaigesot 
 
 u et rcsidenc« 
 X Fonuuurs et 
 diz Ouvriers 
 francs 
 autres 
 
 OWNIBIHIP 
 
 or Muips. 
 
 Authoritiet. 
 Cbabiis VL 
 
 vacquent 
 ment ou bien de Nous et de la chose publicque, et pour ce so inettci t en 
 peril d'estre dcsheritez ot mors continuelieme.it ; et avec ce, d'nbond nt, 
 quo los diz Marchans, Ouvriers et autres personnes desausnommez, jui 
 Tacqueront aux ouvraiges desdictcs Mynes, soient preservez et p;ardez do 
 toutes offenses, griefs et molestacions indeues, iceulx MarchanM, Maistres, 
 Ouvriers, Gouverneurs et Gardes, ouvrans et besoignians pour la ditte euvre 
 avons prins ut mis, prenons et mettons par la teneur do ces pre ntes, en 
 nostro protections especial, sauvegarde et sauf conduict, k la coi vacion 
 de leurs droictz tant seulement ; ensemble leurs ferames, families, sui viteurs, 
 biens, meubles et heritaiges quelzconques estans esdiz Baillages de Mascon 
 et Seneschauk'io de Lyon, et autre part en et partout nostredict Royaume. 
 Si donnons en mandement au Bailly de Mascon, Seneschal do Lyon, et 
 4 tous noz autres Justicjers et Offlciers de nostredict Royaume, ou k leurs 
 Lieuxtonans, et i, chascun d'eulx, si comme k luy appartiendra, que nostra 
 present Edi,'*: Sfatut, Loy et Ordonnance Koyaux, et nostre presente sauve- 
 garde et K, v. fi-iJuict, ils facent crier et publior en et par tousles li ux 
 desdiz Bairi.rtgo U Seneschnucie, et ailleurs oil il appartiendra et requis en 
 serori^, r, r<:>sirt Jict Royaume ; en deffendant de par Nous k tous 4 qui 
 il apptiiiicviffb ■(, aur grans peines 4 applicquer k Nous, que aux dessusdiz 
 Marchanus «■' JCaistres, propriotaires, Ouvriers et autres personnes quelz- 
 conques ouvrans et besoignans esdictes Mynes, no meffacent on actemptent, 
 ne souflFrent meffaire ou attempter en corps ne en biens, en qi Ique maniero 
 que ce soit, contrO la teneur de ces presentes; mais Ics maintiennent et 
 gardent les dessusditz, ia libertey et franchises dessusdictes, -ans venir no 
 souflHr estre venu par aucuns au contraire en quelque maniero que ce soit, 
 Boit par opposition, appellacion ou autrement : CAr ainsi le voulons et Nous 
 plaist estre fait pour consideracion des choses dessusdictes ; nonobstant 
 quelzconques Ordonuances, Constitucions, Stille, Usage ou Statut de pays, 
 et Lettres subreptices impetr6es ou k impetrer au contraire. Et que ce soit 
 chose ferme et estable k tous puis. Nous avons fait moctre nostre Seel k ces 
 
 Eresentes Lectres : sa0p en autebs choses nostre droiot, et L'AUTRUY. 
 lonn6 k Paris, le XXXe jour de May, Tan de grace mil iiij & xiij., et de 
 nostre Regno le xxxiij. Ainsi sign6. Par le Roy, le Confesseur, le Sire de 
 Savoisy, Messire Girard de Graireval et plusieurs autres, presens Bordes. 
 
 Pwnch'jnri'sts »CC. o4, How little the most eminent French 
 
 *f *h °°5*H°*' ♦'^"'^8*^ ^^ *^^ l^s* century knew of the Ordinances of the 
 naice? French Kings is strikingly illustrated by a written opinion 
 
 delivered in 1767, by three eminent French Counsel, M. M. 
 Elie de Beaumont, Target and Ronchet. That opinion is 
 extracted from the Beg. Francais, letter G^ P. 260, and is 
 found at P. 256 and seg., of a ^Return to an address of the 
 Legislative Assembly of Canada, of the 29 August, 1851, and 
 
- 91 - 
 
 pi-intcd in book-form at Quebec by .:. E. FK-chette in 1862 
 The opinion poes on to state : 
 
 The Patents of Concession contain the following 
 clause : " on conditiuii of giving notice to His MaiV.ty of 
 " Mines and minerals, if any diould be ft; and in th. said 
 
 " concohsion." 
 
 "Ill the case submitted it is asked Jaer tli's 
 
 clause IS to be understood as constituting th iving joint 
 proprietor of the Mines and mineralfi whicli mav be found 
 upon the property grants J, or merely as showiiig a desire, 
 on^ the part of His Majesty, to bo inforiiied of their 
 existoiico, in order to have it m his power to provide for 
 the securitv of these treasures, and protect them from 
 conquest, )r the benefit of the state; and whether, under 
 any circumstances, the King would not owe the Grantee 
 an indemnity, or be held to give him a considerable share 
 in the profits of the Mines ; or whether the proprietor of 
 Me Wis not, in -firtue of his title to it, proprietor of 
 the Mines also, and whether companies could be formed 
 with privilege or otlurwise, who could dispute his right. 
 
 ' Tlie Counsel nswer that tills question also ought 
 to be decided by tht Laws of France, according to what 
 has been said aiiove. Now by the Ordinance ot^CuAKLEs, 
 the sixth, of the 30th May 1413, which is the most ancient 
 Law we have c<H!cerning this matter: "Gold Minks 
 " belong to the K ,g, and to him, and not to any other, 
 " belongs the tenth part of all metals when purified and 
 * refined, without being bound to pay any thing, but 
 " only to protect the workmen." This Ordinance styles 
 the parties, masters of the soil, and proprietors of the 
 Mines. 
 
 Such was those three gentlemen's ignorance of the con- 
 tents of the Ordinance above quoted in full, that they have 
 put into the King's mouth those words not to be found in the 
 Ordinance : " gold- Mines belong to the King.'' How those 
 gentlemen could have imagined those words to be found in 
 the Ordinance is a mystery to the Plaintiffs ; such ignorance is 
 the more impardonable, as by looking into Denisarfs collec- 
 tion, vbo. Mines, just then published, they might at once have 
 learned that the Ordinance, though silent eo nomine as to gold, 
 includes it in the general designation oi other metals, and that 
 the reason given by Denizart for such silence eo nomine is 
 not the true one, as will be seen hereafter. 
 
 OWNIRSBIP 
 
 or MiNM. 
 
 Aulhoriliet. 
 Ignoranct of 
 Frtneh ju- 
 rists at to 
 eontenit of 
 that Ordman- 
 ce. 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.1 
 
 !» m ■2.2 
 
 20 
 
 14.0 
 
 L25 HI 1.4 
 
 I 
 
 1.6 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STMIT 
 
 WIBSTIR,N.Y. USM 
 
 (71«)I72-4S03 
 
 

 <( 
 
 .^" 
 
— 92 — 
 
 11 ' 
 
 i: 
 
 ] 
 
 OVllKRSItl? 
 
 or Mma. 
 Authoritit*. 
 COABLU VI. 
 
 iDferencM 
 ttata that 
 Ordinance. 
 
 Tho same three Counsel, after qtiotlnff other Ordinancefr 
 and Arrets du Conseil, decide the question of the owuor.ship 
 of silver and all other Mines, excepting gold, in a sonso 
 unfavorable to the de Lkny-Patenteea ; and they i)rocecd to 
 say: 
 
 " Such is the Public Law of France with respect to 
 Mines, and such is the reason of the obligation to give 
 notice to His Ma,iesty of Mines and Minerals, not thit the 
 King may at once become the rmsler ofthem^ but tiiat He 
 mav exercise over them, according to their nature, the 
 rights arising from the Laws of the Kingdom." 
 
 Sec* 85. From that Ordinance of Ohablks VI, 
 
 we therefore gather : 
 
 FiBSTLY : That tho Ordin<mce applies to the Kingdom 
 GENERALLY, and to sHoer-Mmes, and to all othbe Mine»^ not 
 even excepting gold ; because tho words are : " enplusieura 
 " lieux de nosire Royaume *** y a plusieura Mynes cT Auoent, 
 " depldfnh et de cuivre, et d'autres MfeTAUx ****** e« (jui'lle,f 
 " mymn kt autrks queloonques estant en nostre dlt Rmjaume . 
 " vova avoiiH et devona avoir, et d noua et non a avtre npptir- ' 
 '■'■ tient la dlxieme partie" And the Sovereign gives as tlie 
 " source of his right : " d cause de nostre Souverainete et 
 " Majeste Royale.'^ Tlie words : aU other Mines whatever 
 must assuredly bo held to include qold- Mines: moreover 
 the injuction laid on ail his oflScers, throughout the King- 
 dom to see to its execution, proves the Law to be one of 
 general a|>j)lication ; and it was enregistered in all the Parlia- 
 ments of I ranee. It seems to the Plahititfs that nothinjr can 
 bo clearer. 
 
 Seconoly. That the Ordinance recognizes the owner nf 
 the soil as the owner of t/ie Mine. Because no one, surely, 
 will pretend that the King claims the ownership of the Mine, 
 in view of the fact that he only claims one-tenth of the refined' 
 metals extracted. Tho Sovereign merely says : " d Nous et 
 '* non d autre appartient la DixiiME partie purifiee de tous 
 " m6taux " in all the Mines of the Kingdom. He does not 
 SAY : " d Nova appartiennent U» mynes " ; noi noEs He 
 " STATE : " a Nous appartient l^or." Moreover the King, by 
 " these words : " Ft pour ce afin que dorcsnavavt leu war- 
 " chanda et Maistkes des tr^s-fonds et des Mines qui font 
 " ouvrer, etc., etc.. etc.," clearly shows that the inoUre du tres- 
 fonds " (or owner of the soil) is one and the same person with 
 
 
— 93 — : 
 
 Nc»i /»«/*^.e ,/es trez-fom, et maistrea dea Mines ; but the «'=«"• 
 words: MauircsiJeatrezfonsetdea Mmua." shew hi ra to be ^'''**'<^- 
 maare of the one and the otlier. For ratifications of that 
 Ordinance by Chaklks VII, on the Ist July, by CiiARwa Vm, 
 n Febnary, U83 by LodisXII, in Juno, 1498, by FsansoisI 
 MimiT^ ' ' ''° J'*^^' ^^' ^^' 3^ ^* 41 of MmBs et 
 
 ^>eC. OO. — If any doubt could possibly remain in LonuXl. 
 one 8 nnnd, after reading' tlie Ordinance of Chables VI, as to 
 ,^oid bomp: on precisely the same footing as silver and other 
 n;etal8,tliose doubts will miickly vanish on perusal of the follow- 
 vfrS^'i"""^^''? ^^^^ ^k *«.!>«. ft>3ind at P. 446 of Volume 
 
 ^ . a conti- 
 ! collection 
 Brequigny : 
 
 OilDONNANCE du Roi mr VEtphltation da Minet dam U Soyaume. 
 
 nrAci"^^?* ^'*'" ^ ^""^^ ^ ^*'"'' ^^ '"^ France, tifavoir Jauont k tous „ . 
 presens et advcnir, yue comine nous nvons cKto deuement advertis ct infor- •'••''to? exist- 
 mes que en nosroyaume, Dauphine, Con.tos dc Valentinois, Diois, Rossillon T^ °^ T'^' 
 bardn.gne ct 4s jnontagnes de Catalogn. et As marches ,1'environ, y a 'irtu^ 
 
 ' . T"* '"***'"" "" ""'^'^'■^''' '««q"'^11^8. par d.fta,.t d; conduito d'ouvriers 
 oltTT ^''"f ^''.P'''"'^ ^* connoissans en telles niatidro«, et dcs edicts et 
 n?, nf ^" f ^* ortlonnances convenables et n6ceH«iires pour rentremecto- 
 iiicnt d iceulx, sont et dernourent en chonnnage et do nul effet ct valeur • et 
 nous ait estc romonstre que si voulonsfmre besongner esdictes Mines, ainsy 
 «,^ TJ'l V t n P'"'*"^">-s/"t™H royaumes et parties dc la Ghrestient6, comrne 
 rJT V^"°'n''g"f. ds royaumes de Ilongrie, Bolien.e ; oulogne! Anglo- 
 tcrrc etailIours,etfairec8diot8, ordonnanccs et constitutions pour mccU-o sua 
 nlnl'r •. 7 • '1 "".""'K'^. "insi nu'iJ c«t esditcs royaun.cs et contrees, il en 
 vZ. !^ advenir plusieurs grans biens, utii.tes et prouflit k noun, nosdicts 
 loyaume, Uauphm6 et autros pardossus nommez ct subjects d'icculx et 
 que, en Mettaut do pourvoir k ceschoses, nous et nosdicts subjects y avons 
 do grands dommaigcs, et se vuide chamin jour Vor et V argent de ru^ndictM 
 loyavme Dauphm6, pays et lieux dessusdicts, sans y retourner. dont se 
 pourroitensuir la totalle ruine et destruction d'iceux, si provision n'estoit k 
 cy par nous donn^e, par quoy l'o:i et l'argbnt ainsy traiuparti puisse 
 ['ntiKf •"" lr'*"* '^^•^ royaume, Dauphin^ ct aatres pays dcssus nomm6s, et 
 1 ut^ite pubhcqued'iceulx ot presorvacion dcs dommnges et interests que ont 
 souttcrtjusqu a ce te hcure par doffautde ladicte provision toutes maniorcs 
 do gens, tant d esgUse que nobles, bourgeois, marcl.nnds, gens mecaiiiquefi. 
 laboureurs et autres demeurans esdicts pays, laquelle chose, comnie avons 
 esio on oultrc inform6s. ne se peat mie^ix nc par meilleur moyen rcdrker que 
 parjatre ouvrer eadictts Mines, qu'elUs soient oavertes, one Voutruige »e 
 continue ainsy que en tcl cas appnrticnt, ct que faisions ccrlains esdicts, 
 
i!i» 
 
 OWMBSRIP 
 
 or UiNk . 
 
 AutKoriii'i. 
 Loots Xi. 
 
 Oranti, to 
 miners, cer- 
 tain «iamp- 
 tions, 
 
 And pririle- 
 ges, 
 
 And pro\ec- 
 tion in case 
 of war, 
 
 — 94 — 
 
 constitutions ct ordonnnnceg pour ce convonnbles tt nficossnires, et, en m- 
 fa\*ant, to it «« l'ahoknt en teroit ef m reconr^reroU eriJemment en plus 
 graniU qtumtite »an» '•omparauion en no»diet» royaume, pays ct siogncurics, 
 qu il tie fnict k prfisent, et si auroiit iios inonnoyes, qui Hont la pluspart on 
 choinnmigo, Inrgomcnt A besoij^ncr, ct tfenpandroit Vor et F argent par let 
 boursi'jt, ety nuroiont tous ct chnciin en son endroit graiide utility etproiifHt, 
 
 Eour losqucllos chnses et Inquello inatidro avoir ot sortir son ctt'ect, soit 
 osoin de fairo lesdictis constitutions ct or.lonnances notables toilcs que la 
 rnatiflre le requiort, qui Koicnt solo'iiielloraent cri6u8 par nosdicts royaumo, 
 l)auphin6, Valontinoi>, Diois, Ros lion, Surdaignc, pays ot lieux dcvant 
 diets, A CO que nosdicts subjects ct aussy ics cstrangiers ayent cognoissance de 
 nostrodicte volonto ct intention en cctte partic, ct comme chawun en son 
 ondroit so y aura k gouverner : pour ee e»t-il que noun, voulans par effect 
 pourvoir aux choscs dessusdictes par i'advis et deliberation dcs gens d« 
 nostre grant Conseil et aiitres notables homines expors et connoissans on 
 tcllesmatiires, ct pour le bicn et utilitfi do nosdicts royaume, Dauphino, pays 
 et hcux que dossus et dcs subjects d'icoulx, avoiu/aU, eonttitue et establv, 
 ct par la teneur de ces prc8cntc8,,/(«WOT«, ordonnona, eoiutituons et entablu- 
 $ons par osdict solennel, les statuts, ordonnances ct declarations qui 
 sensuivent. 
 
 PREMiftREiiBNT. Quc tous Ics marchands et maistres qui fairont ouvrer 
 les dictes Mines k Icurs propres counts, frais et despens, et fairont feu, lieu 
 et residence sur lesdictos Mines et Martin«.l, ou leurs desput6s, ou les fondeurs 
 ct afflneurs, et tous aucu.is ouvriers mineurs, et autrea qui te mederont de 
 fatre la manautre dee dictee Minee en qoELguB ESPicE que ce soit, estran- 
 giers et non natifs de nos royaume, Dauphin*, Vali-ntinois, Diois, Coint6 do 
 Rossillon, Sardaignc, ct lieux devant diets, qui vicndront ou sont ja demou- 
 rans do nosdicts royaume, Dauphine et lieux dovant diets, et so employcront, 
 besongneront etcontinueiont lesdictos marclip'- "''■■s et ouvraigcs, fcroni toite 
 ct deinourront quiets, fr^n/^s et exempt*, pe) M durant le tempn q,Cil* 
 
 besongneront eadieteit Mines, d'icy k vingt at. jrs, k compter du jour ot 
 
 datto des dictes prcsentes, de toutes Hailles, aydes, aubautancee, immai- 
 tiona,franca-archiera, guet, garde, port,', de cille, et autrea charges ot aulven- 
 tuma qtieheonqvea. 
 
 (2) Item. Et avoc ce, voulons ot nous plaist, et ausdicts ostnmgiora 
 ftvons octroyd ct octroyons par ccsdictcs pr6scntcs, qu'ils joyssent de tels pri- 
 vileigcs, franchises et iibeit6s, soicnt comme naturalises, facent testament, 
 acquisition de biens mcubles ou immeublcs, donations, transports ot dispo- 
 sitions d iceulx biens, ot que leurs onfants ct plus proehains lignaiges puis- 
 sent succcder ct recueillir leurs successions soit tcstats ou intestats, commo 
 8 lis eatoient natifs de nosdicts royaume et pays de Dauphino, Valentir.ois, 
 Diois, Rossillon, Sardaigne ct autres lieux devant dicts.'Jou qu'ils eussent 
 grace ctlectresdenatuialit6de nous en la forme et manidro accoustumees 
 en tel cas, veriffioca et cxpedi6es ainsv qu'il appartient, sans ce qu'ils soiont 
 tonus do prendre do nous no d'autrcs nos offlcicra autres Icctrea do naturalitd 
 et grace, ou en requerir I'enterinement ne veriOication, fors seulcment le 
 vidimus do ccs presentes faict soubs seel royal, avcc la cortifflcation du 
 general maistre gouverneur et visiteur desdictes Mines ou sou lieutenant, 
 appel6 * ce nostro procureur, lesqudles lour voulons valoir et sortir lour 
 ploin effect en toutes les cho'">s dessusdictes, tout ainsy quo si eulx et un 
 chascun d'eulx avoient Icsdictes Icctres do naturalito et grace do nous 
 veriffiecs et expcdi6es, ainsy qu'en tel cas appartien. do faire. 
 
 (3) Itpm. Et en oultie, pour plus grando seurete d'iceux ct de chascun 
 d eulx, Icur avons octroy* et octroyons par ccs prcsentes qu'ils puissent estro 
 
— 05 — 
 
 et domourer scurcinent en nosdictsroyaume ot pays de Dauphin^. Valcnlinois 
 D.oiH,Ro88ilon,Sardnignc,„.ontagne8do Catalogne et £ Sches Tnvi! 
 ron, pour us causes que dessim, nonobstant quelzconques jruerres on 
 
 !ll~^ .y "^"**''^' *'**"'' <=" rctourner quand bon leur seinhk-ra. 
 pourveu qu'.Ia ne feront ne pourchasseront no seront tronvis avoir fnW 
 SSe rvl.l""""^"*'"'' Pr6judicmble k nou«, A la chose pnbl cque de 
 nostre royaume ou k nos pays et sub ects, et qu'ils aient cong6 de justico et 
 
 ittSr^oUrSTre^"""^"'-''* ^'«'^"^ '^^^^'^^^ *^'"-'- <^« - 
 COMMANDEMENT rf« jmr NOUS d <o«* wt<^c qui oHt co^pwim^ncede^ i^^ 
 
 B8TAN8 EN LEU.« TEURITOIKES ET »^myK^O^i, que, Opvd qvZ^ £r,m^ 
 
 ledictcry et publication, ils tiennent reveUr' it denmJ au yemrlZStre 
 
 wtm tt aux bailhfs, seneschaux, gouverneurs et autres nos ofMciors de In 
 junsd.ct.on desquelles losdits territoires sont, Us Mhu, ?« SrS en tlvt 
 
 D.CT8 TEKKIT0.RK8 et quelle, elle* 80nt, snU PEraE DE PEKDKE LE PROlFm 
 
 gn'u,8 EN PouKRONT AVOIR JUSQUES A DIX ANS, ZautrementtelZ 
 amendeoupeinequeparnos.lUt.oJficur^. ,,, ^^^^^^ maiZetgouTe^leif^ 
 tmt^r desdicUs Mines ou son lieutenant sera advise, leque., General 
 
 MAISTBE OOUVERNEtB ET nsiTEUH DESD.CTES M1NK8 OUSOn lieutm^Uy 
 POORRA COJIMECTRE OENS ID0INB8 ET SUFHSANS Un OU plusUuTS ai,m aue U 
 
 ^Jerequerra etquHl ven-a estre d /aire, et au surplus commeTsSc^ 
 Mines se pourront m.eux conduire k nostre proufflt et au bien d'iwulx et 
 
 ttt-Sp'LTsVedlir '* ^'^^^^ P"*^"^^- '' -^^^'* -^--' 
 
 ^ne!So^,n ^!^^ t=TXS:irs!i::£^i:s^z 
 
 aueom,nandement^'4susdiet, s, ains. est one d^evx mesmes ils veu.S:nt 
 
 ENTREPKENDRE LA CONDCITE Di; BESONONKR E8DICTE8 M.NES et dv faireZ 
 
 Qutappartimt par Ci^ytiet deliberation du dit general nuiistrt oide Z. 
 
 soiENT KECEUs OU suFFiSANT pat rejmtation pour h pouvoir faire et conduire 
 SERA DONN- UiTme de tmis mois apris Ics quarante jours lesstis dkt^lovk 
 
 Mr,T„'^ P«'PARAT,ONS DE CE QO'.L LKUr' FAUDRA POUR LB FA.CT WdKSSS 
 
 MiNEs^sans que pendant led.ct temps aucune vexation, travail ou dommai^ 
 leur so t donno pour non avoir besongn6 jusqu'audict temps esdictes Minis. 
 
 <«t»rfo e«rri<(,»rfl auqual seront ou jd ont este trouvSes lesdictes Miim\i 
 80.ENT RICHES rr PDiMANs, /wur^Moy d leurs despens ils puissent fo,ire et 
 conduire Udtct tracatl et m ^muvre desdictes Minis, ou qui par autieZmt 
 tls m voudrotent pas prendre la charge de ce faire, ct qu'ils N'AURAiENrp^ 
 BiVBL* LES DES8USD.CTE8 MiNEs dMaw quarautc jours, ainsy que dessus 
 est ordonn6, NOUS voulons et ordonnons en outre esdkts cZ Td Sun 
 asm, que le dtet matstre general, ou son lUuUnant, ou autres nos oMeiers 
 qui pour ce seront dappeUr puissent, saulve Vindemniti de celuy ou decern) 
 amsquels apparttendra leaiet territohe, ordonner etcommectregms notables 
 experts et connoumm esdictes matures de Mines, pour voir, chercher et 
 
 wT/^;;j^/^T'*i,r'"'"'*"*^^.f'(? »««« et quelmetall elles ports- 
 rmt et Putthts et prom 1^ vraysemblahlement en pent adtenir, et, ce faict 
 }Lt?T^^ V' ^'^'f eomnissaires, Usdicts general malstre L S 
 h^tanantappellesnosduits officers et .iutres qui sur ce neront d appeller 
 poummtjatrefnanauvreretlesotigner esdictes Mints et les baillerd gen's 
 
 OwNliHRIP 
 
 Authoritiet, 
 LoDu XI. 
 
 Orders diselo* 
 sure of exist- 
 ence of 
 Mines, undtr 
 pmaiiy of lo- 
 BTwo Irn ytarSf 
 
 PROFITS of 
 
 Mine ; not to 
 discl'ijed, 
 
 Invert* party 
 discl->sing 
 Mine with 
 exclusive 
 right to work 
 it, 
 
 And, on refa- 
 •al of owner 
 of Boi , subro- 
 gates seignior 
 foneitr, after 
 partina heL ^, 
 
p; 
 
 It, ^ 
 
 r 
 5 ',' 
 
 r T 
 
 II 
 
 ^1 
 
 OwMRflllp 
 
 or MtNi8. 
 Authoritift, 
 Lovia XI. 
 
 And, 01 rrCu 
 Ml of both 
 owner rdiI 
 seiKDior/on> 
 eier, gubroga- 
 tes sei^Toioi' 
 naerain, 
 
 Diipoaei of 
 Mines in 
 Royal Do- 
 main, 
 
 ProTidea for 
 salary and 
 expense* of 
 Inspector of 
 Minef, 
 
 — 00 — 
 
 reeean* et wlmhle* teh qu'iU adrheront eitre A faire pour let falrc profRter' 
 au mtevx que poMihU ncm, m nmiK pii;/ai)t unMre dixicme jxiiir Ir droit dts 
 noafreHoiioaraiiietS, rt <nu Sciffi/,nirtt t reifonciei-H Uur portion qu'ih rerroiU 
 eatredfaire, soit d'lin dij-iesme, demij-di.rie»me, ou autre gommc pbiHomnde 
 ou plug petite, M^on la quant ite et raleur dea dieter Mine*; toutksfoih 
 
 N0U8 ENTKNOONS ET DECLAKONS PAR CESDICTES I'HESENTES jri/« C^UXnuin'aU- 
 
 ront recele et denmtce lex ifiue* qui mtt en leurs territoires dedam let 
 quarante joun, ain»y que dwmun eat diet, hekdhont le prouffit que leur 
 en pourm advenir, pouk tel tbjcps que hkra Anvisfi, pRONONcfi et TAixfi 
 2)ar lesdictH mautre general ou nan lieutenant, nostre procureur d <;<■ appelle. 
 
 (7) Item. Et « aimy estait que, nprds la dicte denonciaticin faicto ot 
 les ditM quarante jours et temps dessus dcclair6s passfis, touchant Ich Mines 
 qui Hcront ds torritoires dcsRcns particuliors, ceux A qui sont les diets terri- 
 
 _ ttnres n y TowlrontoH nurnnt puissance iPy hewngner, ainsi que densus est 
 diet, et qu U y aura aueun geigneur fewlal ou souverain k <iui Hcra ledict 
 tcn-itoiro qut jicnne jmndre la charge de conduire Udict ouvraige et 
 manauTtre desdtctes Mines commo oust pu faire ccluy a qui est Ic diet terri- 
 toire, en iceluy cas NOUS vorhoss, consextons et accordons awlicts 
 seigneurs que, trou moisaprin Imlicts quarante jours, iU se puisstnt presen- 
 ter ou faire presenter demnt ledict maistre general ou son lieutenant ou 
 autres offlciers dessusdiefs. pour keql'erir d'estre su iHoa(5s en i.a pi vcb 
 et au droit touchant ksdictes Minm l)K SON VASSAL ET rihject et 
 Uquely voulons esty reeeu et subroge par ces prescntes, nwyennant one 
 leadicts ainsi subrogesgarderontet ohserteront Vefet et contenu deeespre- 
 aentes ordonnances, et quHls s'obliffcront d'entreienir et eontinver ledict 
 ouvraige, et manepuvre, cmtne, eumntjaict et deub faire ceux d qui lesdUts 
 tenttotres sont et nppartiennent. 
 
 (8) Item. Et en tnnt que louche les territoirts qui sont d nous nue- 
 n^m, esquelJi lesdictes Mines seront oujd out cste trourees, NOUS vouions 
 ET OKDONNONs qve icelles Mines soimt faieten, conduittes et manwuvrees 'et 
 qu on les battle auplu»ofrant et dernier encherissenr, au mieux ct le plus 
 prouffiUiblement A nostre prou-ffit et advantaige q ue faire se pourra. 
 
 (9) Item. Et pour ce qu'il conviondra faire piusieurs frais et mises 
 tant aux deigncurs fonciers commo aux raarchaiids et autres qui prendront la 
 charge et conduitc des susdicts oiivraiges et manoeuvre dcsdictcs Mines et 
 que bien souvent y advicnnent et eschoient piusieurs grands dangicrs, perils 
 et domnnaiges, nous desirans que Voutiraige et manmuvre deAdictes Mines 
 soit conduit n entretenu, et qu'il y soit soigneusement, et en grande cure et 
 dtligence mivreetmanwuvre,et que lesdicts fonciers et autres marchatida 
 ayant plus grand vouloir, nfeetion, et Tolante d^y bewigner, tacquer et 
 enUndre, et prreillement le dit general maistre, son lieutenant et autres nos 
 offlciers qui out, et auront la charge do besongner et faire bcsongncr esdictes 
 matidres esquolks f-.udra piusieurs voyages ct depenses, & ceste cause soient 
 plus enclms k eux employer esdictes mati^res et y vacquer diligcmment ct 
 entendre, et nos droits garder esdictes Mines, nous avons, de nostre plus 
 ample grace, octroye etoctroyons par cesdictcs presentes, que tout le prouffit 
 qui nous pourrait competer et appartenir, du jour et datte do la publication 
 de cesdictes precjntes, k cause do nostre dixiesme desdictes Mines pour le 
 deub do nostro souverainete, jusqu'A douze ans prochain venant, soit et 
 vienne au prouffit dudit general mnistro et visiteur desdictes Mines pour ses 
 gaiges, salaires, voyages et despenses qu'il y foudra faire, et k son lieutenant 
 general et autres ses lieutenans particulicrs, nos procureurs, gardes et 
 offaciers desdictes Mines, et autres qui s'y employeront par I'ordonnance 
 desoicts maistres et visitcur general et ses lieutenans et autres oflBclers, i 
 
^<^£^Z£^^£'^'-f'^ f-opour »ectre s«r Ow..„h„ 
 
 son lieutenant advisera cstro 4 ^'0 eu XrH / p "^ dcsdictcs Mines ou Loou XI. 
 Bux frais, luises ct desncnso^ m « A L..^ ^ . ' ""^'•'"«« 1« "s feront, et 
 (10) Item VmF/nT> ^ , * ^""'^ '^"'"'"J '•^"'' conviendra faiae. 
 
 fom«i« a«x^ww^mXa>r,t«l!! :, "on lieutenant etcommu, etpareiU 
 
 royaume, Dauphin6, Vale.Sot ^ im„if p fl*"*. '^f''"''"'''' '^^ ""'^'c^ 
 mntagnes de OataloRnoVt &ches JenvH^^f '^•|. ^''^^'^^ S'"'^'">« 
 
 ouvrir sang faire inderapnUrdefCiDri^tifrL T^^*" *''°"'''''"' ** ''^«"«« 
 
 ordonnanccs, sansqu'ilsoithp«„nl r ^- i 1".*®"°"'" ''^ "s presentes 
 
 taires trcftbnciers no Uutresaurrnn.f °"^^ ''* ''*=""" *" "^''^t' P^pri^- 
 estre donn6 aucun desfoSeroiTnTeyn,^^^^ I'^^^thoHoI pSisso 
 
 BIOTS MAI8TKES MINEUHS KT mTro,.^^'^ "'®"*' POUUVEU QUE QUAND LKS- 
 
 tear eidictes Mines, ou son liLt ^„, /«. * '^'^"^'"''^ J7<>ttrmic«r «<tm- 
 
 hautS, moyeretbasfusteerrtubr.!''"'-T:'-'^ «*"^'«" «» '^»««y leS 
 lesdictes Mines aurS csti trj^v^^^^^^ «^nT'''"'-"'" '^M-ir*""" «le«q"els 
 auxdictsouvriers, inaSSdret ma?stres desdicL?Ml„?«"''''"* ** '^''''^'•^"* 
 payant juste ct raisonnnhl« nriv "r^^.*^^ aesdictes Mines, moyennant etpar 
 
 neces^iresaux diets maistrL<f IZ J.""«'''<^"ons et toutcs autres choses 
 que ^ar iceux^Ltttes^eToJ^rie^Xr ^nffeL^^ ^"T-'p. ainsy 
 
 requis sans contredict ou difflcultraurnn« ^ ■ ^'''*°"'"''8^ '^"'' ««'" 
 niouvaitentrenosdictsofflcie«TwS ' -^ " ^"'''"°" ou debat s'es- 
 part, ct les diets ouvHerfmnr^hL-?*^ Hcigneurs et treffonciers d'une 
 causes cy-dossu, ou nour I t^ ' ?" T'^f."^ '''""^''^ P«rt. ?««"• »e8 
 n.ai«tre gLerlloi son Ktenant'^en sur o« ? ' ^^T^t des parties, Icdiet 
 
 cbal ou son lieutenant! ou aufre ^ostre nfus nl?h •'''• "°'*'.' ^'""^' ««"««• 
 autre chose dont pour^oit estrl nnn^fi^n i . P'^o<='"»»" J"«e du territoire ou 
 teront comme en ?oStJoit fahS In oZ V* "*"?° dessusdicte, en appoinc 
 puisseappelerouSSe/rau"^^^^ ^' ce que de c*; Tea 
 
 res pour trouver kStes MhiP, ^lii ? ^^°''' *J,"' '°"* «* ««"•<>"* necessal- 
 conLencer les ou?:? te "eS^'r" '„.^ t ^^^^ »«« o"-*iges. 
 
 peuvent survenir fniro vn.vw »* „ * . . ?"*'^®^ empcschemcnts qui y 
 
 leiges des m^-Srlrofflcit t oS^^^^^^^ '' garderles JrivJ: 
 
 accorder. appointor par laToye jud.Se amiab /«Jf'^"'™"* '' "PP"''^"-' 
 debats et questions qui Douironf pL^Io ?f = ! ^^ '^""^ ^« P^"t» ^"s lea 
 
 ^^ p--r .„ ~}-s«K, prcSwtlw ^OLS tMaOltb, CBioMS MTA- 
 
• ; 
 
 .1 
 
 I' 
 
 I !l'IE 
 
 Owi>in«Rip 
 
 or MlHKM. 
 
 AtUkoriliM, 
 Lot' IS XI. 
 
 — 08 — 
 
 BMHRovs BT coNSTTTUONS tnautre, vrnteur et gouvemeur etjuge de (outet If 
 <iue»Uo„» et di'baUqui se pourraient mouroir tutre qnfUcouque* penuiumiti d 
 C'lim flmltftcH Mine», coit en niatidru civile ou criminello iioii requmnt 
 punition corporollo jusqu'A la mort inclusivemont, sans ce nii'autrc qu'iccluv 
 sinon cHt do sa fuuto et par sa doinfiiiro, depuiH quo lo cas Hcrait vcnu k si 
 oonnoissnitco, en puifwo avoir ou pr6tondro cour on connoi.ssnncc, 8oit au 
 C118 .10 battures, vilaines injuroH, ou autre debat cntre icellus parties, ou en 
 matitJrc civilo pour lo debat qui pourioit cstrc ontre Icwiictcs parties & causo 
 du terntoiro ou du bail et prix dosdictes Mines, ou do nostro droict ou de 
 ccluy quo leu partioN pourraicnt pretendre, loit d eauM de rouvratge ou du. 
 terntoire ou du »eigneur fancier, ouvrier» ou autrftrunt, en quelquc inaniire 
 queceioU, H\y>i que d'icetuymnistro general ut pouvernuur ou son lieute- 
 n(int/>MM«<! eMtre appele no reclame en auouno nianidre, et que sk appel* en 
 ESTAiT, youlons et deffondons qu'aucun ajoumement en caa d'appcl on soit 
 baill6, et s il estoit ninsy qu'on lo baillast, f>ouhn» qiCil ne tortmenon effect 
 etquil nijtoit obey w obtemperi en aueune raaniire et sans amende 
 ESCBiTfi touUfoia des catuca et matUre» qui p^turroient toucher la proprieto 
 deti jetgneun foneiert, t'aueun debat ietmouroit entre cux d cauie dea 
 tretfonde, et los dicta cas et orimos roquerans punition corporelle jusqu'A la 
 mort inolusivoniont, dont voulona que la eonnoitmnee demeure d not baillifa 
 eencicfiaux et auxjuget ordinairea, ain^y qu'il eatoit auparavant, pourveu 
 toutesJois quo, so question ou debat s'esmouvoit entre lesdicts soicneurs 
 pour los causes que.dossus, I'ouvraigc n'cn soit point retardino discontinue • 
 auqiiol cas, pour y faire ouvror duoment, sans le prejudice du droict des 
 parties et dcs procds, nous donnons pouvoir audict maistre general visiteur 
 ct gouvernour dcsdictes Mines, ou son lieutenant commis ou k commeetrc 
 nppell6 ledict jugo ordinaire, d'y faire ouvrer et besongner ainny qu'ilH 
 verront cstro A faire au bicn do nous et de la chose publicque do nostro 
 royaume ct pays que dessus, ct nonobstant lesdicts proces qui pourroient 
 estro entre lesdictes parties & causo desdicts treffonds et quelzconnues 
 oppositions ou appellations faitcs ou k faire au contraire, nuxqucilcs on cc 
 cas nu voulons aucunoment estro obey neobteinper6 comnio dessus. 
 
 Si donnons en mandement par ccs mesmes prescntes, k nos amez et 
 foaulx conscillers les gens do nos cours de parlemcnt de Paris, Toulouse 
 Foictiers, Grenoble, et Perpignan, aux gouverneurs du Languedoc, Dauphino' 
 ct Kossillon, les gens de nos comptes et tresoriers et generaux Conscillers 
 par nous ordonnis sur le faict et gouvernement de toutes nos finances tant 
 en Languedoc comme en Languedoil, aux prevost de Paris, bailliffs do 
 Vermandois, d' Amiens, do Senlis, de Rouen, Caen, Evieux, Oesoris, Cons- 
 tentin, de Lyon et des montagnes d'Auvergne, Seneschaux de Poictou et 
 de Limosm, do roulouse, Carcassonne et Beaucaire, et k tous nos autres 
 justiciers et offlcierg ou k leure lieutenans, prosens et advenir, et a chascun 
 d eux SI comme k luy appartiendra, que nos presens statuts, onlonnances ct 
 declMntion et tout le contenu ds articles cy.dessus incorpores ils enterinent 
 Tcnfflent, et enregistrent, et facent enteriner, observer ct garder de poinct en 
 poinct sans enlhundro, en les faisant publier par les maistresdo lours jurisdic- 
 lions 03 hcux oH on a accoustumA do faire cry ot publication et uilleurs oik il 
 appartiendra, aflSn que aucun n'en puisse pretendre cause d'ignorance et k 
 ce faire etsouffrircontraienent et facent contraindre reaument et defeict 
 tous ceux qu'il appartiendra par toutes voyes et manidres deues et requises 
 en tej cas, nonobstant oppositions ou appellations quelzconquea Et pour ce 
 quo do ces presontos on pourra avoir 4 faire en plusieurs lioux, nous voulons 
 que au vidtmya d icelles, faict soubz seel royal, foy soit adjoust^e comme a 
 w present onginaL Et affln que ce soit chose ferme et estoble k tousioors, 
 
— 99 — 
 
 n)(>a(/r«,/r; .,uhua in rotulo hie nub emtra-Himlh reqio nllioato eonUutii, 
 7 uaariiiijcn fe*imo MptiumeMmo-iiuin to, 
 
 riUMi-s ARTici'i,u8.-Touchnntl'excinption de tous wibsidcs- nourvou 
 3m;;;.T„.*!"r'^r""'",'=' quo soiuntgcni qui no «o na-slentStrS 
 tjcrs «u mnrclmnd.sc.. durant lo tcnpH qu'ils vncqueront nu faict dSS 
 
 hi5ri»IrI;'w'.?Ti'*'' ""^'"'••''"f-. n"c les cstrnnRicrs puissent fester et leurs 
 du nSr \"' *«'"'?•:••''"'''•« ""trcH lectrcs fors cestcs et la certimcntron 
 
 no.i.i'^rn!]''" *^"''J'* P^'IT!'* P""^"* demourcr, nonobstnnt los Kuerrcs- 
 
 TJTmV ff«'« ?««ra«<« _;„„« au maistro g6D6ral, sur peine do Derdrp !« 
 K i^'^Z'^"' *"^"" * sescommisou au plus proeharnZe orjreffle? 
 
 ou dc« dona fticw Z .vnM n»2 u S. *' "'"'* '»'' 'y-''"«"t oumto, 
 
 DicmiJ K»„Ww T ./'^'^ "" "" «"«<*»»i"» « •Hires. 
 
 or MiHM. 
 i4 ulhoridtf. 
 Lot- II XI. 
 
 Modifieationt 
 Ijy Parliammt 
 of J'aru. 
 
I 
 
 OwMiMnip 
 or MiHu. 
 Autkoriiua. 
 LovM XI. 
 
 Modifieationt 
 h Parliament 
 lifParit. 
 
 Inferenott 
 from OrdU 
 n»Dc« of 
 LoDu XI. 
 
 STnopiii of 
 proTiiioni of 
 that Ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 — 100 — 
 
 oa n^y a labour, fruiU renn^uJ^i^laZrTInU^^^^^ T'"''-^^ 
 
 MincH, quln.lT nlm'n T aire rrcontril^.'r^ "mna,„vric.r.s .IcHdictcH 
 Mines ou contrntH faicls cntre eux^t nm I . ''"n"' '" '^""' •''''"lictos 
 
 et Cakamaosi «< Domini dejiiraZcTu^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 gentc$mo quiiUo. G. DE LA MARCIIE. ^ntlle»mo quadrin' 
 
 athef ^^' S7.— From that Oidinanco of Lours XI, we 
 
 FmsTLr. Tlmt the Ordinance applies to ifw .nh i 
 kingdom-, because the Sovereign says S^dUtinV 
 
 Secondlv. That its jyrovmona apply to ioLn .rrv. 
 
 and an other metals Thit is evident ffi tho8TwoVd?„sed 
 
 by the Sovereign: « en noa royaume, Dauphinl etl T' 
 
 y apluaieurs Mima d'ob fi'^d'aeoent; TcilVro » * *' 
 
 lesaue es sent et demourent en chommal efP of *' 
 
 anJ BtiU again from the words : " etenTo fSnt '^ ./;'' 
 
 " gent en seroit et se recouvreroit 6videmmpn !.n L ^^T 
 
 ;; quantite, etc etc. "and stilltrthtZm 4^?lrds^r^?l^ 
 
 8 espandroit Vor et Vargent par les bourses." * *^' 
 
 v.^ f^^?; ®^;"T~"-^^*«'' *"e«'ti"g «^c advantages to bo deri- 
 ved from the working of the Minos tlm nr^;T,„„ , 
 
— 101 — 
 
 and g^inf I.-- ^;tu:^^^^^ ;?j^;^ -<^"'^^"^ -;r 
 
 that tha Ord mnco iL f """~? '''''* ^'«^««- To Bay 
 soil as thoownrof?J.o M^ 1^'° --"«•• «*" wi- 
 
 thal which docs not beloni o 1 ,. "7x ^''"* " '""" '".'*•>' '^«« 
 to lo8o the t)rofit« i\Z\!.Tf' ' . "^ ^'"" " '"»" ho euid 
 
 belong oK^tef 2^^^^^^^ dooBnot 
 
 reticoHt owner of tim «. ii Ji ii " ^••J'"«"eo eays that the 
 during ten years doea L '^" 'T ^''" P'"^"^^ ^* '^« ^I'°« 
 often vearrtho',n?nn in "'"'*'^'''''*''^" ""»^ a^er the lapse 
 of thefo'l? ' "'"° "''"" '•^'"^''•^ »^ ^^0 «^'«" reticent owner 
 
 ownefon]Lo'ilXi;rrf''''f'. ^K!^""''' t^'«t' ^f «>o 
 work it, Jto shaU i;a ve tCe a ; S^ '« ^''"'"P t^ 
 
 for that purpofio. *^ '"''''*^ ^'^ preparations 
 
 dient'^owner^of 'the slTwhn'?^ "^f 1" ^''"'^'^^ *>"»' ^^'^ ^'««te- 
 shall nevcrtlieless be InT/^n, •« "f^'" 7 V"7"1"'K to Mork it, 
 of the Mine after s.U t1r"^^'f ' "IV^ ^''•*^" '^*-'«"'"« 'eseized 
 ^^r^^.^:^::^ of Mines 
 
 ofthrowneJ of the'scJil^rn "^^f"-';'^ '^^'^"^^ the position 
 thoMinoT in tLe r«mlt n"'' "** "^'^'* *^ *^»° ownership of 
 
 ;;2u auront p'lSanT^cr;!^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 "toire 7ta i,eWr«r;Jil / T''"' ^ 9'" eora lo dit terri- 
 
 " et accordons auSic « ^^ "' "''"* ^^"^^' consentobs 
 '• diets quarante ^ouis .V^T'"'^' ^"!' *'"°^^ "'^'^ ^P'-^'S l^s 
 " pr^senU dtvant le dio v.; f"''?'^^' i'^^'^^n^e-r, ou fairo 
 ''pour reouiXj>luLl ^^l^t'-e gwi^rafou son Lieutenant, 
 
 those words thnovercS; t^-H) '^'''f^'.'' '^^ «^«^'^«^-" I" 
 the .oil, who is .S^^:XA^ ^J^ ^^ 
 
— 109 — 
 
 Owwmunip 
 or UnMf. 
 AuiHoriti t. 
 UoitJCI 
 
 S/noptfi of 
 praviHont of 
 that Urdl- 
 
 nauce. 
 
 Synopslj of 
 modificationi 
 bjr Purlin- 
 ueat 
 
 OrdiniDce 
 clearly as- 
 signj all iDo* 
 tais to owner 
 of Mil, 
 
 It hTi^^^^^^^^^ nK.t- tm.i.jcrn.,1 from ou.'io Luthwt 
 
 It iH Clear, It Hciim to tlio Pl'imtitis, tli.it tlirv luv thn 
 
 E'hnl'" '^•'' "•" "*'""^ ""^ "' •" othor^notlt 
 
 .tlti; llotic^ "'""^ ' "'"*" »'^iH^'"tio..H Hhull bo pro. 
 
 privat d:>n,ai,r'' "** "'' ''">""'" "*' ^""^ "' ^'-' ^^'"«'« 
 
 Akt; (» bcHfowg bis liovulty of oMotentb for tlio Bpaco 
 
 Slary.^ on the Maiatro do,.erttl doa Mines, in liol, of 
 
 fnr M:„"''' \** ^•-'"'P«^^c" hi8 offlcm to 8oareb every where 
 tl^T' "' '"!.' "^*'^'" ^''' «^ ".odifiodbvthe^PurUH- 
 bS^e.ri.K'''''i^" *''" ro.«ibiIiry,>f the owner of tho .oil 
 Dtin^r depr ved ot any Mine dim.vered by ho Kini^'a 
 otHcen,. wuhout a fair iuden.nitjr not fur the Ji\, but for tf.o 
 
 to the mincm '"•'''"' "" "" ''"'"''^"' *" «'^" «^'^'0' facility 
 mini4twl7ts!' "■"'" '^ ^''''""' ^^'^ ^'- ^'^i-'^l '•» 
 
 OCC. oJ. Tlie nioditicntions introduced into that 
 
 Law by Parlian.eni, in bo far a« thoy afloct this case, aro 
 
 mn„»L V'"""V-" iP^"vr.'s ct rich,) arc bound witliin 4 
 months after notice to them, ri tempore iwtitiw, to declare 
 whether tliov intend working the Aliue. 
 K ?^ •^. persons knowing the oxieteuee of Mines are 
 
 ^°/.?'' '■^^''I *** ^"''^ H Mine, in subrogation to the 
 
 1 ui . ^; ^" *''° presence of this clear, unmista- 
 
 keable declaration of the King as to ihe respective rights of 
 
 >s. 
 
»v (lio King? 
 •i_v II pruvioiiH 
 
 t ti) BllotlllT? 
 
 Uv.y arc tho 
 ur iiiotiilri on 
 
 I)y tlio Kinj;, 
 iiH, npiiroval 
 
 II hIiuiiIiI 1)0 
 
 liiill bo pi'u- 
 
 n the King's 
 
 'or the 8pH(;e 
 i, in liuii of 
 
 vory wlicro 
 tho Pttrlia- 
 
 • of tlio (joil 
 '1>o King's 
 but for tho 
 
 'cry faoib'ty 
 
 (Ji^posiil ot 
 
 I into that 
 io, nro 
 I M'itliiii 4 
 to declare 
 
 Minea, aro 
 iscloso thu 
 
 ion to tlio 
 ordinaire, 
 
 ivcu to tho 
 
 , UDinista- 
 c rights of 
 
 • 108 — 
 
 mobu «! Ill thuB(«)i,„„f thu Onbniuico. or tint Im K 1.1/ -<«M^y,„. 
 F<»l.riotor(.fMu,h Mino« in Franco 1 ^ ^'"^ ''"«»•*»• 
 
 Sec. 91.— That Onhnanco is fnrfher ron.arkablo Andre.mei 
 Tor tho rosnuct it liays to urivuto riirlif« K.r ♦! .> , pri»»t« 
 
 wonU : ;. anf en \L. cL^ n<. S^'dr f., a' Z^J^Z "'"-' 
 toutet:" that rcaorvution m to ..rivtc rJ. .L : • . ^. '^'* 
 with tho rcHcrvation, whi, h at I» fil r*\' V ''''°»""« 
 havo already nhown' by a thoritV U. be in mIhc ^"'•""\.^" 
 nj, and formU part of/ali LetVc.lVa"<^.l a' ' Z:^S!i 
 
 CuAKLKs VI, and m tho «nccocding 6rdinanci; of JlS IV 
 
 N?C. .ij. Tlio jiosition aMumod hy the PlaintiffH n. r^ 
 
 18, if possible, .till further 8treMghthoT.od by the next nn 
 great Ordinance on the subject? that o[ Yh^. v I v', ot Junf 
 1601 It i« tho very Ordinance recited by the df LfeRv' 
 
 at'p UWM*"""^' H^h a confirmatory ArrfduC^t^' 
 at P. 148 of Minks kt MiniAkks. It runs thus ; ^^^^«^»^ 
 
 dnnt ct G6n6ral R^formnte.ir ou I S„^n* "" "™n<^ Mmstre Superinten- 
 tionH portal's en icelai ' ^ * ' *"**"°"8. pnriliges et exemp- 
 
 ettrS AorrsTxtS^ ^-P*«'^ '« <>-'- Juil.et 
 
 AtoIfpSsTadtnttlJ? N^at^^lf";^ ^^ ''\^^V-- 
 los D6clarations des Roys nos prJdocLsInr! m!c "u "<"?*'« ^°"«eil 
 
 Premier, Henry deuxidrJo, S^fS^^^ rSrlS''^ ^r" *'™''«°''' 
 trdH-honorez Seigneurs beau pdre^ frdres ct n^f*™! „x -flf neufiesme, nos 
 
 m.«.d. U...e .ifection%rn!,ri7tU^^ 
 
 
I 
 
 l,i. I 
 
 ~ 104 — 
 
 OWKISBBIP 
 
 OP Mines 
 
 Aulhoriliu. 
 
 HUMBT 17. 
 
 auxdictes Mines it nour v ZLiI . W^ "^ '"'''° "''•^^rche, et travailler 
 Mines ot Min Jres do nos voi-^-K'*'' '"' ^«'™"Se'-s, et leur fai^e quitter es 
 
 mateurdesdictes Mines etSSS^m'L?"?'""/'"'^'*"*.^* ^^''^^al R6for- 
 et cuvriers regaicoles et eSn^r' ^ ^ Lieutenans, Commis et D6putez. 
 Maistre, comme Ss aulonf rn^!nt- *'''° ^^"T"' "^^ •^"«''«« a"dit Grand 
 
 establissemens'Tlle a'fait co^^Sstri h!!.""'"''' /'" i^^*' "^^^^^ ^es bons 
 nances, en ce que par icelfes au i «" H» "'' ^^ ,' '^?"'« auxdictes ordon- 
 attribueznu dictoEedoGrld-MaistrP nfJfw ""'^T'"' 1"' ^^^^o'ent 6tre 
 aux pourveus du diet office Sdfle^rdVo.Vf'^'''''^'!'^''''"''^ auroientfaict 
 duquel appartenant auroffiSs esLbik Zt^rf-T^A'" 'TP^' '« J»gement 
 commettroit de tr^s-KrandiTbu. Fn / 'f '^*.' ^'•''"ds-Maistrel, il s'y 
 enti^rcment de luiAuUdjUEtent ^LZ Tn'n'}" 9^''''' dependant 
 appartenoit. dont se 8eroSt%nsuiv£ n us?cu?f i.'^'^^ ^^"^ '' *!"' ^"> 
 ParlenienL A quoi desirant Dourvo ir p? aI P'^^^'V^^s .^n nos cours de 
 appartenant k cause de nos!re SouvSinLl inL^"' m '*^?.'^'';* '^^'^t ^ n«"s 
 contiennent lesdicts Edicts etOrXnnanri 'TT"^^"" *^ "'^'"' "'"«' ^^^ le 
 q'l'il a esto jugo plusiZrsfok sr.^- ^ '.^°°'®.™^"« ^^ Declaraticris, et 
 Francois secLd!noSs£orrXni"'i''rP<''" ''^ »««l'»'-ation do fea Ro 
 firm6eparautres Lectref d,,T„ R^f ni^S^'^''^' ^" ^D Juillet 1560, con- 
 
 honor/sieur et fS^du 25 Jum t 56?%S^^^ ""^^' "^^'"'^ '^^«- 
 Parlement le 9 Mai 1502 oar Li.Pl i !.f • '• ^''^^^^ en nostre Cour de 
 ct ses subs;itu., de faire irs^Sie noSI".' A nostre Procureur General 
 desirans 4 ravenir faire invioLb Sent gar^^^^^^^^ Edictf rf"!"'*"""' '' 
 
 Reglemens et Declarations nonrvnir i u „ 'esd cts Micts, Ordonnances, 
 obvier k I'usurpation dSx conservation de nosdicts droicts, et 
 
 etappVoutSsSSr^cteVt D^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ P'-^^«"t«« '=0"fl''mon8 
 
 forme et teneur : pourTlan ST/rm/t.P^'"'^'",^'''"^' ^«'°° '«»f 
 
 pour certaines bonnTfefgrlndes cTn"fd/rat,^f N ^ '"''"^*"*' ''^^^'^^"^s 
 par gr&ce sp4ciale except^s en faS^^^^^^^^ noMof?„ '^T '"^^^'^*?' «* 
 
 de Grand Mlt'^rpeSetdtret^GenT/^ ^" ^" «««« 
 
 autresofficiersetpersoSeSSvlefau^dlt^^^^^ «* t''"^ '«s 
 
 tiendra, jouissent des SE7 auotoSl. • ^-"t''.^* a^tresqu'il apnar- 
 franchises, libertez et drS v at/rihl^n '^' J"™^ictions, preeminences, 
 motA autre les diets ^rivilLesnrlLTen^^P?'^^^^^^^^ 
 franchises, libertez et drSicts cstalent ci in 6rl "' *"*=t«"^e^. Jurisdictions, 
 que ceux de nos fiubjectsTostisables 1 Z /«'^^ ' aux restrinctions toutefois 
 manderont auxdictes MLsnenn.™^ 'J"' travailleront et com- 
 
 charges desquets noSavoKS i^r'^^^^^^^^^^ exemptions que des 
 
 e*detoutes.^^^SeSS^gSt^ensc.MJc^ 
 
— 106 -^ 
 
 nosViIIe8,nourg9 que Villages, sont ordinairement choisis et esleus Dourveu Cw..n».. 
 neannioins quo ccux Qui or^tendront tollao o»«™^»j1 ^ ,' " "^*" twUBiHif 
 
 o.i ciors de nostro Couronne, estans prds de noua. On! i„ JL * r Pf 
 icelui nostredict Conscii par'ceux quSnous' auXns c^delreroyezlS? 
 fiiirc faire recherche dcsdictes Mines ; et <les movens de les mpVfrL »n^ F 
 
 crdeet 6ngi, cr6ons et 6ngeon8 en titre d'oflace, fonn6Icdict esLt rl^ Pr^nH 
 
 ordinaires par chacun an, A prendre sur le fondsprovenftneVln Hrntf A^^ 
 appartenant sur lesdictcs Mines : Ensemble unlSentennnf rL/?„. * ^''"! 
 nostredict Royaume, avec la quality deTosVe ronS et^^^^^^ 
 
 pr^t!;r»^^^^ 
 
 Auquel Lieutenant G^nerafnousavonstnnretlnnon parent semX 
 bles pouvoirs et auctoriti sur lesdictes Mines etfiSfeset ceoS^" 
 depend, qu'audict Grand Maistre en I'absence d'icelui, etaux choses nressde " 
 ctqn.nepourrontattcndresa presence ou ses ordonnancersSrifaS 
 qui lui auront esto donncz des oc urrences de sa chaS-ge ^ 
 
 m A I ^''"''*"1''* Nous plaJst que lesdictsGrands-Maistres et Lieutenant 
 Sl«t?lf ffi'°" absence, comme diet est, puissentcommectre personnes capa- 
 bles et sufiBsans en qualit6 de Lieutenans particuliers, par tous les Hcn^ nt 
 endroicts que besoin sera, pour en leur absence ordonne?, leSer restewfret 
 rdforoier tout ce que sera besoin et n^cessaire pour le faic deffites Mines et 
 Minidres, et conservation de nos droicts, comme il est diet ci-des^nshn^ii!; 
 advis audictGrand-Maistre et Lieutenant GfiS dPB nn.JI nl ' .^^ 
 qu'on voudra faire d'icelles, leur en enrye^fes "uaJSsresS^^^^ 
 Ions, pour estre par ledict Grand-Maistre ou son\ieutenant G6n1Xn son 
 absence, ordonn^de qui sera cogneu plus utile pour nostre senJce sur Vou 
 vcrturo desdictes Mines, lesque les se feront en vertu rfp? Pn««ti • a 
 diet Grand-Maistre ou dudic't VeutenanT^Jaltn "soS'bfenr '^'"' '" 
 VI. Et afln que Nous puissjons faire estat certain & I'advenir du nrofit 
 
 par les Provinces di nostre Royaume. dresseut Ipb Iwlo^trJl^!? j j 5 ' 
 
 11 en sera par eux envoyfi un en nostre Gnnsatt A^vlt.,* «* ..JT "'V~"""''^wiie, 
 
 jiains du Rcceveur oial pour "S^aTcltt^c^lrnit? SLS 
 
 VII. E^pour obvier i ce qu'il n'advienne confusion, par le moyen des 
 
 f ■] 
 
 ll 
 
 
OWRIRSBIP 
 
 or MiHis. 
 Authoriliu. 
 HiUBT IV. 
 
 — 106 — 
 
 j!!TiT?i??"'^'^If.'J^® ,'^^'*'* Grand-Maistro General Superintondnnt et 
 
 HWiw ?• ^®"^'^"' "° puissent jouir de leurs commissions, et en vcrtu 
 ir lLnr/?"°. """T ''^''■' *=« ""'■ '''«'^''=t«« Mines, qu'au pr6alable ils n'lycnt 
 sur leurs lectres de commission, prins attache dudictGrand-Maistre^esSs 
 
 ettron'tteX' l«'^r"'^^'^-r*^"''"* P""'=""«'- ^"dict Grand-S2trt 
 Rinna ^!a ^- ■,! '° ^^^^^ *!" ''^ cxcrceront lesdictes charges et commis 
 sions despnvil^seset exemptions attributes par cesdictes pr6sentesZx 
 fc H'•K"*'^^'"'^i ^ *°"« '^^l"*''^ estatset offices, Nou'Tavons att?i^ 
 bu6 et attnbuons la quality de nos Conscillers. Et outre co des KaRcS nar 
 chacun an A prendre sur le fonds de nostre droict, comme diet est.^ ^ ^ 
 dit ContLlllrSl Tf'''! Estatde Lieutenant General mille cscus : au 
 dudirKvP.L rr^r\^.°*P*'"'"','J"« pour ses Commis, mille cscus ; et 
 dud.ct Receveur G6n6ral, tant pour lui, ses Commis, que pour lo part et 
 voituredesdeniersenses mains A Paris, pareille somme de millo escuf 
 
 Zl de?Bo^1V^ ^' '^ "?**« ''°*"«"^' ^ l-lnstar deTRc evt : G?n|: 
 raux des Bois, 183 escus, un tier« audict Greffier, et k chacun de ceux aui 
 
 Terirr.;' iff'^S^^^^'^^^^^ ^e Lleutenans pirticuliers es dictes ProvS 
 vLV^lf "r ' ^?^' P""^ *=^*°"" J°'"' <l»'i's vacqueront a faire leurs 
 visatauons, reformations et establissement sur lesdictes Mines et MiSre" 
 Ai. Itli . -f lesquels offices ainsi par nous cr6ez sera par Nous pourveu 
 dds k present, et ci-aprds quand vaccation y escherra : lesquei nrSeront 
 tZTo^A Tr'' >^!?* Grand-Maistre^G6n6ral SuperlntendanK L eu 
 iram?zpfS„vP "'"'•» ' T^^ *'"^" "^^-^ «t ^^^^ Chancelier, et pardcvant 
 l'^.^'°f^^}^f'''i^(^onseil\erah8 gens tenans nostre Cour de Parleraent do 
 Pans. Lesdicte ControoUeur et Receveur General pardevantles gens de nos 
 t^Sh'^A^-\f-'^'' ^' "''^"^ •*"<i''=* Grand-Maistre Genlral Supenn- 
 i!.?,?m''A ''w "* I-^eutenant G6n6ral en son absence : et sera ledict Rece- 
 veur G6n6ral tenu en outre de bailler caution pardcvant nos amS et Sx 
 Conseillerset Tr6soriers de France de la sommo de 
 
 «.„* «x f ^Pour donner plus de moyen auxdicts Grand-Maistro et Lieute- 
 nant G6n6ral de bien ot diligemment vacquer au faict do leurs charges kur 
 avons ordonn6 et attribu6, ordonnons\tattribuons, outre etpSssSs 
 K±f l^"" ordmaires, i s^avoir, audict Grand-Maistr'e six ^cusdSSx tiers 
 et audict Lieutenant General quatre escus par jour qu'ils vacqueront 4 
 «oin*f r^'T'¥^? P''^ '«^P'•ovinces do Vmstie Poyaume, doSrils rip- 
 porteront bons et va ables Procds-verbaux de tout ce qui aura par eix esfs 
 
 expte^ei "^' ^°'' ' ** *" ^''^'' "" *««" »" "«'«• ""^'^ Se taxations 
 io^;„?n ^0"? lesquels gaiges et taxations, et ce qui sera ordonnfi nar 
 led ct Grand-Maistre ou ledict Lieutenant G6n6ral deldictes Mines sSit au" 
 Hmsaers ou Sergens pour les saisies, contrainctes et autrX s nlcesifres 
 fion« a Sf . ^'"*'"*?' Mines,:conser;ation de nos droicts ensemb^ 1^^^^^^^^^ 
 S n!tt ? T"'"' ^''""^ particuliers, Nous voulons et ordonnons 
 estre payez des deniers qui proviendront du droict desdictes Mines par ledict 
 S?h'tInoI,2^H%* «f?,Commi8, en vertu des OrdonLce^et^ simples 
 quittances dudict Grand-Maistre et du diet Lieutenant G6n6ral et des part eS 
 prenantes, en vortu desdictes Ordonnances. Lesquelles Nous avons JSidel 
 etauctonsez,vaUidon8et auctorisons; sans qu^l soit besoin cy d'autres 
 vail dations sur icelles que cesdictes presentes, rapportant lesauelles ou 
 ruZ,m«,dWlle8 par nostredict ReceveurG6n4rdpou^unefois^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 Procds-verbaux dudict Grand-Maistre, du Lieutenant gIS et desd cts 
 Lieutenans particuliers et Commis avec lesdictes Ordonnances etquittoncefl 
 
— 107 — 
 
 wranterot rahMfn ^ 1 ' ''f^^^,?^^^'"'' ^t allouez en la ^espense do sea or M»... 
 
 coraptef. ot rabattu do la requeste d'lceux, par tout oO il appartiendra. Authoritie,. 
 
 ot nnn. ilon« ♦"^"f" "''°1"?".* ^^ annullant, commo nous cassons, rcvoquons Hmby IV. 
 desSSfl^lc A *'f provisions, commissions et dons cy-dcvant faicts 
 niedSAp r^'^ '"?* 'J'?" N°"« en ferons pourvoir en cons6. 
 hnStrcr nnrln ,?*^'"*' «"«»sdonsdenostredict droict, tant imp6trez qu'4 
 io?t Sr/„?"?"*'7%^«?J'' '* PO^'-q^elque cause et occasion qui ce 
 2r esJfi^S I "^^ effet A iceux, et aux verifications qui en pourroient 
 irWen of ni '''"I'-!:]' P'-^J»<^«:«q"e'esdictadoiiRontju8ques ici apport6 
 ;e"ndrnNouTc7rntVubjecL';"'^^^^ *™^"^ desLtls Mines Tevoit 
 
 le coSact n?J''N^I!?'V"- *°"''^°'? ''^ *''^*^ revocation ginfirale comprendre 
 nostro T)n..fr^ n ' *^'''* t" ""'*'^ .^^ PO"r nos Mines do • 
 
 cnsemb?e les af,?r?«"^"?'' .'"'"* '* *'"' P'^' ^' Languedoc, paysde Labourt, 
 Nons nl los onl^Z^T^'^'^A^ P*f''' '" "?'^« ^«"««''' «* d^P"*^ ratifiez pa; 
 pouvd? ou'ilT^ ''°^"'^°""^'^A.P*r J°Sieur do Beringhen, suivant la 
 LSnufdpnn5n.r '^^ No"8 : Ainsi voulons qu'ils soient ibservez et 
 
 Errpr KZr "''^* Grand.Ma«re. et Bftisfasfernturet? 
 
 et mSh;, H^n """" •«**■''*. ^'^"f Maistre fairo faire et passer tons Contracts 
 bJ^ t^J T'^'^°I'^''t}^^^^ Terres, Maisons, Moulins, Martinets! 
 
 v^turlers ,n?l.l T''?'*'''*^"""''' ^"^ payemens, ouvriers, chartiers, 
 fn^roti^v^ilioT'^^^^^^^^ conviendra employer pou^ 
 
 Srvico no ll "'^'^"''' '^f '",'" Pr^^^'e^ses et austres pour le bien i nostre 
 deSkrAE^eTLS^alllSu™"'^ " "^* ^"^ ^"^ «=' "J"' nous reviendra 
 R6''l^Lsml'ofr,^loJS^?r^'''^?.^H'^. et Ordonnances ci-dessus, et tous 
 
 ZlXZfTZ,^.^" f P't''"?*- '* <J^« iP'-^sent comme deslors valH- 
 quiUancesTnajSirn • ""'=*°"so"« P«^ ««s^'«tcs presentes, ensemble les 
 ScmcnTconEu * ^"^ 1" 1""°''* faicts pourveu que le tout soit bien et 
 
 & 8on^lTJnf«ni*i'"n '■'"** 11''" seroit impossible, tant audict Grand-Maistre et 
 nn mesmP ™' ^^t^-o' «»r G6n6ral et Greffler desdictes Mines, dV re en 
 
 purnotres™vKtt"H''l'rr"^r'^'^^^^^^ ^ 
 
 S"cttonfaufd;r« Pr ^ M^'-l^ 'T I^^T- Nous avons permis et per- 
 rbdeWnoron I ^""-i-^^a'stre, Controolleur et Greffler, de commectre et 
 
 fatfeiiS^^^^^^^^^ KTc? dS m'^-' r^'^''" ^ V'?'''''''"^' »"^ 
 inirnn+A , '' "" """""^Gs quo 16 dict Uraud-Maistro vcrra et ueera en sa 
 
 ;rL°4m7s"urs"n''£rdt""''''°''^"'- '°"'^^'- ^^'°" '- ocl^ioL " 
 
 .ncnt?Im«c«««ri)T^''''^''*' ^'^'''*5' Ordonnances, Declarations et R^gle- 
 i«l«M. 7 f^^""^^^^*'"'"*' '''' ?««^?«« c»to< «« conditions qu'ils 
 
 Contractus onlTn.,"''"""" "^^ '" ^"''•''' ""'^ conditions ci-dessus, eJdes 
 dSer ^ Noh n"' '" -T"* P'^'^".' ^"."« 'l"'"^ P»i«sent pour ce estre diets 
 nSS nnr n f' "' * '^"cunes dignitez et qualitez qu'ils ayent, en nous 
 SminS dJdict Or?„7M'%'* »«5"«"". >° serment accoustum6 entre leJ 
 mums dudict Grand-Mnistre, ou I'un de sesdicts Lieutenans Qknivtmx ou 
 
 '•Mi 
 
OWIIIKIBIP 
 OP UlNIJ. 
 
 Autlitritiu, 
 HaiiiT IV. 
 
 V I 
 
 ' 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 t I 
 
 — 108 — 
 
 CUTre Commit ^" *^^"*'*' "PP^"* '« <J'ct Controollonr G«n4ral, ou I'un de 
 ^j^]i:7}^h- '^""^ ***^ Entrepreruura et gens <joi feront la recherche 
 
 ««i«n.„i .A^;^"','*v' '«»«^i?«'^««- "« ewPoyer r^iwai e« kchantilUm 
 yu»en aura C8t6 fait lo heu, Province et Paroisseoii ladicte Mine sera assise. 
 ^ Yi^'^i? *** '"* ngUment avant que d^y poutoir/aire trataiUer. 
 r«,« • ;• A P^l"^ Pr^venir tous abus, le dit Controolleur g^nfiral on scs 
 Comm.8t.endrontbonet fiddle Kegistre des noms, lieux et pays, de la 
 nfS''^ °.""'"^«<^e<=^»'^"ep«raonne qu'ils employeront, et en quelle 
 ,C :? ''"x^'^'''??'°"J**""'*««' I'arrivSe de ohicun des ouvricrs, les 
 n^,! L "V**"i''i ? **" ''^ travailleront, les payemens qui leur seront faits ; ce 
 qui sera fait de jour en jour, de sepmaino en sepmaine, de mois en mois, et 
 f„^n? J *^"«'=™^'« to"8 "es marchez, achapts et acquisitions qu'ils 
 
 SlA ♦•'*" ''*^''*'?^J"P "'^ ^°'* P""'" /o"'"" »"« Mines, et de tout ce 
 qu lis en tireront, tant affind qud non aflBn*. 
 
 desdiS M^ir"""^"* '^^^h** entrepreneurs et gens qui feront la recherche 
 Mint cL^i ^ vendreou faire venfaucuns M.*taux provenans dcsdictes 
 Mines, sans la marque dudict Grand-Maistre. 
 
 -^™,'^^'' "^^ '^^ (fwlet JjKinet et Minieret puistent ettre pritea par 
 TOUTES PERS0NNE8 QUI EN AnROHT LA volont£, et avcc toutcs les assurances 
 rciuises. Nous avons dtet et declare, diaonaet deelarona gu'ihnepourront 
 w.-n''^'!°''r"'^!T^'^.?'^"*'°«^""«**y»°8 cause, des Mines qu'ils 
 travailleront ou feront travailler sans discontinuation, en payant et satisfai- 
 ^ri i?"^!*"' *"f con^'tjons de leurs contracts et r^glements qui leur aur«nt 
 estd baillez par le diet Grand-Maistre. 
 
 . . ^^."- Et POUR OBVIER KT ^VITER AUX DIFFfiltENDS OM* «OUrrO»#n« 
 
 tntervenirmTR^ les Proprietaires deaUHtaigea, auxquels setrouveront 
 *^^"P<'^'*?^'<=*.«? Mines, et les estranoers ou autrea qviha voudroient 
 ouvnret tramilUr, Nous voulons et TR^s-EXPRESsfijiENT enjoionons pnr 
 ces pr6sentes QUE des Proprietaires qui auront dans leurs terres, heritai- 
 ges et possessions des Mines ci-dessus non-excepteez, bt qui les voudhont 
 ^-''"5' j/^ /'' PPissEOT PAiRH aana envoyer premiiremtnt dctera Udtct 
 Grand-Matatre prendre reglement de lui. 
 
 *^ XXIII Permettons auxdicts Maistres, Entrepreneurs et Ouvricrs. 
 travailler et faire travailler auxdictes Mines et Minieres, sans aucune discon- 
 S ? « ^° des Festes solennelles, en gardant los Saints Dimanches, 
 testes de Pasques, Pentecoste, I'Ascension et les Festes-Dieu, les quatre 
 S.?nJr H% ^'It^?. ^P?8t"?. ^es 4 Evangelistes, la Feste de tons les 
 baincts, celle de Noel et les Festes des Paroisses oii lesdictes Mines sont 
 assises, et deffendons trds-express6ment k tous nos Justiciers, Pr61at9 et 
 autres Officiers et Subjects de les troubler en travaillant les autres Jours et 
 testes, d autant que s'lls estoient troublez, cela causeroit tron de perte tl 
 de dommMge ausdicts Entrepreneurs et interest au public. 
 AAy • r * P"*"" ''^ *1"® ci-devant lesdictes Mines ou Minieres ont est6 
 
 cl6Iai8s6ez au moyen des troubles qui ont est4 donnez aux Entrepreneurs et 
 Ouvners d icelles, Nous avons interdit et deflFendu, interdisons et deffendons 
 a tous Juges quelconques la cognoissance des differends qui intervicndront 
 A cause desdictes Mines, circonstances et deppendances, entre quelques per- 
 sonnes que ce soit, en premidre instance, et icelle avons de rcchef attribuo 
 et attribuons au diet Grand-Maistre et susdict Lieutenant General, pour les 
 juger diffinitive,nent, appelez avec eux des Juges en nombre suffisant. sui- 
 vant 1 Ordonnance et le Substitut de nostre Procureur Gen6ral du Si^ge au 
 ressort duquel se feront les ouvertures d'icelles Mines, quand le cas y 
 
— 109 
 
 i4ral, ou Tun de 
 
 NT LA recherehe 
 luelqu'une, d'en 
 et Emhantillon 
 line sera assise, 
 I travatUer. 
 g4ii6ral on 8CS 
 et pays, de la 
 nt, et en quelle 
 cs ouvricrs, les 
 leront faits ; ce 
 nois en mois, et 
 juisitions qu'ils 
 ss, ct de tout ce 
 
 }nt la recherche 
 enans dcsdictes 
 
 »tre prises par 
 3 ics assuranccR 
 ih ne pourront 
 :s Minus qu'ila 
 irant et satisfai- 
 qui leur auront 
 
 lui pourroient 
 I se trouveront 
 i U» voudroient 
 iNJOinNONS pnr 
 terres, heritai- 
 
 LES VOUDKONT 
 
 t deters ledt'ct 
 
 8 et Ouvricrs, 
 (tucune discon- 
 ts Dimanches, 
 ieu, les quatre 
 :e de tous lus 
 es Mines sont 
 iers, PrSlats et 
 lUtres Jours et 
 ap de perte t» 
 
 litres ont est6 
 trepreneurs ct 
 i et defiendons 
 intervicndront 
 quelques per- 
 cchef attribue 
 i6ral, pour les 
 sufflsant, sui- 
 al du SiSge au 
 land le cas y 
 
 icherra, et par oppel Nous les avons renvcycz et rcnvoyons en celle de nos Owwirbbif 
 Cours du Pnrlcmcntau rcssort dc laqucllo seront assises lesdictes Mines. of Minh. 
 
 XXV. Enjoignons tres-oxpressSment k tous nos Lieutenans gSnSrauz, Authorities, 
 Seigneurs, tant Ecclisiastiques ayant justice, que temporels, de prenter UiiiaT IV 
 auxdicts OfBciers, Entrvprcneura et k leurs Commis et Associcz tout confort, 
 assistance et telle faveur que reciuis en seront et quo besoing sera, h peine 
 
 de tous despens, dommaiges et interests des parties interess6cz, et do faire 
 en leur pouvoir inviolablement gnrder et observer lo contenu en ces Pr6sen- 
 tes, sans soufirir quMl y soit contrevenu sur les m^mes peines, et de priva- 
 tion de leurs diets droicts ct justice. 
 
 XXVI. Et afln que soubr, pr6texte do ces Prfisentes, ceux qui ont 
 jouy dcsdictes Mines ne soient travaillez, Nous leur avons quJtti et remis, 
 quittons et remettons entidrement tout ce qu'ils nous peuvent devoir du 
 pafls^, jusques ao jour et datte de cesdictes pr4sentes, pourveu qu'ils ne 
 Solent refusans de payer ce qu'ils devront par ci-aprds. Et qu'ils vionnent 
 prendre r^glement et pouvoir dudict Grand-Maistre. Ce que nous leur 
 enjoignons tres-expressfimcnt fairc, k peine d'estre de tous privea dcsdictes 
 Mines, suivant la dite Declaration du 26 Mai 1663, et d'estre contraincts au 
 pnyement entier de co qu'ils doivent de nostre droict k cause du pass6, et 
 d'etre chastiez comme usurpateurs de nos droicts do Souverainet^. 
 
 XXVII. Enjoignons k nosdicis Procureurs-G5n6raux et leurs Substi- 
 tuts, qui seront sur ce requis de la part desdicts Officiers Entrepreneurs et 
 leurs Gomniis et Deputes, de poursuivre ct requ4rir I'entidre execution des 
 Prfisontesetpayementdenostredict droict: Ensemble tons nos Lieutenans ' 
 G^n^raux, Gouvemeurs de nos Provinces, Villes, Ports, Ponts, Phages et 
 Passaiges, Baillifs, Seneschaux, Prevosts, Consuls, Maires et Eschevins, 
 Gapitouls, Jurats et Oommunautez, de prestor auxdicts Officiers Entrepre- 
 neurs tout confort, conseil, main-forte, et telle favour que besoing sera, et 
 requis en seront pour Tentidre execution des Prisentes, et k tous Huissiers 
 
 ou Sergens, sur peine de suspension do leurs charges et privation s'il y ^ 
 
 eschet, de faire tous exploicts requis ct ndcessnires pour I'cxScution des * 
 
 Mnndeiaens, Sentences, Jugemens et Ordonnances desdicts Grand-Maistrc, et 
 scs Lieutenans G6n6raux, Commis et D4putez, sans pour ce dcmnndcr 
 nucunes Lectres de placet, visa ne pareatis, dont et de ce faire Nous I'avons 
 releve et dispense, relevons ct dispensons. Mandons et commandons k tous 
 nos justiciers, officiers et subjects k lui en ce faisant obeir. 
 
 Si donnons en mandemcnt k nos nmez et fenux Conseillers Ics Gens 
 tenans nos Cours de Parlement, Chambrus de nos Comptes, Cour des Aydcs, 
 G6n6raux de nos'Monaoyes, Chambre do Nostredict Tr6sor, Tresoriers de 
 Prance et G6n6raux de nos Finances par tout nostredict Royaume, Grands- 
 Mnistres de nos £aux et Forests, Gens (enans nos Sieges Pr^sidiaux, Baillifs, 
 Seneschaux ou leurs Lieutenans, Prevosts, et autres nos Justiciers et 
 Officiers qu'il appartiendra, que ces Pr^sentes ils fassent lire, publier ct 
 enregistrer, ef le contenu en icelles gnrder et observer scion leur forme et 
 teneur, sans y contrevenir, ny soufirir y estre contrevenu en quelque sorte 
 et manidre que ce soit, cessant et faisant cesser tous troubles et empesche- 
 mens au contrai;'e : Car tel est nostre plaisir, nonobstant oppositions ou 
 appellations quelconques, pour lesquclles et sans prejudice d'icelies, nu 
 voulons estre difi(6r6, en ayant envoy6 la cognoissance k nosdictes Cours, 
 nonobstant aussi toutes Ordonnances, dons, privileges, octrois, exemptions. 
 Edicts, Arrests, Constitutions, Usages ou Statuts do pays et Coustumes, 
 restrinctions, Mandemens, deffences et Lettres k ce contraires. Auxquelles 
 et aux dSrogatoires des derogatoires y continues. Nous avons derogS et 
 d^rogeons par cesdictes Pr^sentes, attendu qu'il est question du restoblisse- 
 
 !l 
 
OWKIUBIP 
 
 or MiNRi 
 Authoritin. 
 HlNBT IV. 
 
 laftirences 
 from thnt 
 OrJiott)ce. 
 
 King's right 
 roynlty only. 
 
 Owner of 
 soil Also 
 owner of 
 Mine. 
 
 — 110 — 
 
 M^eUVoX^m JouX^^^^^ ^«. Souver.i„et6 et 
 
 sieurset diyers lieux Nous vo"lnn- . ^?^''™ *''«''' "ffnire en plu- 
 
 Royal. oudeu6mercc;ilSnnrDorrl''Hl"" '''^'""" ^'''!'^^'' """*»=' ^'^^ 
 Secretaires, ou Soubz See authrnl .^/^ "°? 5^^^ *>' '«*'"^ Notaires et 
 Original. Auq„cl aflnTuo ce sS Z ' T '"" ''f J**"*t? """"^ »» P'-°«ent 
 avons fait "lel^tro nostrScorL„r/ZL',* ^^^^^'^ * ^o^Jours, Nous 
 
 grAcemilsixcensu. et de L«ir« Wa'""'''?''"^ *" • ™°'« ''^ J"'". >'«" 'le 
 Et plus bas, par rio;,DeNeufv?lio"^"° '° ^°"''^'"'^- Sign6, HENRY. 
 
 con,iit't'dX''rS/ri;r;nru«r'' ^?^*' '^"/«-^' du trds-exprez 
 le Grand-Maistre etS' Liouto„Snt t?"f ^'''*'"'' de jussion, sans que 
 proc6dor A I'ex^cution de Ieur« fi'^T^^" K P""* Provision ny autrement, 
 I'ouverture de la ?eSe e? lutres e^ "'"/' ""' '°"*™ '«/ Propriotaires, sur' 
 tionsinterjectdcs, TpeiSe de [L derorf«''T"''' "" P"*^ "^''^^ des appella- 
 en Parlemint le dernff JuiSi^SScens t™""^'' "* '"**'*'^*«- ^ P''"^ 
 
 Sign*, VOYSIN. 
 
 ouylXCeuVGSlrv'^ux"^^^ ^^ |a Cha^bre des Comptes, 
 Registrede ce jour. ,e trllesS^Woust^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ - 
 
 Sign6, Db La Fontainb, 
 „n nf?*'^/-^^'"",'^^''' ^'■'' "''^''''^ ^^*^^"^ Ordinance assorts 
 
 article remits the Royalty on sulnW ««u;!S ^- ^^® f'^'*"'* 
 
 heKi^gwaa thus pleased to " yrSr " 1 J' ,Xv7 1? "' 
 King. ;t oateLfXe P^n'hoTve'^^iJibi t 
 
»uverainot6 ct 
 affaire en plu- 
 es fioubz Seel 
 IX Notftires et 
 me au present 
 oujours, Nous 
 
 rRE DHOICT ET 
 
 Juin, I'an de 
 5n6, HENRY. 
 
 ia trds-exprez 
 ioD, sans quo 
 \y autrement, 
 riotaires, sur 
 des appella- 
 sts. A Paris 
 
 UN. 
 
 les Comptes, 
 t con ten u au 
 I. 
 
 )in'AINB. 
 
 nee asserts 
 
 refined in 
 Es). Can 
 that Ordi- 
 ► Mines of 
 ho Royal 
 le eeeond 
 and other 
 fios bons 
 
 -tenths of 
 the one- 
 ^alty, the 
 Royalty ? 
 il, wliom 
 ave thus 
 Mines on 
 than the 
 butcd, to 
 iiates all 
 
 -- 111 — 
 
 Sec, 95.— Articles 3, 4, 5, 0, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, JJ'S'".!' 
 U, lo and 16 have no special bearing on this ease, and may '4«<AonVi>«. 
 tlieretoi-c be jmssed ovi-r without notice. But articles 17 and """" *^* 
 18, \yhioh allow ail persons to search for, and work Mines but 
 pnioins on them t... obtain the Royal permission before open- ^7."" "'l°''" 
 ing the mine, m.ist certainly be held to apply to the owner JilneVon his 
 pt the soil; lie is surely somebody, and must be heM to beowa land, 
 included in the words '• all persons." Tiie same is to bo said 
 of articles 19, 20 and 21 ; they do not affect this ease. 
 
 Art: 22, in the most express terms gives to the owner 
 ot the soil, the riglit to work the Mines on his lands in prefe- 
 rence to all others subject to the condition of applying to the 
 Master General ot Mines for the Royal permusjion ; 
 
 .v. ■^^•^^' ^'^ POUR onviEii ET EviTEK Aux DIFPEKEND3 qul poHrroieiit 
 tntenemr ESTHZLE^VmvHiKTxmEAiloH hevitnigen, anxquel.s se trouveront 
 «^,^^,v''?°.°1/"^'^T •'*''"' '=«™'^^""3KS OH autres qui les voudroient 
 ouvnr^ et tramiller. Nous voulons et tkesexpkessement enjoionon'* oar 
 ces presuntes que des Pkopkietaires qui auront dans leurs terres. hiritai- 
 geset possessions des Mines ci-dossus non-excepteez, et qui les voudkont 
 ouvRiR NEI.E Pu.ssENT FAtKE mos envoijer premih'ement deven ledict 
 Grand-Mautre prendre reglement de lui. 
 
 The remaining Articles have no bearing on this case, and 
 may therefore remain unnoticed. 
 
 of TTp^JflV^^f'T"^^'''' '!; '''7''''. ^^°"* *''" Ordinance R,,„,,,„„,f 
 ot±lemy IV, a feature worthy of notice; it recites certain rf« ^o6"-i»ai 
 Letters of the Kings, his predecessors, namely Francois I '""''^''- •'"''*"• 
 Henry II, Francois II and Charles IX; and while (see^"""*' 
 preamble and article 1) it confirms so much of the acts of his 
 pr.decessors as laid claim to the Royalty, and sought means 
 towards ^ collection of that Royalty, the Ordinance in 
 question (Artic'e 12) revokes precisely those parts of the 
 Letters of his Pi( deeessors as had provoked the successful 
 resistance of the Parliaments of France against the enre^-istra- 
 tion of the Royal Letters. The Defendants in this case having, 
 at P. 34 of their Factum, laid some stress upon the grants 
 thus revoked by Henry IV, it becomes importMut to shew that 
 those grants never obtained their execution in France, and 
 were successfully resisted by the Parliaments, and never, for 
 a moment even, had the force of Law in France. 
 
 n 
 
 'ff 
 
OwNiMwr 
 or Hntu. 
 
 AutkoriHu. 
 Prirate 
 grant! relied 
 on by Defend' 
 Ant*, viz: to 
 
 1° de Rober- 
 vol, and 
 
 2«* * St. Ju. 
 lien. 
 
 — 113 — 
 
 in the gingdom fo the „„L ■''■'''-' "«'" '° "" "'= Mines 
 merely notled by ^S^X^e^ p"?? „^ffi .t'-' R™""' 
 
 Secondly,— Letters- Patent of tlio 29 Tulv I'^/in v r^ 
 . 5018 II, in favor of M de Rt lit: /' ^^^^' ^^ ^«an- 
 
 iirnited time, all iJxe Mine f tfe.S'"''"^ /^ ^"?' ^^>- » 
 Ulanchord <& hamhert? (^J^ nlStr', o.ly noticed bj 
 
 P. 28, the seind at P is^ of f'"^ ?t length, the tir.t at 
 MirUrale. ' *^' ^'^ Lame-Fledby, Legislation 
 
 had been " S^tl^i;'*^^^^^^^^^ that the grants 
 
 m ly be seen on referrinir tn /I^l" . «f' '^"°* ^^^ case, as 
 
 Parliament of Pari^Ull the Q^- i^««f enregistered in the 
 by Letter8-Patenrd2^.A ut\ ^*^ ^^f ' ^''^" Charles IX, 
 the 11 Juyi56f(inostioLr'.r^/'^" ^ '^"'^ 1^61, other^ 
 fied the Z;e«''J!/Co^ ^f*^'. date), had modi- 
 
 «ranf to the Royal yo^ ?/nfr'"f '"^ "^^ ^h ^"^^"^^'^ 
 hereafter. . "^ "^ one-tenth only, as will be seen 
 
 Origin of tt}«« Ck£\ 
 
 resistance of »5eC. \j^. The dfi Pnh,».n,»i n 
 
 Error of 
 Defendants 
 in stating 
 those two 
 grants to 
 hare been 
 enregistered 
 
on hy tlie 
 
 Y IIknry JI, 
 ' Jiobervai, 
 1 the Mines 
 lat grant is 
 ctum), but 
 I*. 67 (see 
 
 ,by Fran- 
 hiin, for a 
 lotieed bj 
 ictnm). 
 rk already 
 fho second 
 [le tiri^t at 
 'igialation 
 
 le Defen- 
 the grants 
 le case, as 
 nd MiNFs 
 wrote in 
 who had 
 ioh, fays, 
 I'aris ne 
 548, et il 
 ' Letters- 
 ed in the 
 RLES IX, 
 '1, others 
 ad modi- 
 JulierCi 
 be seen 
 
 pay the 
 iway, in 
 ears, all 
 
 - 113 — 
 
 the Mines of the Kingdom not then actually beinjf worked, thni«MH» 
 with power to expropriate the owner of the soil by paying"/ *["?•' 
 " pour le regard de la valeur desdites terres aeulement, et non ^"'*'^«*'- 
 " DKS Mynes y estans." It does not therefore surprise us 
 that the Parliaments, composed of high-minded and honorable 
 men, who had sworn to preserve the existing Laws of the 
 Kingdom, should have, with the single exception of the Par- 
 liament of Grenoble, successfully braved the anger of Hbnry 
 II and of his successors, and persistently refused to enregister 
 either the Grant, or any one of its confirmations, although the 
 Kings repeatedly directed Letters- Patent to them by name 
 commanding them to enregister the Grant. For a spirited 
 remonstranccj by tha aens du roi, by the mouth of S£ouieb, 
 mocat du roi, when de Itoberval unsuccessfully presented his 
 Letters-Patent for enregistration in the Parliament of Paris, 
 see Latni-Fleury^ P. 47, note 1. 
 
 feeC. 1 IHJ. ^The de Hobervcd-QRAST, was no sooner Royal confir- 
 
 made than we find (fo ^(j&erwa^ again asking and obtaining™***®"®'* 
 from the Sovereign, on the 10 October, 1652, a ratification oTq^"^.. 
 the Original Grant, on the ground that his first grant wasenregistewd, 
 msuffictent^ (see P. 54 Mines ht MiniArss) ! The fact that this*'»d why, 
 renewed grant makes de Eoberval the sole judge of dl mining 
 law-suits, and expressly prohibits tie Parliaments and the 
 other Courts of France from hearing any mining law-suit, and 
 orders all notaries to refrain from receiving any deed having 
 reference to mining, without de Boberval's consent in 
 writing, would seem to imply that the insufficiency of the 
 first de Boberval-GnAST arose less from ambiguity in its 
 language than from the hostility of tixe Parliaments and 
 Courts (see P. 72, 73 & 76 of Mines et MranaEEs). That 
 ratification of the de Bohervdl-QRAKt is further remarkable 
 for the confirmation it contains of the Ordinance of Louis XI, 
 already reproduced entire at P. 93 of this Factum (See P. 66 
 of Mines et MmiiREs). That view of the case becomes 
 something more than mere surmise, when we find the Sove- 
 reign stating in that ratification of the first grant ; 
 
 " Et pour ce que ce seroit chose trop difficile et prolize iceUes : enthfi- 
 
 " finer en tous les endroicts susdits, consid6r6 la grandeur du Royaume et 
 
 " 6tendue des pays de nostre subjection, voulons et entendons qric le seul 
 
 enthfirinement faict en nostre Grand Conseil tant des premieres Lectres 
 
 ' que des Prisentes (n^anmoins "ue les premidres ne soient audict Conseil 
 
 16 
 
(i - 
 
 — 114 — 
 
 OwRiBsnip 
 or Hiaig. 
 Authoritiu. 
 
 Foarth at- 
 tempt of de 
 Roberval 
 failed. 
 
 " J^uS^eifSes Z?l.°" *^"*°' ^*'"" ot Jurisdictions eHos estolent 
 
 • 
 
 ^ftri^ <, Sec 101.— Evon thtt deoiaive decIaraHon of Iho 
 Sr |j;rn7?Sd'di3°n?t'r"o 'to d^'nT™'? '» ^"^^■■"'' "-o 
 
 m^., '''j'?^." — ®° '""" ftopese had <& ^(.Jwiai 
 
 —- -. th,.^M% \?^;T^ *'"' '*"'" °f ^""S"" n to the 
 *..^^. t2"k^J:i',it^i:^\^^^^ «" 5-e been related 
 
 on the 29 July I5f50 nKfoir,!/^^^ ■?, ■"- deSt. Julten^ 
 Pn*Zt •^''^ , V ootained, from Fbancois II Tjdf^a. 
 
 ^™) and making, ,„ A al^lfttoH"^ S 
 
 Benewed 
 •ttttinpt bj 
 
 
^115 
 
 [ctionselTogestoIent 
 d'icolles lodict do 
 6rinor, n ion leur 
 ntcndona iceux y 
 oostre Grand Con- 
 
 laration of the 
 
 en register the 
 
 eeession of the 
 
 last was tliat 
 
 a third time 
 
 ri^BES). 
 
 )ble gelded to 
 M. Winchell, 
 threatened to 
 
 de Jidberv<d 
 ; we find him 
 16 September, 
 t (see P. 88 of 
 
 iled ; and the 
 received, that 
 ve eflfect. 
 
 1018 n to the 
 
 been related 
 b the latter in 
 )ther attempt 
 de St. Julim, 
 I n, Zetterg- 
 several ratifi- 
 3f Mnras BT 
 me grant as 
 5r assigning, 
 >n all Mines, 
 
 have had no 
 the former 
 
 
 lim. 
 aa 
 
 n- 
 
 )Bi- 
 
 opa 
 
 seeking and obtaining, from Chablbs IX, on tlie^ Jnly, 15(71 Ow>imhip 
 iZami-Fletm/, P. 48, note l,Pay8,perhai)8 with nea«on, the 11 7 "'""• 
 July 1561-8C0 P. 109 of Mines kt Mwi&,tKg), LeUe.-s-Patent,'^'"^'"'"'' 
 enjoining on all the Parliaments of France to allow th St. « 
 Julien to take possession of the King's Royalties of one-attSm^t; thi« 
 tenth for the space of fourycars, as set forth in tlio Letters- time a grant 
 Patent of Fbanjois II. This time de St. Julien was fortunate "' "'^ ^^y"^ 
 enough to secure the en registration, in the Parliament of '^""^ °°'^* 
 Paris, of the Letters Patent of Guablbs IX, probably because 
 tlioBo Letters merely assigned to de St. JuUert. the King's 
 Eoyalties, and the Parliament conceived that tiio Sovereign 
 might be allowed to do as he liked with his own ; but the Par- 
 liament of Paris uid other Parliaments etill refused to 
 enregister the Original Grant, which purported to confer on 
 de Rdberval all the Mines in the Kingdom. 
 
 De St. Julien, after obtaining that ratificsition of the />« 5<. y«/ 
 
 frant as to the Royalty, was sworn in (seo P. 114, in fine of ^wora in 
 [inks kt MiniebeeJ as " OSndral Supermtendant «?<» ^"P®"°** 
 Mynea du Eoyaume^^ before the Chancellor, on the 11 March tion ln*oi 
 1562. The fact of his having been thus placed on a footing tibie with Tthe 
 inconsistent with the idea of nis having any prq>rietary rights'*^** °* °^ '"»* 
 in the Mines he was about to superintend, as aji Officer of *"^'''' 
 the Crown, may have powerfulljr influenced tlbe Parliament 
 of Paris towards the enregistration of the Letters- Patent of 
 Chables IX of July 1661, and of the Zeiters-'Pgtent oIFsils- 
 Sois II, of July 1660. The enregistration took ylace by an 
 arrfit of the 9 May 1562 (see P. 115 of Mines m' MnriiiKEs). 
 The Arret (see P. 48, note 1, of LamSFleary) concludes 
 thus : " Pour jouir par le d't de St. Julien, 5mp6trant, de 
 " I'effl^ contena en iceWes, et j>ar provision seulement, et 
 jusqws k ee que par le Eoi ou la dite Ciiambee, ■autrement en 
 soit ordonni^' (see also P. 121 of Minks •bt Mubki^ees). 
 Observe the mental reservation of the Parliameoit of Paris, as 
 hidden in that Arret of enregistration ; de SL Julien might 
 enjoy his grant provisionally, until the King, ^or the Parlia- 
 ment should order otherwise. On the very ifiret complaint, 
 then, that might be brought before it, the Parliament reserved 
 the power of scrutinizing the grant more closely, and perhaps 
 ofordeiing otherwise. That the Parliament ^d afterwards 
 order otherwise, may be seen at section 107. It was, perhaps, 
 to turn aside the storm about to burst upon Mm irom tne 
 Parliariients, that within a month from the da1» of the Arrk, 
 in the very next Letters-Patent, addressed to Jth e Parliament 
 of Grenoble, de St. Jvlien was styled ")Si|pwiw^»^aw< et 
 
^ec, lUo. Jf. de St. Julten, and thoSoveroifu 
 
 — 116 — 
 
 AutkoritM. Royaurao » (aeo next section). 
 
 The King aod 
 
 dc A. ^Hiim 
 
 deiiit from --- 1 — « •■"« uutuiwu 
 
 SfiS *" ?f l5® ^|/^'*v *° ^'"^ ^° ?"i'" attempts to overcotna the rcsiBtanco 
 of the I^arhameuts and Courts to that barefaced invaoloi of 
 private rights ; and we find Ciiablks IX, on the l^t . ano 
 1662, witTi the assent of rf« 5^. ^Wwrn, receding ;. .ai tlio 
 position assumed by his two predecessors, Hkxry II, and 
 
 w^^^^'^S'^'^^^'^r'"*- > potters Patent of that date, 
 we fand Charles IX, conforming to the Ordinance of his 
 predecessor Lpms XI, from Jionf,ilz.les-7'aurs, axxd, for the 
 
 General Ejformateur, Mly aur Ua Ilinea de noitre Roy- 
 
 Eoyaltj (see P. 116 of Mines et Mini/bes). The Parliament 
 of Paris also enregistered those Letters, but still persisted 
 
 (bee P, 122 of Mines et Mini^iees). 
 
 King merely 
 asierti right 
 to a royalty 
 ofone-tentti. 
 
 Sacli alio la 
 the ezprecs 
 -l-ick'fltioij 
 
 ..'».- of 
 
 Sec. 106. At length the Sovereign and ds St. 
 
 Julien seem to have resigned themselves to acquiescence in 
 gie views manifested by the Parliaments an3 Courts of 
 France upon the question of Royal rights in Mines • for oti 
 
 p'sl'nS ''/? ^^^'Ir '\^"' J^^- ^ MSEsra^S 
 
 • ^: T !.^' ^{fi^'^-Fleury), we find Chables IX, decla- 
 
 nng by Letters-Patent that he has been advised by his Council 
 
 S J"' "^t*' V"?^'"^/. ^°"«''«* ^ * Koy«lty of one-tenth on 
 all Mmes theretofore discovered, cr that might thereafter be 
 discovered, and reciting that certain . or contest h e n>ht 
 toany Eoyalt . on the Mines th-tV. ... scoverea '£hl 
 
 S^Mfn^r'^l-^' "v?^' *^*^*' ^'^''^'y^ '^"^ ««^esthe rights 
 of those to whom his predecessore or He might have nr^ 
 S^y^donated the Royalty (See P. 127 V SJZ 
 
 ^^„^^^ ^i^^'^atentyjQTe enregistered on the Ist July 
 156a (see P. 59, note 1, of LamiFlev/ry). The An^et of 
 ioregistration IS even more remarkable than that which 
 accompomed the Letters-Patent of 1660 and 1561 (see section 
 
 ♦1?;/*^ '^- » •*'°i!i*'^'°^;,V*°^®'*^°*'^' * positive declaration 
 that the King s rights m Mines are restricted to the one-tenth 
 royalty ; the words are : " Pour>u*r par l'imp6trant du don 
 
 It 
 
- 117- 
 
 a de uoetre 
 
 10 Soreroic; n 
 
 fie resistanco 
 invaalon of 
 
 1ft .nrio, 
 
 g iljUi t]io 
 
 «RY II, and 
 ' that date, 
 lanee of his 
 ind, for the 
 ntendant et 
 nostre Roy- 
 10 onotenth 
 Parliament 
 
 1 persisted 
 le lioberval 
 
 and ds St. 
 
 iescence in 
 Courts of 
 » ; for, on 
 ^:^BES, and 
 IX, decla- 
 lis Council 
 e-tenth on 
 sreafter be 
 1 1' s Hsfht 
 •ea. The 
 the rights 
 liave pre- 
 
 IVflNES ET 
 
 Ist July 
 Arret of 
 at which 
 Be section 
 iclaration 
 one-tenth 
 It da don 
 
 '' k lui fait du dixieme^ pour lo temps ct tcrmo do quatro and, Owumiri 
 "pour le regard dea droits au roi appartenanL ot est cuimu "' •*"•■• 
 
 <l I.,: „„„,.__ _!. i— ?_ ^ iT'^ . .' . • AuiKariliA 
 
 lui concerner ot appartonir ds mfitaox ot rainfiralee .Je sou 
 " royannio." 
 
 At longtli tho storm burst upon de St. JuUen, and Iio 
 found his claims rc})udlHtod by nearly every judicial Tribunal 
 in tho countr ■ -•- ^^i - - '- ' , . . . „ 
 
 and obtained 
 
 lUB cittiras rcpuuiHioa oy nearly every judicial lYibunal 
 country • in that strait, ho anpealed to the Sovereign, 
 btained Letters- 2 'atent noticed in tlie next section. 
 
 Sec, 107. — Tlionceforth the struggle betv oeu de St. K'""*** »<«•>» 
 Julien, as representing tho Sovereign, on tho o o hand,«i5fo^ceJ!' 
 and tho Parliaments and Courts of Franco, s% the guardians **•» Minei, 
 of private rights, on the other hand, was removed to now i*'P"*"^ ''^ 
 ground, the only question then being, whether cortait Mines *^""^"»'"- 
 theretofore opened were subject to the Royalty even ; i )rauch 
 so, indeed, that, on the 25th September, 1563 (see P. 128 of 
 Mines et Minu^rer),wo find Chakles IX, in Letters ratent, 
 reciting " that Fkanjc s II had appointed de St. Jul'm as 
 
 " GrANB-MaISTKE, Sui'EIUNTENDANT ET G£nI;RAL RfeFORMA TEUB ^'"f "PpoinU 
 
 " DE8 Mixes to collect the one tenth Royalty on all Mines oft' *-/««^'«"« 
 « GOLD, SILVER, coppeT, tin.Uad, Afercurv, steeUron, dkc, Sc.^S^'mIiu. 
 
 and that tho Parliament of Paris had only provision 'lly 
 "invested de St. Julien, with the collection of tho Royn ty, 
 " and that recently, under colour of an Arret, the same Parlia- 
 " ment of Paris had prohibited de St. Julien from collect ig 
 " the Royalty from certain persons named in the Arrlt, a. d 
 " that tlie Parliament of Grenoble had, in like manner, prohil i- 
 " ted de St. Julien, and that a similar prohibition to de xS '. 
 " Julkn had been made by tho Courts of Peaujollais in ret 
 " rence to the Mines of Jou." By those Letters-Patent the Kin 
 removed, from the ordinary Tribunals, to His Council tht 
 decision of appeals on all contestations between de St. Julien 
 and the subject as to tho Royalty. The Parliament of Paris 
 so far obeyed the King as to cause those Letters to bepubli3hed 
 by their Buissicrs, but refused to enregister the Letters-Patent. 
 
 Sec. 108. ^The struggle was too much for de St- ^ St. Juiim 
 
 Julien, aincG we find by Letters-Patent of Chakles IX, dated da mlrln to 
 the 28th September, 16G8 (see P. 137 of Mines et MmrfuES, royalty and 
 and P. 61 of Lami-Fleu/ry) that c?e St. Julien resigned tho'^'lP^"®*'* 
 office of Superintendent of Mines into tho King's hands, in ten&ln' 
 favor of Maistre Anthoine Vidal, Seigneur de MeUeaaigtm-.&iQtotVide!. 
 
 
OWKIBSBIP 
 
 OP Minks. 
 Aulhoritia, 
 
 Error of Xa- 
 ni-Fleury in 
 Bnpposing 
 Vidal'ta.^. 
 iointment to 
 lave been 
 enrogistered. 
 
 hi 
 
 li! 
 
 — 118 — 
 Surr>i'S'n?!7^'>.'°^f ^H ren^arkable declaration 
 
 yet ?r« WM not moro mcceseful than do St. «7° had O 
 
 "Dirp" 7-i^f a; 1^? °^^\^ ^''^"^^ «"^ arcEives do I'em- 
 
 ej?S;tif„:^f htTtatn';te'r Tp ?4l'J5r ''^'' 
 MmiiB^ we find Z^^«.PaS rfKK^liff" ,^JJ?„?J 
 
 states^'^^'' ™' ^ *^' ^^"^^« ^^ t^« 21 October, 1574, 
 ^^ HENRY, etc., etc., etc. Salut. 
 
 "offlee de Grand-Miist/' Snltl Lr'^^T"" ^* octroyons I'estat et 
 
 " * * * de fnnf >» n^tl fj-. , '"^» ^noloze, Bordeaux. ******** 
 " et de t p?Wes s LeS^'/^^^^ ^^V^« ^^^«.«r et Mre, 
 
 " tout ainsi Pf f^ i„ ^"*' souffrent et laissent le dit Vidal ****** 
 
 " «ToXto^^^^^^^ Itf " '^r'''-'^ ^ettJes talent esta 
 
— 119 — 
 
 in 1674, that they had not been enregistered. This accounts Owmbship 
 for the fact stated by Lam6-Fleury, P. 61, note 2, that the°f ^"'■?- 
 Arret of enregistration could not be found in the Archives of '"" 
 
 the Empire. 
 
 Sec. 109. As Henry II and Fbakjois II had ^»<'<'r* 
 
 died without seeing their efforts to invade private rights confimTd by 
 crowned with success, so Charles IX failed in his attempt King- 
 to enforce even a Koyalty on certain Mines of the Kingdom ; 
 ?^J,^® ^?^ i^8 Successor, Heitrt III, on the 21 October, Persiatent 
 1574, issuing Letters-Patent confirming F^■(?a^'« appointment refusal of 
 as Superintendent of Mines, with jurisdiction to decide all Parliaments 
 mining law-suits (See P. 143 of Mines et MmiiREs). JhoTe'iSf "^ 
 
 Tjie Parliaments would no more enregister those Letters- terTof the 
 Patent than they had enrolled the previous Letters; and there Kings, 
 the matter rested until the promulgation, by Henry IV, in 
 June 1601, of that great Ordinance, which the Plaintiffs have 
 reproduced entire, at P. 103 et seq : of this Factum. It was 
 most probably the great abuses resulting from the jurisdiction Probable 
 exercised in mining law-suits by the Superintendent of Mines canso ot that 
 that led to the successful resistance by the Parliaments and socoessfal 
 Courts of France to the two grants under consideration, and"^^**""' 
 brought about the Edict of Henry IV; for we find that 
 Sovereign, in the preamble of that Edict, stating of that 
 jurisdiction : 
 
 lefl 
 
 ce que lesdicts officiers, deppendans entidrement de lui, lui adju- 
 gfirent plustot co qu'il d4siroit, que ce qui lui appartenoit, dont se seroient 
 ensuivies plusieurs plaintes en nos Cours do Parlement" 
 
 ^eC. 1 10, Such is the history of those two grants, 
 
 upon which the Defendants hive laid so much stress, as establish- 
 ing the right of the King, not to a Eoyalty, but to the Mines 
 themselves. We have shewn how completely they prove the 
 reverse. But that were almost unnecessary, since the Grants 
 were merely so many Letters-Patent, which no more establish 
 what the Law of the Kingdom was, than does the " de L^ry- 
 I atent " prove the Defendants to be owners of the gold 
 |nd silver on the Plaintiffs' lands. Under the French system, 
 Edicts, Ordinances and Declarations alone defined the Law ; 
 letters-Patent were susceptible of opposition, and had no 
 e — .^^ juj.. ^ey nsu been enregist^eu m Xua xrurliaments, 
 
 Those two 
 grants so 
 much relied 
 on by the 
 Defendants 
 prove the con> 
 trary of their 
 pretensions. 
 
li' 
 
 — 120 — 
 
 STmSSI" frl7 inUrmSes ouiea, ou dement appdka, as we have 
 Authi^U,. already shewn at P. 54 of this Factum. 
 
 Strange fea- c* 111 
 
 2SalSS«*>. . ?^?* -ill.— In laying stress, at P. 34 and 76 of 
 
 that shews ZJ i^S*'*"'' upon those abortive attempts at grantinff awa^C 
 
 thm not to to deRoherval, da St. Julien and Vidal Mines on private IaL« 
 
 ett?, Sinfnfi? t--f ulonsly kept from ^wTStS 
 
 oftheLa^ SSS,? o?^r^^V.*^x.^f inaugurated by the monarchs of 
 
 tiiat time, a feature which shews conclusively that no one not 
 
 even the monarchs themselves, beheved ^ose gZ^he 
 
 10 Mav'J^fif 'i.' ^'^ of the Kingdom as to Min^r On thi 
 10 May 1562, the verv next day after the enregistra^ - -a bv 
 the Parliament of Paris of de d Julien^a grant oTthe ImX 
 royaltjr on all Ije Alines of the Kingdom! Cha^ Jb IX tie 
 Sovereigp who had confirmed de St. fulieri/a grs^nt and caused 
 
 tfon nfli 1-?'^^'^^'"',^* *^"i? ^.°*"^"y ^^^^^^d. ^^ dona! 
 fi?f I?! ^ ^°/ ' '*'*y*^*y °° *^J *^® Mi^es without exception. 
 f^^iiV^r^.. i°^y®*V^ ^^^"""'^ ^Lescot; that grant 
 
 6^ani5, and appoints Ze»flo< successor to d^ Jioberval, mst &b, 
 mde St Mten!8 grant, the latter is declared to *be the 
 succor of <^^ Bdbm^^ (see P. 64 of LanU-Fleury). Unde? 
 ^e circumstances, of ^ ^^ Julun and de Lescot, one or other 
 must have been the anti-Pope I The Parliaments refused to 
 enrefflster de Lescofa gcarxii de Lescot contrived, nevertheless, 
 to obtam,on the 12 August, 1564, other Letters from ChaWs 
 IX, speciaUy reqmnng the Parliaments to enregisterlhe 
 deLescot-Gm^ The Parliament of Paris, on the 2 March! 
 1565, enregistered <f« Ztf5<jo«'« grant, with the proviso : « Pour 
 Ijouvr par le dit de Leacot de I'eflFet contenu en icelles, ^Z 
 
 « £/Z» ? *^ ? ceux qui out par ci-devant obtenu mr^lea 
 ^e<^^ et par les arrets donnas sur icelles." 
 
 tlip^Y^f'?^;*^'^® Parliament of Paris, as in the case of 
 ih^de St. JtUzen-QuAm, invested de Le. .a provisonallv onlv 
 and reserved to itself the right, of revoMng^nd set?W S 
 STn^nf'^y V^" 5'^' opportunity that anf iudicTal cfnteefa! 
 ?«P^. A -^""tf rijgWfl might oflfer. %o better success 
 seems to have attenc^d de LeacoVa eflfbrts in that directira 
 *Tm ^^. !^^*^« ^^^ ^et with ; for, on the 10 March 1577 
 while V^a grant still subsisted w^ find H^Efm, issuW 
 Lettera-Patent, reciting that de Lea<^t^s Mbing-woiks haf 
 
as we have 
 
 54 and 76 of 
 anting awai 
 'rivate lands, 
 feature of the 
 monarchs of 
 ; no one, not 
 jrants to be 
 les. On the 
 pstraf! :i bv 
 f the KiBs^B 
 rjcs IX, the 
 and caused 
 iting all the 
 with dona- 
 \, exception, 
 that grant 
 e Eoierval- 
 val, just as, 
 to be the 
 y). Under 
 ne or other 
 refused to 
 jvertheless, 
 n Ghables 
 igister the 
 i 2 March, 
 : " Pour 
 lies, en la 
 ationa que 
 I pareUlea 
 
 he case of 
 tally only, 
 ing aside 
 
 contesta* 
 r success 
 
 direction 
 •ch, 1577, 
 I, issuing 
 orks had 
 
 — 121 — 
 
 been demolished and ruined, and renewing de Lescot's grant for Owmimhip 
 ten years {^GQlame-Fleury, P. 63). This grant was enregis-" »*""• 
 tered by the Parliament of Paris with the remarkable proviso : ^"'**'"'^'- 
 ^^ row jomr par I'imp^trant de I'eflFet et contcnu en icelles, 
 ^^ par manure de provision, pour le temps et terme de dix 
 « *f"> auKmeinea charges et modificatima apposdes en aemhla- 
 ^^oj*i9 Uttr&s, a la charge Aossiquele dit Zetcot ne pourra 
 routileris terreb des aujets du roi, sinon db oRfe a gbA." 
 (See Zame-^jc«m P 63, no'e 1). Here the Parliament dis- 
 tinctly torbids, de Leacot from entering on private lands 
 without the consent of the proprietor. What clearer evidence 
 need be required of the right of the owner of the soil, in the 
 opinion of the highest judicial tribunal of the land, to the 
 Jttrnes imbedded in his soil. Letters- Patent, oi the 28 February, 
 1688 (see Ume-Fkury, P. 66, note 1), shew us the end of 
 VOOT deLeacot, and substitute Frungoia de Tr&yea Seigneur 
 Oela Jferaudiere to de Lescot in the office of Superintendent of 
 JVlmes, and to all de Leacot'a privileges, and granting <?« Troves 
 many further privileges. ^ ^ 
 
 While de Troyea was thus being substituted ^to de Leacot, 
 TLn\ 0V®5""'°S to Letters-Patent of the 31 January, 
 1580, that de Leacot had already received from the Sovereign 
 another successor in the person of Gdbet dit AUongea, styled 
 CoUongea m the LetUra-Patenti^^ Lam^FUury, P. 66 and 
 notes 1, 2 and 3), Gohet'a graot being also for the term of tea 
 years. 
 
 ^eC, lia, How, in the name of common sense The game 
 
 ^n it be maintained that those Letters- Patent of the French noticed by 
 Kings, some of them not enregifitere4 at all, otliers of them ■^"""^•^''"''y 
 enregitstered par provision fliecely, until the Pariiament """^ ^''*"' 
 should order otherwise, and with the proviso that the 
 grantee should not enter on private lands against the 
 owner's will, LetUr!>- Patent, that did not save de St. Julien 
 from being prohibited by the Parliaments of Paris, and of 
 Grenoble and by the Courts of BeauJoUais (see Mines et 
 MiNiiiREs, P. 128) from trespassing on private rights. Letters- 
 Pctentj in fine, that professed (see J^ame-Fteury, P. 54, note 1) to 
 make an independent grant of all tlie Mines in the Kingdom, 
 at the same time, not to two series of concesaionairea gdneraux, 
 as Larai-Fleury says, but to three diflTerent sets of grantees, 
 liow, in the name of common sense, again we ask, can such 
 16 
 
 m 
 
 % 
 
 ■A 
 
'OWREBSHIP 
 
 OF Minis. 
 Authoritiei. 
 
 i 
 
 — 122 — 
 
 Zettera-Paient be viewed as declaratory of the Law or 
 explanatory of any thing, save the extraordinary corrnp'tion 
 ttiat snrronnded the monarchs in those days. larrU-FteuZ 
 
 «d«nZn'r "^"^''^r^^r^ S'?'?*' y '^^^"^= "Cettesorte 
 de parallehsme entre denx series de concessionnaires ff6ne- 
 raiix des Mines de Franco est fort sinffuliere-" At P 61 
 
 note 1, Lam&-Fleury says again : " II est i renmrquer que ni 
 
 « ^^trf^.^ :Z ^"^""^^ ^?' ^""^ ^"^ rappehint les clmrges 
 dont avaiont 6t6 ponrvus de liolerv d et "st. Julim, ne font 
 
 J ancune allusion A mienne Leoot, auquel Ic premier de ces 
 souverams avaitcependant confer^, le 10 Mai, 1662, des privi- 
 Jeges analogues, dont celui-ei devait jouir apr^s <fe St. Julien 
 Wscment on voit que Henei lil ne ,mrle en auc^e 
 
 privileges en faveur de Lescot, de son associo on de eon sue- 
 cessour pn lit A ce siijet, dans la preface des " Zdma 
 miniralogistes " (by Gobet, Paris, 1779) : II neparah pS 
 que ces surintcndants aient eu un grand succes^ . . uSl 
 
 "«l.r'^/*7T^°.^*^'V^*''»"° ^^^ conrtisans 6taient la causo 
 secrete de tant de changements dans les chefs des Mines ; car 
 
 "^t^gf'iTzSo'^^^^^^ '^'^ concession de(^n> 
 
 ^eC. 113. ^The necessity for such cnregistration 
 
 of all Laws promulgated by the Sovereign is clearly esta- 
 ZAKT 1^^/' following citations from tL NoavBA7DS. 
 
 " d'„n«^'i!f!* *^Vi^ •'iiistoire que I'on doit cherchcr I'origino de la verification 
 Horatio" 'en'^lnc:."' ^'''""*"' «""'*^° ^poquesSelativemeT^ir 
 
 History of ««« | J J _, . 
 
 such enregis. »^«^»-« i x^. Uemzart then proceeds to trace the 
 
 rtration. history of legislation in France, and shews that onVin«llv 
 
 Laws were promulgated in great assSfcs of the f ati^^i 
 
 which were termed" Parlcr^ents et .7a^.»; but that eveS 
 
 tually, the consent of the Parliaments was si^s^u ted for tZ 
 
 Necessity of 
 
 enregistra- 
 
 tion. 
 
ie Law, or 
 corrnptiori 
 imeFleury^ 
 ' Cotte sorte 
 n aires ^6ne- 
 " At P. 61, 
 luer que hi 
 les charges 
 e«, ne font 
 mier de ces 
 2, des privi- 
 es?. Julien. 
 en aueune 
 onfirme ces 
 ie eon sue- 
 3 " anciena 
 arait point 
 . . . L'ambi- 
 t la cause 
 »fines ; car 
 a do Grip- 
 
 Jgistration 
 sarly esta- 
 CAu D£;ni- 
 
 }rt aux loix 
 
 ranscription 
 
 et la ver^' 
 romulgation 
 
 verification 
 ent k leur 
 
 trace the 
 
 )riginally 
 e nation, 
 lat, even- 
 d for the 
 
 — 123 — 
 
 assent ofthe Barons, Prelates and other great pei-sonages Owx.mh.p 
 01 tne Kingdom. Donizart says : ''op Minbs. 
 
 Authorities. 
 
 a f " H^ PuWicistea ne sont pas d'accord sur lo temps oi a commenc4 la 
 forme de 16gi8 ation qui subsiste aujourd'hui. Quelques uns pretendent 
 quelle remontoau temps de Philippe-le-Hardi, d'autres seulemcnt au 
 
 ** temps de la captiyjtfi du roi Jean." 
 
 " Suivant cetto derniire forme, Ie roi adresso les lois aux Cours Souve- 
 raines ; et ces Cours, si elles reconnoisscnt I'utilitfi de la loi et sa conformity 
 ayec les Iokx fondamentales, rendcnt un Arrfit pour on ordonner I'ex^cu- 
 tion, soit purement ct simplement, soit avec les modifications qu'elks 
 jugent n^cessaires. Dans Ie cas contraire, les Cours arrfitent qi?il sera 
 felt des remontrances au roi, pour I'engager k retiten la loi proposee. 
 U est ce que Ton appello v£kification des U)ix.'.' 
 
 Sec. II 5. Dcnizart then cites a number of in- Acquiesced 
 
 stances in which the Sovereigns themselves acquiesced in the '" "'y »" '"^e 
 necessity of enchenre^istration. The first example cited by ®''^*'"*'S°^- 
 JJmizart is that of Saint Louis, who thus addressed the King 
 of England : « Pint k Dieu que nous fussions amis ; mais 
 ;e ne puis rien faire ni composer avec vons sans Ie consente- 
 
 I Chancellor 
 --. — jr-Y *' ""^ -""-^«i J. T , xyuiuziait uiies an instance wnicli ■^'■^f^"'!!f , 
 It 18 well to reproduce, since it shews the style of leffislation hS « "'r 
 affected by the Ohancelier de Vmpital, who^repareTthe ^° ^eK"'" 
 est. Jvlten-^xtxit, and ivhom the the Defendants, at P. 34 of^^^'^gpub- 
 their Factum, are pleased to style the ceUhre C'hanceliet\ The^'^l""* ^"^' 
 deSt.Julien.QnA^T was, no doubt, one of the many Letters- t^redb^Pa;. 
 Patent here referred to by i?eWsar< ; liaments. 
 
 " ^tUmeexemple,— On trouve dans Ie journal de Pi«rre Brulard 
 
 " conseiller au Parlement de Paris, que ' 
 
 " Au mois d'avril 1561, l» Ohancelier de VIKpital ayant fait 
 
 ds villed et bailliages de ce royaume plusieurs publications do 
 
 Lettres-Patentes, ct Edits, sans qu'ils eussent 6t6 aucunement 
 
 recues ni v6rifl6s en la Cour de Parlement, contre toute fonno 
 
 de justice et les anciennes observances et ordonnances . 
 
 " furent en propos ii\vk Qmr de Parlement de Paris de lui faire 
 ♦' Conner ajottwiemen^, pour repondre do la publicatnon des dites 
 ! Pa*e"\es et Edits, sans avoir dtb v6rifi«s, comme dit est en la 
 *' Cour de Parlement" 
 
 SCC. llo. When the opposition to- such Letters- Hence rf« 5;. 
 
 Patent assumed so virulent a form, when the Parliament of ^"''*^ *^*°- 
 Paris went so far as to propose impeaching Chancellor ekimt^'^ 
 
 iiines. 
 
 ^!^ 
 
— 124 — 
 
 OWNIIBHIP 
 
 or MiMu. 
 
 AuthoTititi. 
 
 LHopital,onecan readily understand how the Monarch, at 
 ength, receded from the position first taken up by him, and 
 Iiow de St. Juhen also came to abandon all connection, as 
 Superintendent oven, with Mines, which he had once fondly 
 Hoped to control as exclusive owner thereof. 
 
 No Law, Dot ^ 1 I w 
 
 cant'lS.^,.^®^' 117.— Z>^m^r^ afier citing a number of 
 ced. Ordinances and Edicts, which have remained a dead letter, 
 
 lor want of enregigtration, proceeds to say : 
 
 " Ces faits ^tablissent clairement deux conditions comme deraht accom- 
 
 tours, pour y 6tredeliMr6eavai.t que d'etre publi6e. 2® Que la dilibfi- 
 «. rf "'° ^°l* P"?^ hbrement. Les mimes faits annoncont que la travscrip. 
 
 So it is of 
 Letter8-Pa< 
 
 tent ra ^GC, llo. i>«ni8ar<, finally declares that LetteiB- 
 
 reSi priTUe"*^ Patent, granting privileges savoring of the realty, also require 
 ges. to be approved by tlie Parliaments. He states : 
 
 « r.w^l-r""!^* ""f privileges qm tiennent de la rlaRt4, comme sont tons les 
 
 privileges exclusifs, lis rentrent dans la i%le g6n6ra}e, et doivent 4tre 
 
 ;; enr6g.8trfe^^ar tous les Rkrlements dans le report des^ueb on pr6t»nden 
 
 " ^'*Pf|s ce qui a itf dit sur la nficessitfi de I'enr^gistrement. on sent 
 
 que son effet est de manifester le consentement, aan, Iquel la hi nJS 
 
 " recevoir urn exieution Ugale."" ^ nepeut 
 
 The doctrines thus enunciated by Denhart, as to the 
 necessity for the enregistration of all Laws promulgated by 
 the Sovereign, suffer no difficulty whatever ; the same opl- 
 
 ?he"ub'ect ^""^'^ ^*"®°*'^ *"***''*' who has written on 
 
 KiS!", ^^^- }} ^'— ^* " ra^vmti I'emarkable that, in the 
 
 set and pre- J^"g series of Letters-Patent by which Henbt IL Fbancois II 
 
 ciou. metaiB. Chakles IX and HENBYUIthus vainly sought to exerdse the 
 
 right of disposing, at will, of all the Mines in the Kinirdom no 
 
 one ever dreamed of making the silly distinction sought to be 
 
 made by some persons, betwieen Royal Metals and nSi-Royai 
 
Monarch, at 
 bj him, and 
 nncction, as 
 once fondly 
 
 number of 
 dead letter, 
 
 deratit accoin< 
 it envoyie aux 
 Que la d£libS- 
 B ia travserip' 
 LB dCautoriier 
 
 liat Letters- 
 ilso require 
 
 I sont touB les 
 I doivent Stre 
 ui pr6tend en 
 
 aent, on sent 
 !a hi nepeut 
 
 as to the 
 ilgated by 
 
 same opi- 
 nrritten ou 
 
 lat, in the 
 
 tANJOIS II, 
 
 :ercise the 
 gdom, no 
 ight to be 
 lou-Royai 
 
 — 125 — 
 
 M^iJfn3^*'"*''}i^'T.,^°"'"-^^*«"*' «« throughout Oini...H,P 
 
 ^ Jf? "5?^^°»«<»ef » «oId and silver are treated of, on the very °' ^'"•• 
 same footing as the baser metals. We defy the Defendante ^'"*'"'*"- 
 to cite a single line from any Edict, Ordinance, Dec aratiJn 
 or Letters-Patent, drawing any such ridiculous distSn If 
 the DE LfiEY-Pafen^ be leld"" valid, then hw the Crowi a 
 
 Sin ^*' *^®''.®'y*J^"^<^'*y o^ 6"ch & supposition is a 
 strong argument against the Patent. Fposuiou is a 
 
 Sec, 120,— Before proceeding to slieW that the Authors 
 provisions of the several Ordinances reproduced In their enti tw*tin8th«8 
 
 ^koutMa^elfu ^^o^n^Z\l' ^2Z.Vi^'''''-^ 
 for and against the position assumed by the PlaintiS tJ^^ 
 authors may be divided into five classes, namely : 
 
 1 ® Those, who hold, and say, in so many words that all 
 tty1C'^°"' ^''*^"''^'°' ^'^^°S *" ^^^ o^ner of^hesoil ; 
 
 J*""fe"^' ,, IO.-Pkoudhon, 
 
 2.— Lef^bveb de la Planghe, 11.— Brixhb, 
 3.-Doj^T, 12.-Bo8QuS-, 
 
 4.--.Peb:6z, 13.-.REN08B0«f, 
 
 5.-DEM0L0MBE, H.-PoifTANUS 
 
 I— 5y ^o^"'* 16.-FAVABD Die Langlade, 
 
 8.-.C0QinLLE, IT.-COLLYEB. "^^^^=' 
 
 V. — I'AUL DB CasTBB, 
 
 n^nl!.^^'*'®'-,'^^ k' '^^ '«'J>iic^tion, assign all Mines to the 
 owner of the soil ; they arc 
 
 !• — poetalis, 11.. 
 
 2. — Heknequin, 12.*- 
 ?* — S^"^*""' ^^» ■^omaim, Marque 
 
 4. — PiGEAU, 13,. 
 
 5. — POTHIEB, 14^. 
 
 6. — ^toullier, 1.5._ 
 
 7. — ^Ddplessis, 16[_ 
 
 8. — DupoNT, i7.'_ 
 
 9. — ^MlONEBON, 18.- 
 
 10. — BOUTKILLEB, 19.- 
 
 -Dalloz, 
 
 -LAMfe-FLEUBt, 
 
 desfers, Lezion. 
 
 -GAEAin.T, 
 
 -Pledey, 
 
 -Gin, 
 
 -De CoEiMis, 
 
 -MOBNAO, 
 
 -VoET, 
 
 • Hknbys. 
 
 
 ! 1*1 
 
 
OftrstBSBtp 
 
 Of MllKS. 
 
 Authoritit), 
 
 i 
 iiii 
 
 ml 
 
 LlFJlBVBfl DB 
 Lk PliANOHl, 
 
 gives all 
 Mines, even 
 of gold and 
 silver, to 
 owner of eoil. 
 
 ii'M 
 
 — 1J6 — 
 
 3 © TJiosc ^^rho give all Mines, without distinction to the 
 Jling ; they are 
 
 1.— FEBRdRE, 4.— TroPLONO, 
 
 2 — ForoARD, 5.— (Quench. 
 
 o. — Jelkbecque, 
 
 4® Those who give «/o?»^ and M7ver.Mines on^y to the 
 iving; they are 
 
 1.— POCQUKT DE LiVONIjSbe, 5.— ReBUFFE ? 
 
 2.— CnoppiN? e.-MiNiER? 
 
 o. — Lebret ? 7. LocRfe ? 
 
 4.— D'AROENTRt ? s'.—Brillon ? 
 
 5® Those, who give gold-mnes only to the Kinff; 
 they are * » r 
 
 1.— DtNIZART, S.—BoURJON, 
 
 2.— Delhommbau, 4.— Loysel. 
 
 fteC. 1-4 J, Of the authors who assign all Mines, 
 
 without distinction, to the owners of the soil, Lef^bvre de la 
 Planch K, it we may except Merlin, appears to be the man 
 who has given the subject the most study. 
 
 3 LEFEB VRE DE LA PL ANCHE, Tbaite du Domainb, 
 Livre IX, Chapitre 7 F, § 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8 et ». P. 1 et seqt 
 
 , ^ \-~" 9" " ^*"''" ailleurs que tout ce qui n'a point de maftro, et que 
 n apparticnt a personne, appartient au premier occupant, c'est-A-dire, dans 
 les Mats polices, k colui qui exerce la puissance publique, aaquel ont bti 
 transforms les droits offerts par la nature au premier occupant ; et cette 
 maxime semble recevoir una juste application aux tnHies que la nature a 
 cach^es dans les entrailles de la terre, et qu'elle n'a pas voulu laisser en la 
 disposition des particuliers ; cependant ellis «'<m< jamais ite regardiet 
 comme appartenantes au Smiverain." 
 
 ^ ^Tt" ?*"■ I'anclcn Droit Romain, elles appartenaient sans restriotiok 
 <m propnetaire de VUritage, oA elles se trouvaient,.L. Fhicttu, 7, 413 et 14w 
 ^ 6oluto matrim, il en disposait librement, comme des autres fimolumenS 
 de sa terre, 1. 13, § Indd quantum, ff. de um/ructu, et guem admodtlm quia 
 utatw jruatur ; et celui qui en faisait la decouverto n'y poovait rien pr6- 
 tendre, si ce n 6tait dans le cjls dans lequel il avait trouvi cea mines dana 
 des terres dosertes et abandonnees." 
 
 u A ^ 8-— -"Cette jurisprudence fut chang^e sous les Emp^reurs qui s'attri- 
 bu^rent des droits sur les mines, en quelques lieux qu'elles fussent trouv6es 
 suiyant les differents usages des lieux, pro varietate Provincianim comme 
 on lo voit au titre du Code de MetceUariia : il faat voir la n-M de Qodefrov 
 sur la loi seconde de ce titre." v.«u««mj' 
 
— 127 — 
 
 DrfitelduTn nintel^'^/''^ "'"^' °" "° ""'*■ P'^'"' ^1"° "^^ Rois aient jatnnfa 
 nf,- i"^J propriety dcs mines : on ne peut en fournirune meilleure oreuve 
 
 LLi appartunt il ordonne que les propri^ta res, et autres pr6tendans droifc 
 8eront contrmntsau paiement: cetto r4rve du dIxiJmrderrn nes au S 
 du Roi, est une imitation des constitutions des Empereurs." ' ^ 
 
 « -?i,v"J7/'^i"^'"'^°""»*"*^^' "J"^ contionnent cetto r6serve, expriment aue 
 ee droit tetendrujn, seutement aur le» minet d'ob et d^ro Jt mSs an«*J 
 
 cTSreTt;:s^'LV"Kf^^ - g^n^^^irtJiteTsub ti 
 
 SS £3 rf^pX i 1 K ^''^ HpKi IV, du moisde Juin, 1(501, rnpport6 
 fermSAv^^^^fJ" f^^'^ des Comptes, le droit duJioiUtVren- 
 {nnnf^f/ff I- * »''^'^^^<'f> metalliques ; et les substances terrestres 
 en ont6ta affranchies : en consdqucnce, les mines de charbon ont ifUfoU^ 
 
 1724, VoyeB sur cette roatidre, CnopiN, rf« Dom: . 1 tit- 2 n fit in 
 n. 16; Charqndas, Paud, 1. 1, c. 18, p. 80." ' ' ' ^' 
 
 ^^Ja'"^" ^™^^' **« 'a Souvcrainet6, 1. 3, eh : 6, p. 194 pretend mio In 
 Ses eS 5StS\r. ''^ P^^'"'^"^ O'rdon^nnces '^ndnien^A Tottri s 
 SCemttsfit lif^^V"''rV'^^ ;'*''""° Declaration du mo?? 
 
 a:t^\'S^n'ln'^pS.'''^^ ''^'^''"«^°" "^"^^ PO'»t <=«»»"^> «taucun 
 
 § 7.-" n est vrai que le droit de dixiime ne sc percoit nns <?iir Ip« 
 mines defer; mais c'est parceque le droit du Roi a 6t6 S d^Sne au re 
 
 rn^io8TalrtitrcSra:^L%r^^^^ 
 
 ^-.™->„ ' M-"''j«B'»ii.ii propoB, en contentant es propria tairos • Pf il 
 
 d?2TS?etT5r'P ^"' •r'" ''^""^ *=?"« ««="'t^ ' Sed Francis 
 ' ^" 29 Juillet, 1560, le permit en particul er, au Sieur do St TnliBn. 
 
 cependant la crainte qu'on n'abuse de cette faculty, semSe exSjcr ou'on nJ 
 
 ^s mines au dixidme, ne s'etend pas aux Coutumcs qui en disposent aitrl 
 men<, comme es coutumes d'Anjou, Art. 61 ; et ceirdu Ee Art" 
 70, qui dicident que la fortune d'or, trouv6e en mine armnrHfinl „,? p • 
 que celle d'argent appartient au Comte, Vicomte S fiiron^ Sn^?*"' ''* 
 republique, 16. c. 2,^p. 048, Edition de' 1578, obseJvequ' 'y a peSde tine? 
 
.i I 
 
 OWMIRSBir 
 OP MlHIi. 
 
 Authoritiu. 
 
 Distinction 
 between com' 
 mon Law, 
 and excep- 
 tional Cm- 
 torn*. 
 
 Defendants, 
 follcwing 
 Dalloe, attri 
 bute, to Li- 
 
 riBVIBB Dt 
 LA PLAKOBI, 
 
 opinion of 
 
 obacare 
 
 Lorri, 
 
 Contraat be- 
 tween Mtrlm 
 and that ser- 
 Tile uphold- 
 er of the 
 J?omain$, 
 
 DoHAT ai. 
 
 signa Mine*, 
 without 
 distinction, 
 to owner of 
 soil. 
 
 
 — 128 — 
 
 ^eC. 1 2>2, Lef^yvre cU la Planehe^ in that article, 
 
 draws the distinction between the Oommon Law of the King- 
 dom and the Customs, such as those of Anjou, Maine and 
 Bretagiie^ which give gold and tilver to the King and his 
 Barons. As we are governed by the Custom of Pans, which, 
 fw we shall presently shew, gives all Mines to the ownef of 
 the soil, it is plain that the citations mad?^ by the Defen- 
 dants from Ouinma, D'ArgentrS, Zoytel, I*wfuet de Zivoniere 
 and others, who commented the exceptional Customs, do not 
 apply to this case. 
 
 ^eC, 1<«0« Some notes on 2Afebvre de la J^anoAe^ 
 
 are cited by the Defendants at P. 44, 45, 46 and 64 of their 
 .Factum, as evidence of the opinion of Zef^vre de la Fitmohe 
 in their favor ; now tliose notes are not by Zefebvre de la 
 Planche ; they are fiom tlie pen of Lorri, advocate of the 
 King au Domaine (see 2 Camv.9, P. 318, No. 1111). One 
 can, therefore, readily nnderstui]! why it is, that Lorri, in his 
 notes, wouM express a diflferent opinion from LktAbveb db 
 LA PiAKOHB, and would assign, for giving gold-M nea to the 
 King, a, reason founded kot on Law, but on the « Haura du 
 royaHTM. Tiie Defendants, at P. 47 and 48 of their Pactum, 
 copying Dalloz, vol 81, Rip. de Lig. ; P. 606, in that respect, 
 erroneously attribute to LefAbvbe db la Planohb the opi- 
 nion BO expressed by the obscnre Lorri. 
 
 What a contrast between the obscnre, the servile Lorri 
 and Merlin, of whom Camue, vol : 2, P. 20, Nos. 16 and 18 
 says : 
 
 •♦ MbrIiIN est un TB»s-«aca»< juriteoiuulU. Ses ouvrages n'ont itA 
 critiques que par ceux qui n'aimaient point sa personne ; mais ib sont 
 dang toutes lea biblioth^ques ; on les cite dans tous les procds, et ils ne 
 laissent pas que d'etre consultes en teere*. et avbc frdit par ceuz-IJI. mdme 
 qui leur rendent le moins de Justice en public." 
 
 ^eC. 1 ^4. Domat, another anthof entitled to the 
 
 greatest weight, has the following explicit passages on this 
 subject : 
 
 DoMAT. —Lois CiviLEs, Chotei, 1 Vol : Titre III, section 
 11, No. 5, p. 18. 
 
 "On peut mettre au nombre des fonds que les particullers ne peuvent 
 possider de plein Droit, ceux oii se trouvent des mines d'or, d'argent et 
 autres mitauz, ou matieres 8ur letauelUa le Pritue a $on droit" 
 
— 129 — 
 
 bat article, 
 ' the Eing- 
 Uaine and 
 D^ and his 
 ns, which, 
 ) owner of 
 lie Defen- 
 Liwmiere 
 mi, do not 
 
 a Hanohe^ 
 54 of their 
 'fa Plcmehe 
 ibvrede la 
 ite of the 
 11); One 
 'm, in his 
 
 r^BVBR DB 
 
 nes to the 
 M(Bwr9 dtt 
 r Factum, 
 At respect, 
 ! the opi- 
 
 rile Zorri 
 L6 and 18 
 
 « n'ontiti 
 kia ils sont 
 ^s, et ils ne 
 fa-Ik mdmQ 
 
 led to the 
 ss on this 
 
 /, section 
 
 ne peayent 
 I'argent, et 
 
 DoMAT. — Deoit Public, Puissance, Vol : 2, Zivre J, Titre Ownihship 
 II section lAm. 19, p. 12. ^'£-J-. 
 
 " La nicesBitfi dcs ni6tauz, non leultment pour let monnayes, pour p„j2.' 
 Tusage des armes, et pour cclui do rartillerio, maia pour une inflnit6 d'autres 
 besoing et commadit^a, dont plusieurs regardent 1 int^rit public, rend ces 
 inatidres et celles des autres minirauz, si utiles et si n6cessaires dans un 
 Etat, qu'il est de I'ordre do la Police que lo Souverain ait sur Ics mines do 
 ces matidrea un droit ind6pendant de celui des propri^taires dcs lieux o\i 
 elles se trouvent Et d'ailleurs on peut dire, que lour droit dans son origine 
 a 6t6 born6 k I'usage de leurs heritages pour j somer, planter et bAtir, ou 
 pour d'autres scmbTables usages : et quo leurs titrcs n'ont pas suppose un 
 droit sur Ics mines qui 6taient inconnucs, et dont la nature destine I'usa^o au 
 public par le bcsoin que peut avoir un ^tat des mdtaux et autres matidres 
 ■ingulieres qu'on tire des mines. Ainsi les lois ont r6gl6 I'usage des mines, 
 ei laissant aux propri^taires des fonds ce qui a paru juste, elles y ont aussi 
 regli un droit pour le Souverain." 
 
 The author then proceeds to cite the Roman Law, and refers to the 
 Ordinances of the French Kings on the subject, and then refers to Title 4, 
 section 1, article 0, cited below. 
 
 DoMAT. — Dboit Public, Finances, Zivre I, Title IV, 
 Section I, Article 9, p. 42. 
 
 " On peut aussi comprendre dans les biens de cette premiire espdce, les 
 revenuB que le Souverain tire des mines regi6s h \iu aixidme." 
 
 Domaia opinion is of the most.decided form ; he declares 
 in the most express terms, that the owner of the soil is also 
 owner of the gold and silver-Mines, hut not de plein droit, aa 
 he sajs, or to such an extent as to prevent the Soveieicfn 
 from insisting on the treasure not remaining profitless for the 
 state ; the profitable interest of the Sovereign consisting, as 
 Domat states, in a fiscal burthen merely, not a right of 
 property {revemis,r4glSs dundixiime). And yet Domat has 
 been cited by the Defendants as favoring their views. 
 
 Sec. 125. It is of Domat, that the great Chan- ^,^^„^„^„,, 
 
 cellor D* Agriesseau, in his " Instnictdons propres d former un opinion of 
 magisi/rat ' , Tom : 1, P. 389, says: 
 
 " On peut appeler Domat le jurisconsulte des Magistrats ; etquiconque 
 " poss^derait bien son ouvrage, ne serait peut-Stre pas le plus profond des 
 " jurisconsultes, mais il serait lepluaaolide et le plus tHr de torn lesjttges." 
 
 What a contrast between that opinion as to Domat, and 
 the opinion entertained of Ferri&re, by his own nephew, as 
 
 17 
 
 DOUAT. 
 
•or M»M, 
 
 Authorititt. 
 
 P»iz, 
 
 Oiioppiir. 
 
 PiBix holds 
 all Mioei, 
 wilhout dia- 
 tinctioa,to 
 belong to 
 owner of loil. 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 — 180 — 
 
 iSPno 840*-^° f^"o^'"g citation from Camus, vol : 3, P. 
 
 »ux V1C8 dea Junsconsultes, par Tauand. qu'on souhaiterait dani Im 
 
 ^eC. 126, Antonio pKBiz, a Spaniard, Professor 
 
 hah'"" f „^f "'^*». coramentinff on the Code, L. ^ J/c<trf ; 
 has tJui followiug, at P. 424, edition of 1696 : 
 
 „ ." ^.^ quibus locis concludit Cujaeius. lib. IB oh» si f« <„ -ti 
 
 The author's knowledge of the Code is not lessened bv 
 br his Ignorance of the Laws of Nature, an ignorance he 
 shared in common with all others of his age. Hl/mor^ver 
 backs up his opinion with that of the illustrious Oujas, AfS 
 citing poetry, and, as if to relieve the monotony of the studv he 
 21m fV"""'?^' the author speaks of the then known gold! 
 fields of the world, and of the extraordinary richness of wme 
 of them and hegoeson to treat ofthe canon »««<aZ;tci« or share 
 (equivalent to our Royalty) then paid over to the State under 
 the Roman Law. He then proceeds to discuss the then 
 
 ftit"^M'^*'^''^ *^^ ^r ^^^>°W in the various countries of 
 the world, and proceeds, at P. 426, to say : 
 
 ." HodiA diversBB sunt consuetudines, et regnorum leeea de fodin.'c »« 
 pnvatoloco repertis, nam in publico, Prindpi ^reJSmiXi. «5^^^^ 
 
 T. 1. ^V^T *^**®^ *^**» ^"^ ^''^^ ^i^es of gold and sUwr 
 belong to the Kinft even though they are found in priv^ 
 lands, but that, after pajrment^f the^xpense of ^S a 
 
 
 m 
 
131 — 
 
 Sec. 127. ^Tho same author then states, that the °''""""''' 
 
 Law of Germany, as established by the Cmstitution of i\iQ Authoritiu. 
 Kmperor Fkkdkbio, assigns, to the Sovereign, all Mines, f"""*' 
 without distinction, and whoreeoover found. And. in this F'S'^"''' 
 connection, it is fitting to notice the bad faith with which theooLi'TM. 
 Defendants have quoted authorities in their Factum. AILotbil. " 
 P. 46 and 47, of their Factum, the Defendants quote C/iovmfiy^^^"'"'''' 
 at a pfissage where he speaks of this very Conatittition ot theJJ'S^of ^ 
 Emperor Fbkderio, i. e. of the Law of Gi rmany, as evidence of Germany on 
 what the Law of Franco was. ChomnrCs own opinion, as we*""*" n»i«'»- 
 shall presently shew, is to the efi^ct that the King has a j!" ^A,^!ff "• 
 Royalty on all Mines, nothing more. ^ Jj.nion a? ^ 
 
 ^ lOQ LawofFran- 
 
 OeC. \4tO, Perez, after stating the Law of Gcr- •^®- 
 
 many on Mining, proceeds to state that, by the Law of Opinion of 
 France, the owner of the soil is owner of all Mines, cvuu of '*"**" ^«f 
 gold and silver, found upon his lands, except under special "P""'*' 
 Customs, such as that ot Anjou^ which gives gold-Minea to 
 the Sovereign ; he cites leJaret, in support of Lis opinion. 
 The language of Per&s is so explicit, that there can be no 
 doubt as to nis opinion. He says at P. 426 : 
 
 '• In GUlliA vero scrvatur Regi deciraa vel alia portio, nisi consuetudo 
 "autBtatutum provinci» aliild disponat, prout andegavensis constitutio, 
 " Tult auri fodinas quovis loco repertas, flsco regio acquiri, reliquas dominis 
 " locorum, aut habentibus altam justitiam, ut Tocant, Le Bret, de la Souvo- 
 " raineti du Soy. lib. 8, cap. 6." 
 
 Sec. 1^9. It seems strange that Perez uadthec/u^in 
 
 the Defendants could have succeeded in citing LeBret for the^'^'"''^''!'"* 
 purpose of establishing quite contrary propositions ; the quo-^^fendants?^ 
 tation of LeBret by the Defendants, in support of their 
 position, is in keeping with the way in which they tortured 
 unfortunate Mr. Vhoppirty as we shall presently shew. 
 
 Sec. J 30. Here also Perez treats a question of 
 
 the highest importance in this case; it is the question, right of entry 
 whether the Defendants could exercise the rij^ht of entry on >n any case ; 
 the Plaintiffs' lands against their will. Perez, in so many 
 words, asserts that the right of entry does not exist. 
 
 CoLLYEB on Mines, P. 14, American Edition (P. 3 of so do Colly tr^ 
 English Edition) has the following : ^">y*^, 
 
 " But the propcrtj in minerals is not necessarily accompanied by the 
 light to work for them : indeed, ezcept,^ where the owner of the fee is in 
 
 M 
 
OWRIUBIP 
 
 or MuBS. 
 Anthorides, 
 Law>Offi> 
 oiu. 
 
 DlUOLOHBI. 
 
 — 182 — 
 
 possession, the minerals are, without agreement, prescription or custom, 
 accessible to nobody. > «- r , 
 
 LoYSEL, cited by the Defendants at P. 45 and 46 of their 
 J? actum, and in commenting on the very JSule cited by tliem. 
 states : • j i 
 
 « i j" ^?.^ " P?'"'' « P'^'" '^^ P*''<''^s suivantes du §2 do I'article 85 du livre 
 1 du J/iroir £?e« Saxons, qu'on ne peut aussi ouvrir la terre d'un autre 
 sans son consentement." 
 
 Geiierai,°aS7 . . ^h^ Attorney General and the Soh'citor General of England, 
 
 Solicitor Ge- m 1864, gave it as their opinion that the right of entry does 
 
 neral. not exist to search tor gold or silver on pbivate lakds. That 
 
 opinion 18 quoted by Sir Charles Gore in a report, dated the 
 
 3rd February 1854, and addressed by him as Commissioner 
 
 of Orown-iands-revenue to the Lords of the Treasury in 
 
 reference to the gold-Mhm of Australia. We quote ^i> 
 
 CharUs Gores words from the ti-anslation given by the 
 
 Journal de Quebec;' in its issue of the 5th December, 1863 : 
 
 .11 y a des difficult^. 4 agir dans ces cas (octroi de licences pour 
 exploiter les mines d'or ou d'argent), parce que les officiers en loi ont sou- 
 tenu que la Couronne n'amaitpm le droit (Tentrer sur lea terres qui apvar- 
 
 I pouvoir cont'ere par ^ ^„ ,„ 
 
 le consentement du proprietaire du sol 
 
 peut 
 
 qu avec 
 
 DWOLOHBB 
 
 declares 
 owner of soil 
 to be owner 
 of all Mines, 
 Trithout dis- 
 tinction. 
 
 Sec. J 31. — Di 
 
 ►emolombe, in his Cotirs de Code 
 Napoleon, Traite de la distinciion des Mens, Vol. 1, N"o 645 
 tr^fine, and m. 647, has the following very explicit passages 
 on this point : ° .' r r & » 
 
 .. r.i"A"f^^^° '^'.°'*-'^" propri6taire du sol h la propri6t6 du tr^fonds mind- 
 ral, n a-t-il pas toujours iih reconnu. 
 
 ." Un certain nombre de nos anciennes Coutumes dficlaraient les 
 Seigneurs propndtaires des biens renfermfis dans I'intfirieur de la ter-e 
 *' del avoir en tm-enm extraye (Merlin, Questions de droit, vlo. J/i««).'' 
 
 Mais I'article 552 soumet formellement, lo droit do propridt6 du sol aux 
 modifications resultant des lois et rdglements relatifs aux Mines. 
 
 ♦ • »^°"^ T^T*^"^ n ^'^^^**"* ^%^"J *J"« •«« M'°«s appartiennent au proprie- 
 taire du sol dont elles ferment Ic dessous. -"Fiupue 
 
 Ce principe dtait incontesto chez les Romains (Z. 7. S 14 ff solut 
 
 mTall) ' ^ '^'^ "'^' "^' *"'■ *"* *"^ '■ ^- ^ '' 3' ^^* tSeUllet 
 
 Notre ancien droit francais I'avait, en g4n6ral, aussi partout reconnu, si 
 
ion or custoiii, 
 
 — 133 — 
 
 on excepte un petit nombre de coutumes qui paraissaient attribuer les Ow»iRiHip 
 Mines au seigneur (Ordonnances de 1418 et de 1471 ; 6dit de 1601 ; of Minkb. 
 Ordonnancedel680; Merlin, Questions de droit Vbo. Mines. § 1 : Ptonihon Authorities. 
 du Donwine priv6, T. II, Nos. 788 et suiv.) Zachabi;b 
 
 BLiNCHa. 
 
 It is clear from that passage of Demolombe that the 
 Common Law of France regarded the owner of the soil as the 
 owner of the Mine. 
 
 ^eC. loS. Zachaei-e, Z>m^ Civil FraiiQaia, vol: 2*°°"'^ 
 
 2, P. 65, § 276. has the following, as to the form of theJSIom 
 present action : of action. 
 
 1 * La propri6t6 n'a par elle-mdme d'autre llmites que celles de la 
 nature. 
 
 2 ® Cette puissance appartient au propri6taire exclusivement k tous 
 autres. 
 
 8 ® Cette puissance existe de plein droit : quiconque r^clnme un droit 
 sur la chose d'autrui doit done prouver sa pretention ; et, jusqu'i ce que 
 cette preuve soit faite, le propriitaire a pour lui la prfeomption Ificale quo 
 son droit est ezclusif et illimitd. 
 
 And again 
 
 :lusifetillimit6. r *- e 
 
 liu at Page 118. § 300, the same author says : 
 
 En vertu de I'essence juridique de la propri6t6, le propri6taire d'une 
 chose est fonde 4 en user et k en jouir exclusivement V. § 277. 
 
 Le propri^taire d'une chose et en particulier le propriStaire d'un 
 immeuble ou celul qui a sur Timuieuble un droit d'usufruit, d'usage ou 
 d'habitation peut done former contre quiconque pretend k une servitude 
 ^r6tendue, dfaire interdire au de/endeur toute atteinte d la liberte de cet 
 tmmevhle, et mime, tuvoant let cirematancea, d le/aire candamner d dea 
 dommoffet et intirSta. 
 
 Cette action qual\/Ue d'action HioATOiRB, et qui doit itre appreciee 
 Wapria V analogue qu'ellepriaente aveclarevendioatum a cependant cecide 
 pa/rtieulisT, que loraque lapropriSti eat reconnue ou itdblie par le deman- 
 deur,il ineombe nonpaa d celui-ci de prouver la francMae ou la liberte de 
 ton immeuble, mais au nf pbndeub db fourotr la prebvi de la servitude 
 
 QU'lL PRiTBND AVOIR ACQUISB SUR LE BIEN-F0ND9. 
 
 »eC. loo» Alfbed Blanche, in his Dioiionnaire ALTaMoBtui' 
 
 Gdn^al d* Administration, vbo. Mines, P. 1282, has the MineTIo'**' 
 following conclusive evidence as to the owner of the soil being owner of sou 
 owner of the Mines: 
 
 _ Pluaieura auteurt om PRftEUDU que lea anciem roia de Prance conddi- 
 raient leproduit dea Minea eomme une veritable portion de leur domaine 
 comme une proprieti de la eouronne,1 et que les concessions pab evx. 
 
 ACCORDIbS N iXAIENT AUTRE CHOSE QUE DES DONS PROPREMENT DITS. Cette 
 
 opinion parait erronnSe. Quand on consulte les idits, les ordonnances 
 rendus A co sqjet, oa trouve que les Rois, loin d'envisager les Mines comme 
 
 n.. 
 
 "I 
 
 m 
 
 (I'll 
 
 ■'if 
 

 w 
 
 iiili 
 
 OWNBBSHIP 
 
 OF Mines. 
 Authoritiea. 
 portalis. 
 Fatabd di 
 
 LASeLADI. 
 
 PORTALIS, 
 
 opinion in- 
 consistent 
 with idea of 
 BOTereign 
 being owner 
 of any mines. 
 
 — 184 — 
 
 uno propri6t6 domaniale et dependant de la couronne avait soin, an contraire 
 d'6tablir : 1 ® le droit du propri6taire du sol sur tout ou partie du produit 
 de la Mine : 2 ® un droit inherent h la personne du roi de choisir tel ou tel 
 de ses sujets pour exploiter leg Mines, genre de propri6t6 qui exige une 
 surveillance particulidre de la part du chefde I'Etat, et dont les intereta 
 8ont li68 intimement i ceux de I'industrie et de la rioheese nationale. 
 
 Le premier acte reglementaireemaneduSouvtrain ettdu SO Mai 1418. 
 On a en effet reconnu aujourd'hni l'brreuR de cm» qui mentionnaient 
 eomme point de depart de notre legislation tur cette matiire une ordonnance 
 de Philip le Long du 5 WAvril 1821. Cette ordonnance ne B'occupe pas 
 dea Mines. 
 
 Sec. lo4. — PoRTALW, in presenting to the Corps 
 Legialatif the project of the Napoleon-Code, and in commen- 
 ting on Art; 662 of that Code, identical in its terms, with 
 art : 414 of the Canadian Code, is thus reported at P. 34 and 
 seq : of Vol : 4 of the Code Civil et MoUfa^ by Favard de 
 Langlade, edition of 1820 : 
 
 L^gislateurs, 
 
 Vou3 vous empresserez de consacrer par tos suffrages le grand principe 
 de la propri6t6, presente dans le projet de loi comme le droit C-: louir et de 
 disposer des choses de la manidre la plus absolue. 
 
 Au citoyen appartient la PRoPRi^Tf , et au Souterain l'eupirb. Telle 
 est la maxime de tons les pays et de long temps. C'est ce qui a fait dire au 
 publiciste que la libre et la tranquille jouissance des biens que Ton possfide 
 est le droit essentiel de tout peuple qui n'est point esclave ; que chaque 
 citoyen doit garder sa proprifite sans trouble ; que cette propriety ne doit 
 janaais recevoir d'atteinte, et qu'elle doit dtre assur^e comme la constitution 
 mSme de I'^tat 
 
 ^empire, qui est le partage du souveradn ne rer^erme aueune idie de 
 domaine proprement dit. II consiste uniquement dans la puissance de 
 gouvcrner. II n'est que le droit de prescrire et d'ordonner ce qu'il faut 
 pour le bien g6n6ral et de diriger en consequence les choses et les personnes. 
 
 *»♦#»## 
 
 En France et vera le milieu du dernier aiiole, nous avons vu paraltre 
 des eerivaina dont les opinions systSmatiques 6taient vraiement capables de 
 eompromettre lea antiquea maximea de I'ordre naturel et social. Ces ^crivains 
 Bubstituaient au droit incontestable qu'a I'fitat ou le sourerain de lever des 
 subsides, un pr^tendu droit de propri^te sur le tiers du produit dea biens. 
 
 Les hommes qui prfichaient cotte doctrii^e se proposaient de remplacer 
 toutes les lois fondamentales dos nations par la pr^tendue force de l'6vidence 
 morale presque toujours obscurcie par les int^rSts et les passions, et toutes 
 les formes connues de gouvernement par un despotisme l^gal, qui impli- 
 querait contradiction j usque dans les termes; car le mot despotisme, qui 
 annonce le fl6au de rhumaait6 devait-il jamais 4tro plac6 & cdffi du mot 
 16gal, qui caract^rise le rdgnt bienfaisant des lois f 
 
 III' 
 
Ave ; que chaque 
 
 — 136 — 
 
 Heureusement toutes ces erreurs viennent fichouer centre les principes Ow««R8Hn« 
 consacrfg par le droit naturel et public des nations, fl est reconnu partout of Minu. 
 que lea nusons qui motivent pour les particuliers la n6ces8it6 du droit de ^«<Aori<i«. 
 propri6t6, sont 6trangJ>re8 k I'fitat ou au souverain, dont la vie politiaue Pobtamb 
 n est pas sujette aux mfimes besoins que la vie naturelle des individus. Du-Motm. 
 
 Sec. 135. — Is it not plain that the idea of the The same. 
 Sovereign being owner of any Mines whatever is utterly 
 incompatible with that declaration of de Portalis : L'cmpire 
 • am est le partagedu Souverain, ne renferme aucune id6e de 
 « domame proprement dit ? » Such is the opinion of the man 
 from all others selected to support the project of the Code by 
 that great man, the least of whose attributes was not, perhaps, 
 his unfailing^ sagacity in the choice of his assistants. That 
 opmion derives untold weight from the circnmstance that 
 JNapoleon, himself a man of most despotic will, one not likely 
 to Jet slip any prerogative theretofore enjoyed by his prede- 
 cessors, the Sovereigns of France, energetically maintained, in 
 the debate on the Law of 1810, that Mines, without distinction, 
 belong to the owner of the soil (see Demolombe, Distinction 
 dea hens, t : 1, No. 646). 
 
 ^eC. loO.« — Chables D0MOTJLIN, or rather DdMo-doMoum 
 LIN (as he wrote his name), in the Edition of 1681 of his works, «'^«8 gold 
 Yol: 1, Trtle 2, gloss: 1, de cemive,oh Article 74 of Onr!.li''"J" 
 Custom of Paris has, on this subject, a very explicit passage, "iner of soil 
 for the appreciation of which it is necessary to reproduce tfat 
 Article of Our Cuptom ; that Article reads thus : 
 
 " TSn Seigmur eeruier pent prooider ou faire proo6der par voie d'Arrit 
 oabran^mr lea fruits pendamen TMritage k lui redevable d'aucun 
 cens ou fond de terre pour les arrlrages qui lui sont deAs." 
 
 l!i commenting on that Article, DuMolin says : 
 
 ..^J'^**'*/' '^^'5 ^}^° ^® ^!""* ^^^ leporariis, in terra censuall : ut 
 " im Sr oMi't" * ^^" ferarum sive vagantium sive inclusarum 
 
 injumo eetuuati^ qci, non wluto censu, impediri potentnt : etiam mate- 
 "mteriSm!^ ''^ existentes, nedAm solum ipswn/et extractio 
 
 According, Aen, to DuMolin, whom FerrUre, in his 
 History of tiie Eoman Law, P. 422, styles the PHnce of 
 Jumta^ one, for unpaid cem^ could aeiae^ not only thfl land- ^nt 
 
 I.: 
 
 
 mi 
 top] 
 
 I 
 
 ■"I 
 
■'• .^.^1, 
 
 
 OWNIBBBIP 
 OF MiNSS. 
 
 Authoritia, 
 
 DcMouR. 
 
 CoqciLtii. 
 
 Esteem in 
 
 which 
 
 DoMoLia. 
 
 held by 
 
 Ferriire, 
 
 Camut, 
 
 and 
 
 D'Aguuieau, 
 
 OOQUILII 
 gives all 
 mines to 
 owner of 
 •oU. 
 
 — 136 — 
 
 but (as fruita of the land) gold and sajfEn-Mines / gold and 
 silver-mines, then, in the opinion of DuMoUn, were fraits of 
 the soil, and were seizable as such for the debt of the owner 
 of the Eoil. Had DuMolin considered gold and silver-mines 
 to belong to the King, he never would have held them to be 
 seizable for the debt of the King's subject 
 
 It is hardly necessary to recall here the esteem in which 
 the great learning of DuMolin has been hdd by French 
 Jurists. Suffice it to say that he commented almost every 
 Custom in Franco ; but his Master-piece is his Commentary 
 on the Fiefa^ under the vbrt GusUrni that governs us, and 
 from which we have just quoted. Camus, wf; 1, P. 63 and 
 64, has said of DuMolin. : 
 
 " La Coutume de Paris a eu beaucoup de comraentateurs : il n'est pas 
 " u6ces8aire de les 4tudiertous; mais ilfaut en r6unir plusieurs, parce- 
 " qu'ils ont dea parties qui leur sont personnelles, et qu'il n'est pas possible 
 " de nfigliger. DuMoulin, le pbimieb cPentr'eux, est au droit francais ce 
 " que Gujas est au droit romain. Son commentaire sur les fiefs et lea 
 " censives 7Wt«/er« d jamais regretter eeux quHlavait, dit-on, Soritstitr les 
 " autres litres de la coutume : il ne nous reste k cet 4gard que ses apostilles, 
 " qui formaient un ouvrage s6par6, dans le plan duquel toutes les coutumes 
 " sont comprises. Au reste, le commentaire sur le titre des fiefs, en m^me 
 " temps, qu'il rend la perte du surplus de I'ouvrage plus sensible, nous 
 " en d6dommage en partie. Ce trait6 est siprofond, qu'il eontient torn la 
 " prineipes du droit/ranpais : c'est une mine in6puisable, qui devient plus 
 " liche, k mesure qu'on la fouille ; et, des diflPSrents auteurs que j'ai k indi- 
 •' quer sur le droit fran^ais, je consentirais presqu'on oubliAt les deux tiers, 
 "pourvu que le temps destin6 k leur lecture /d< employi d nMitvr le trait6 
 " des fiefs de DumouUn.^^ 
 
 " Ce profond jurisconsulte, instruit de toutes les parties de notre droit, 
 " ne concevait pas un principe, sans apercevoir en meme temps les restric- 
 '' tions auzquelles il est sujet 
 
 Chancellor D'AgueaaeaUy at vol : 4, P. 619 of his works, 
 says of DuMolin : 
 
 " Par la profondeur de son jugement, il aurait mfiritfi de naStre dans le 
 " siecle des Papinim et des Afiicain. 
 
 ^ec, 1 o7. — CoQtnLLB, is no less explicit than DuMo- 
 lin : in his Commentaries on the Custom of Nimemoia, Art : 
 2, De Juatiee^ P. 8, Edition of 1703, GoquiOe says. 
 
 » Les miniires d?argent, de fer, de cnivre, d'estain et autres matidres 
 " N« sont PAS de la condition du trisor. Car le trisor est mis en son lieu 
 " par main d'homme : Les miniires font portion de la terro naturellement, 
 
 il 
 
 i' PK 
 
/ gold and 
 
 ere fruits of 
 
 Fthe owner 
 
 Bilver-mineB 
 
 them to be 
 
 n in which 
 by French 
 [most every 
 omracntary 
 rns us, and 
 , P. 63 and 
 
 I : il n'est pas 
 isieurs, parce- 
 :t pas possible 
 it fhuifais ce 
 as fiefs et les 
 1, SeriU mr Us 
 ses apostilles, 
 les coutumes 
 lefs, en mdme 
 sensible, nous 
 itient Urns let 
 i devient plus 
 ue i'ai ik indi- 
 es deux tiers, 
 diUr le traits 
 
 e notre droit, 
 ps les restric 
 
 ' his works, 
 aaitre dans le 
 
 ban DuJUo- 
 moiSf Art : 
 
 itres matidres 
 it en son lieu 
 Aturellement, 
 
 — 137 — 
 
 nl„^!liP^^'*f^P'""^*?"^P■"^!?*'» Propn^a d'icelles appartient au Own ihsiiip 
 propn6tairedeIa ti^rre. l.tn Uge/andi^ff. deeontrah. empt. Ifruetmvel. I. op Mmis. 
 awortto, §. M mr. ff. soluto main, et ne sont au Sehneur haut-iusti- Ooqdilm. 
 cier, 81 ce n 6tatent en terre vacante. Bien voudrols-je que le d6tempteur P*"'' d» 
 bordeher de U terre n'aurait le droit de ces miniSres, parcequ'il estOASTM. 
 seulement superficiairo, ayant la concession de la terre pour percevoir les 
 fruits que la superflcio produit, et selon la face qui 6tait lors de la conces- 
 sion : aussi il n est pas propriitaire, I. 8, §. penult, f. de noei oper. nunt. 
 I. a^ domm%.ultff. d« lego, 1. Le ditempteur d^hintage i litre de cent, 
 a plus ample droit, il est vrai fonciei* : pourquoy a lui appartibsnbnt U» 
 entraiUet de la terre, etjutqu'au centre. 
 
 A »^"j*5*^« 'l P""**.?"*** de ces minidres, je ne puis consentir k I'opinion 
 doFauldeCastre, t» connt. 380, vol : 2, quand il dit que celui qui a 
 ouvertia minidre on son hfiritage peut suivrela veine, sous terre, etiam en 
 et TOus 1 Mritage d'autruy. Car le proprifitaire de la superficie est pro- 
 pmtaire du dedans et jusques au centre, L edm usun\fructtim, ff. quib. 
 
 ^eC, 138. ^That quotation from Coquille makes ^"'""^ ^'>«' 
 
 no mention of gold, for the reason, probably, that no gold goid"p7oW 
 mines were then supposed to exist in France (see Chovpin, ""y because 
 vol: 2, livre 2, titre 5, P. 215, Edition of 16d2) see al8o^°,i°i^'?lr 
 Lm^a note to P. 35 of vol : III, Lefehvre de la Pldnche ; but lT«^£ ' 
 the reason assigned by Coquille as to the other mines, applies mente of 
 equally well to gold-mines, namely, that the owner of the ^"T"* 
 soil owns every thing in the bowels of the earth from surface S^oJlnion 
 to center. Coquille quotes the opinion ot Paul de Castre, as of p'auide 
 being m conformity with his own, as to the ownership of the ^<"""'' '"» 
 JImes, but disagrees with him as to the Miner's right to""*'*"'*' 
 follow the vein into neighboring lands. Moreover the opinion 
 of Coquille is based upon the Roman Law and upon the 
 t^mmon Law of the Kingdom. Coquille, again, in his 
 Qu:ations et Eeponaea, No. 7, P. 132 of same Edition, « des 
 eapavea et autres chases qui se dinent selon le droit des 
 liomains m nullius bonis esse," has the foUowinj? clear 
 '* expression of his opinion: 
 
 <i II " ?"?"** **?" miniires qui te trouvMt en terre ; parceque naturollement 
 elles font portion de la terre, je crois qo'eUen appartiennent aux Seigneurs 
 
 ^ proprietairea de la terre, et non aux Seigneurs Haut-Justiciers. Car nV 
 I ayant point determe et proportion Jusques & quelle profondeur la terre 
 
 ^^ apparticnne au possesseur, il faut dire qu'elle lui appartient jusques au 
 centre ; smon qu'il fut possesseur superflciaire, comme bordelier ou 
 emphyteute, qui a le seul droit des fruits et de la superficie." 
 
 Such is the opinion of Coquille, whom Pothier ha8^»"'t-P»'*M»' 
 styled '♦ le judtoieux Coquille," and whom Camus, vol : 2 *.** ^;?""^ 
 
 -J c thonght of 
 
 ^° CoquOU. 
 
i'h;! 
 
 it! 
 
 I *• 
 
 I i 
 
 "III' 
 
 'OWRHIBIP 
 
 OF Mum. 
 
 PaOODHOM. 
 
 Defendants 
 falsify qaota< 
 tion from 
 Proudhon. 
 Hia opinion 
 fnvors views 
 of Plaintiffs. 
 
 — 188 — 
 
 go. 827, §3, styles a ''fort bonjuriscomulte, Aardietprofond.'* 
 He unhesitatingly assigns all Mines to the owner of the soil. 
 
 Sec. J 39. — At. p. 
 
 ' their 
 
 'The same. 
 
 - Factum, the Defend- 
 ants, in quoting Peoudhon, Domaine de Propn^U, P. 282, 
 flo. 753, have fallen into an error, unintentional, we hope 
 but quite usual with them ; we allude to the habit of suppress- 
 ing a part of the quotation, so as to completely disfigure the 
 sense. The Defendants ^uoti the passage thus : " fl fautse 
 rappeler. . . que le droit commun en France est tel qu'on 
 pent, an moyen des formalitfis prescrites par la loi, faire 
 partout des recherches de mines, et en obtenir la concession, 
 dans les lieux ou elles se trouvent, sans le conaentement et 
 mdme malgro les oppositions du propri6taire de I'hdritage 
 ou Ion fait la docouverte." Now, let us see what those 
 three ^is stand for I In the unmUilated passage, we read in 
 I laudhon : II faut se rappeler, comme nous l'avons dit 
 PLUS HATTT, que le droit commun en France est tel, etc., etc., 
 " tlut " ^ omitted are « comme nous Vavons dit^m 
 
 ^ Why this omission of Praudhon's, reference to the prece- 
 ding nnmber ? Wo shall presently see. We shall also see 
 how widely different is what Proudhon actually said Irom 
 what, by this (we can find no name for it, bnt call it) 
 jw/jprm^on he has been made to say. In numbers 748, 749, 
 760, 761, 752, 763 and seq : of his work, Proudfwn is com- 
 T.^oi'^^'.r®''^'"®^^' ''? ^"^^^^ 10 of the French Imperial Law 
 ?«Q ^^ present Law of France on Mines ; at nnmber 
 763 (the nuoted number) of his work, Prmdhm reaches the 
 ^OT(i%'''d^propriitmre de la mrfaee » of article 10, of the 
 Law of 1810, and he heads his number 753 with those five 
 words m itahcs ; and, then, ho gives the quotation, which has 
 thus been truncated by the Defendants, ^o that, by an artful 
 BSippreesion of Proudhon's reference to preceding numbers, 
 the Deiendants have endeavored to palm off, upon this Court 
 Proudhon 8 appreciation of the existing state of thinffsin 
 France for a statement of what the Law of Mining formerly 
 was m France, and still is in Lower Canada. So much for 
 the skilful use of doU ! Oh 1 those throe lying little doU 1 1 
 
 ^eC, 140. If Proudhon had written no more 
 
 upon the subject, this detection of the use of data might not 
 perhaps, have been so overwhelming; but, luckilj for us' 
 
— 130 — 
 
 'tprofond." 
 of the soil. 
 
 theDefend- 
 
 '■t4, P. 282, 
 !, we hope, 
 >f suppress* 
 isfigure the 
 " 11 faut se 
 st tel qu'on 
 A loi, faire 
 concession, 
 entement et 
 B l'h6ritage 
 what those 
 we read in 
 /avons dit 
 I, etc., etc., 
 )n8 ditjalw 
 
 } the prece- 
 lU also see 
 
 said Irom 
 >at call it) 
 •8 748, 749, 
 9n is com- 
 perial Law 
 at n amber 
 reaches the 
 J 10, of the 
 I those five 
 > which has 
 •7 an artful 
 f numbers, 
 this Court, 
 f things in 
 g formerly 
 
 much for 
 i dots I ! 
 
 no more 
 might not, 
 ilj ferns, 
 
 Wo'ir''^^™ ^^\^ ^® ^'™® ^"^ leur produit." in number 
 739, the same author, passmg from the Konian Law to the 
 ^d French Law, says of the Ordinances of the French 
 Kings :" Nous y voyons qu'^ I'exemple des Empereurs 
 Romain8,il8 n'Httnbuaient ^ leur fisc que le dixilme du 
 "prodmt annuel des mines." /'/•om*5?/w« then refers to the 
 mIJ^i^^qT' '«?£' after quoting from the Ordinance of 26 
 May 1663 (see § 164 of this Factum), T'rowrfAon concludes 
 
 " Nous pouyons done r6p6ter ici en toute assurance I'observation oug 
 
 de» Mines, et dire que duns I'ancienne monarchie francaise comme dans 
 
 nSt/r"'"'- " P'^P"^*^ ^"^ ^^^^ ^«« Mines „i~tune 
 propn6t6 doinaniale puisque nos ancicns princes ne devaient, A I'exemple 
 
 i H*"i'^'"'^" '**T'?'' P*"""*^"'"" """ '^ g«"" d« biens autre chose que 
 . '' ^T^^'' ^" ^''°'^^'*' '^'^^.^^ au ourd'hui le trfisor public percoit enX^ 
 
 «" 1™'* ».»""« n^'^^T'^P'"'''^"'','^^ *='^»1"« '»>»<? droit dornial^nl 
 
 doute, mais qui n'empfiche pas que la propri6t6 de la mine ne soit dans le 
 
 domaine pnv^ de ceux qui la possddent '.autrement il f!ZrS£eaue 
 
 "par la secle assise d'un twi^^o* fmu>ier, I'h^ritage qui en est frapDrw 
 
 " trouve coNFisQuf au profit de I'Etat." irappe, se 
 
 Sec. 141. Di:NizART,in his Collection de Juri.9. Dinizan 
 
 prudence, vho. Mines, quotes the opinion of Cb(7«i«t', oi, the^^^^^^^e to 
 Custom of mvernois, to the effect that Alines naturally form R*f''°"^a°t3, 
 part of the earth, and therefore belong to the owner of the oEkSJl 
 soil ; he then goes on to say : sidered, and 
 
 .. u" ?eP«"<^*"* «" ^™"««» «t dans quelques autres Etats, les peuples ont"^"****' 
 
 abandonni au Souveram, comme une espfice de Pr6cipuL ce que leur 
 " terre renfermait de plus precieux." ^ 
 
 "What silliness in the reason given by Denizari for dissent- 
 ing from the opinion of Coquille! When, we ask, was it given 
 b^ the people of France, and where do we find recorded the 
 gift of that extraordinary j9r^>u< by the people of France to 
 ^^f^ ^^}^\ I In what great assembly of the nation, was the 
 gift ratified by the baronage spoken of by St. Louis ? Seriously 
 speaking, one is tempted to Rippose, from the silliness of the 
 arguments in that article and from the way in which the 
 Ordinances referred to are jumbled up, and from the absence 
 
 
140 — 
 
 OWIIBMIP 
 
 OP MiNBa. 
 
 D£liZABT. 
 
 ii 
 
 i H!!' 
 
 The lame. 
 
 of any thing like chronological ordrr in the discusBion of 
 them, that tho generally acute Denizart must have allowed 
 some tyro to hold the pen for him. Listen again to the 
 process of reasoning, by which, in tho same article, he arrives 
 at the conclusion, that gold-mines belong to the King. He 
 had evidently seen somewhere the Ordinance of 1413, and he 
 was compelled to admit that all the mines referred to by 
 Chakles VI belong to the owner of the soil. Denizart says : 
 
 " Parmi nous la permission de chercher des Mines est vn droit purc- 
 ment royal ; mais la propriety d^s Mines n'oppartient point au Rol. 
 
 •' Cette ordonnacco fCa*r?LE8 VL of 1418) qualifie les particuliers Mai- 
 tre» dea trds/ond« et Pi-oprieta 'reg dea mines " : et c'est une preuve hien 
 constante que le Rol ne s'tn pr6tond point proprifitairo par droit do boutc- 
 ralnct6." 
 
 " II faut pourtant exceptor les mines d'or de cette maxime ; 11 est bien 
 constant que celles-ci appartiennent k nos Rois comrae un appanage du 
 Domaine Royal ; et c'est la raison pour laquelle la Declaration de 1418 ne 
 parlo point de cette espdce de mines." 
 
 •• Le droit de dixidme forme done le Pr6ciput de nos Rois surles Mines 
 du Royaume, etc.. etc. 
 
 When Denizart states, as the reason why Chakles VI 
 makes no mention of gold-mines, the hypothesis of their being 
 the property of the Crown, he manifests an obtuseneas utterly 
 at variance with his usual character. Had he stated that 
 gold-mines were not then thought of, or had not then attract- 
 ed public attention, in France, he might have been nearer 
 the mark ; Choppin, vol : 2, livre 2, titre 6, P. 215, Edition 
 1662, states as a fact, that which is the true reason, no doubt, 
 namely : that there were no j^old-mines in France ; and the 
 same thing is said by Lorn in his notes on Lefebore de la 
 Flitnche, vol : 3, P. 36, and, although he was so struck by the 
 fact that, in that Ordinance, the " Maiatreadeatrajfonda" and 
 " Maistres des mynea " are convertible terms, and although 
 Denizart \% thereby forced to the conclusion that all mines 
 specified in that Ordinance belong to the owners of the soil, 
 yet Denizart has overlooked the fact that Chablks VI has 
 applied his Law to the mines therein referred to " et auHrea 
 " QPELZ0ONQUE8 eatant en noatredict royaume (see P. 81, line 
 11 of this Factum). Surely that must include gold mines. 
 How came he also to omit all reference to tho Ordinance of 
 LoDis XI of 1471 ? That Law speaks of goldminea. How 
 
 iiPi 
 
suasion of 
 'e allowed 
 lin to the 
 he arrives 
 ling. He 
 3, and he 
 red to by 
 tart says : 
 
 droit purc- 
 Roi. 
 
 3uliers MaU 
 preuve bjsn 
 it dc Bouve- 
 
 ; i1 est bien 
 
 ippanage du 
 
 de 1418 ne 
 
 ur les Mines 
 lABLES YI 
 
 leir being 
 !88 utterly 
 ated that 
 n attract- 
 en nearer 
 >, Edition 
 no doubt, 
 ; and the 
 ft-we (/e la 
 ick by the 
 W*" and 
 although 
 all mines 
 f the soil, 
 » Ylhas 
 et auHrea 
 \ 81, line 
 Id mines, 
 linance of 
 68. How 
 nyot, vho. 
 le of 1601 
 J (Ttovem- 
 
 
 — 141 — 
 
 »nent of the existence of gold, silver and other mines, which OwsmBrp 
 were then thought to be more valuable than they really were ? ?,'. "'"" 
 D^tzart seems also to have had no knowledge of the fact "' 
 
 stated by Fhanjois Gabault in his " Sommaire dea MiU et 
 ordonnancea royauw concemant la cmtr dea monnaiea (see 
 ZamS-Fleurv, P. 113, note 2) that Chables VI had issued, in 
 1414, an Ordmance respecting gold and ailver-mineB, a textual 
 reproduction of his Ordinance of 1418, which, as Ddnizart 
 himself admits, confers silver and other mines than those of 
 gold upon the owner of the soil. So that, since the Ordinance 
 of 1413 gives silver mines to the subject, according to Denizart, 
 the Ordinance of 1414, cited by Garatdt must give gold 
 mines also to the subject. 
 
 Had Dhiizart possessed that information, he never would 
 have advanced the sillv doctrine espoused by so few ancient 
 writers, and repudiated by all modern writers, that gold mines 
 are on a different footing from other mines. I)4nizart, in his 
 Actea de Notoriete du Vhdteltt, almost copies the article of 
 hia Collectiona de decUiona. 
 
 ^ ^C« 14^* ^The silence of Dinizart (usually bo ^fnizart uni 
 
 well informed) as to the existence of the Ordinance of 1471, !frit«?Sot 
 naturally leads one to enquire the reason of that silence. We aware of 
 have already incidentally (at P. 90 and 91 of this Factum) °»to»e of 
 touched upon the reason. The Ordinances of the French "'"^"^^ ®'"*^'' 
 Kings were generally as little known to the Inhabitants of I'e'dherr*'* 
 France as our own Ordinances were known to the inhabitants of 
 Canada, until the publication of the first volume of the Mita 
 et Ordonnancea. We need not be, at all, surprised at such 
 Ignorance, when we reflect that an Ordinance, conceived and 
 issued in the first fervor of some mining mania, was sent to 
 Parliament, enregistered there, never printed, but lost sight of, 
 and forgotten there, as soon as the miriing-faver had subsided, 
 to be in turn succeeded by some other Ordinance destined to 
 meet a like fate. Even the veneration of the French for their 
 Saint Louib did not preserve the knowledge of his Capitulaire 
 on treasur^trove, since we find jurists denying its existence, 
 Lejebvre de la Planche asserting (vol : 3, P. 344) that an 
 emment lawyer in Court had denied its existence (see Baoquct, 
 DroiUdeJuaivce, eh : 32, No. 16, P. 350), and LoiaeL Focouet 
 de Livoniere and others making it ch : 88, instead of ch : 90 
 of the Mablmemena. In like manner we find Begnault 
 d^Meroy.m proposing the Law of 1791, stating that Phiuppe- 
 LE-LoNG issued in 1321 (when the Lord had called that 
 
— 142 — 
 
 M Mmm"" '"<^»a''c^ *o himself, wo trust) an Ordinance dt-claiing all 
 Odtot. ^^^^^ ^^ ^^ " proprUt4a royalca et domaniaUs " ; even Merlin 
 was misled for a while by that statement of (TJSpercy ; but he 
 corrected the error in liis article on Mines, reproduced at 
 length at P. 59 of this Factnm. D'Epercy'M historical and legal 
 blunder has been well ventilated by modern French-writers, 
 who have had the advantage of perusing the exhaustive 
 Collections of those Laws since the days of Louis XIV, when 
 they were begun by de i aun4>e ; on this head see the autho- 
 rities cited at § 146 of this Factum to shew that no such 
 Ordinance as the pretended Edict of Phiuppe-lk-Lono ever 
 had an existence ; and one has only to glance at the several 
 Collections of Ordinances published, prior fo the reign of 
 Louis XIV, and to compare them with the Laws contained in 
 the Collection, du Louv.'e, in ordci to see that not one in a 
 hundred of the French Ordinances were known before tlie 
 publication, (begun in 1723) of the Ordonnances du louvre. 
 
 Ouyoi'i hiato- ^BC. 14u. GoYOT, vho. Ordotinances,^ after TefiT- 
 
 tfon ofOrS"" '^°8 ^^ ^® ^^^y. incomplete Collections of Ordinances, published 
 nances. P^ i<^>r to the reign of Louis XIV, proceeds to say at P. 464 of 
 that article : 
 
 " Ges difierents recueils d'ordonnances n'^tant pas complets oU n'^tant 
 •• pas dans Tordre chronologique, Lonis XIV risolut de fafre faire une 
 " une nouvelle collection des Ordonnances plus ample, plus correct'9 et 
 " mieux ordonn6e que toutes celles qui avaient paru jusqu'alors ; n flit 
 " regl6 pu'on ne remonterait qu'A Hugues Capet, soit parceque les Ordon- 
 " nances anterieures conviennent pcu 4 nos moours, soit parce qu'on ne 
 *' pouvait rion ajoutcr aux recueils imprimis qui ont 6t& donnia sous le titre 
 " de code des lois antiques et des capituiaires des rois de France." 
 
 Ouvot then proceeds to state that Chancellor Pontchar- 
 train, whom the King had entrusted with the work, employed 
 Messrs. Berroyer, de Lauriere and Lager to collect those 
 Laws, under the* Chancellor's directions, that eventually on 
 de Lauriere alone devolved the whole duty, and that the first 
 volume ol that Collection (now known by the name of the 
 Ordonnances du Louvie) was published in 1723 ; the second 
 volume was published in 1728, after de Lauriere'a death, 
 from his notes, by becomae, who was then entrusted with the 
 continuation of the work, and who published six more volumes. 
 Four more volumes, making twelve volumes in all, and 
 bringing the Collection from the year 1051 to 1420 were 
 pubhshed by de ViUevauU and de "Briquigny, That collec- 
 tion, Gttyot tells us, at P. 454 oi the article on Ordonnances) 
 
rclanaff all 
 ren Merlin 
 cy ; but he 
 >roduc»xi at 
 il and legal 
 ich-writers, 
 ezhan stive 
 SIV, wheu 
 
 the antho- 
 it DO such 
 rLoNO ever 
 the several 
 e reign of 
 >ntained in 
 )t one in a 
 
 before tlie 
 !« Louvre. 
 
 after reftr- 
 I, published 
 t P. 454 of 
 
 ets oU n'jtant 
 ire faire une 
 8 correct? et 
 j'alors ; W flit 
 le les Ordon- 
 irce qu'on ne 
 8 sous le titre 
 :e." 
 
 : Pontchar- 
 :, employed 
 •llect those 
 ntaally on 
 at the first 
 ame of the 
 the second 
 re's death, 
 d with the 
 re volumes, 
 u all, and 
 1420 were 
 bat collec- 
 ionnances) 
 
 — 148 — 
 
 7i?r*^°r;Sl"^^^*'^l"Pl°*® ^llection extant when ho wrote, A. D. OwmuHir 
 1786. The Collection was not resumed until after the Revolu- °' *!'""- 
 tion. Is It therefore surprising that the Ordinance of Louis XI, o-AKmr. 
 
 Jh 1^^*^ , X° ^*^°" unknown to the authors, who 
 preceded the Revolution, and should have been unnoticed by 
 tnemf //enwit isthat, on mining-questions, many of them 
 nave uttered such nonsense in connection with Royal rights 
 in Mines, ^erhn, profiting by the fact that the researches 
 for old Ordinances had brought to light the Ordinance of 
 1471, was the first to shake off old prejudices, cite it in his 
 cause of ds Carondelet vs Sohuytener, win the case, and, 
 with success, achieve a lasting fame. It was only in 1820, 
 after the restoration, that the Ordinance of 1471 was published 
 at length, for the first time, although Merlin had previously 
 brou,5l)t it under the notice of the Courts. The onfr author, 
 anterio.' to the Revolution who noticed the Ordinance of 147 1 , 
 IS Blanchard ; and he only gave the title and date of the Ordi- 
 nance, with the date of enregistration. 
 
 ^eC, 1 44, An additional, and perhaps a stronger, -Additional 
 
 reason why the Ordii.ance of Loris XI, of 1471 was unknown IZTohII 
 ini|rance, maypernapsbe gleaned from that extraordinary Mining Ordi- 
 Cham of vain attempts made by Hknky II, and his successors ""''^s "o* 
 down to Henry III inclusively, to lay claim to all the mines Cn"' 
 m the Kingdom, and adverted to at P. 112 and seq. of this 
 factum. The jobbing courtiers, who prevailed upon the 
 Monarchs to grant the monopolies there referred to, may have 
 been interested in suppressing all knowledge of an Ordinance, 
 which. If brought to light, would have dertroyed their chances 
 ot jobbmg- Hence it is, perhaps, that, with one exception in 
 1562, we find no mention of that great Ordinance in any of 
 the i.etters-Patent granting those monopolies ; hence, perhaps, 
 also IS It, that, at a later period of the Monarchy, when the 
 same jobbing rpirit was abroad among the King's surround- 
 l".?^' ^®?°4 "°, mention of the Ordinance of Lours, XI, of 
 Itlb ™??® ^° *'»e celebrated ArrSi du Conaeil of the 22 June, 
 172«, which recites almost all the Ord(mnances et Declara- 
 ttonaon mining that had theretofore been rendered, as remarked 
 by Lam6-Flmry, P. 3, note 1. For that ArrH see Lame- 
 Fleury^ P. 97. 
 
 Q 1 /I f Erroneoos 
 
 OeC. 14D. ^BBixHE,in his Ldgislation <^e» i/me«, ^f ^^^^ 
 
 conclusively establishes that the Kings of France never claimed «f^»»S 
 
 (,fl 
 I, If 
 
OWNIUBIP 
 
 or Mimi. 
 Brixrb. 
 St. Jian 
 
 o'Anoily. 
 
 refuted. 
 
 ill' 
 
 — 144 — 
 
 to bo owners of the mines, in the tense pretended by the 
 Defendanta. Ho quotes at length the opinion of Le Comts 
 J^gnaud de St. Jean (TAngely in presenting the Law of 1810. 
 The Count to whom the Ordinances of the French KiniM 
 appear to have then been a sealed book, as we shall presentfv 
 shew, expresses the following erroneous opinion : 
 
 u . ui^" Franco, juBou'en 1791, la ligislaUon sur les Mines n'aJtmaU^U 
 
 nl Won solennelle, ni bion rfignHdre, parcequo les tribunaux n'ont jamais 
 
 " SulS"" " ' *^''"" ^° *"""' «**='"»'»«™«n* trtities au CodbcH 
 
 " Toutofois on Unait pour constant, avaiit 1791. qti« Ut Minst «n 
 " France ttaient une proprUti domaniaW 
 
 ^eC, 14o. ^The error, into which the Count thus 
 
 fell, is due to his having followed ReanauU (PEpercu^ who 
 introduced the Law of 1791, and who labored under the 
 impression that, in 1321, Philippk-le-Lono had issued an Ordi- 
 nance declaring all mines to be " proprUtit royales et doma- 
 " niales," and further to the fact that the provisions of the 
 three great Ordinances of 1413, 1471 and 1601 were then 
 unknown to the Count as they were to the rest of France, and 
 that the existence, oven, of the Ordinance of 1471 was not as 
 much as suspected by the Count and his co-legislators of that 
 day. For evidence that no such Law was made by Phiuppb- 
 lb-Lono, who had died before Apt il, 1321, or by his successor 
 Charles-le-Bkl, see 31 Dalloz, R&pe/ftoire de Jurisprudenoe^ 
 vho- Mines., ch : 1, No. 8, P. J05, L/iMfe-FLKDKv, Legiddion 
 mineral ,, P. 3, note 1, Deli biioqiie, Ldgislatioa dea minet, 
 vol : 1, P. 255, DuPONT, Jurisprudence dea minea, vol : 1, 
 P. 21, note 1, Alfred BLAycRE, Dietioiinaire genSral d'ad' 
 ministration, P. 1282, vho. Minea, and Richard, ZSffislatton 
 sur les Mines, t. 1, § 4, P 7, note 2. 
 
 Abundant evidence of the error of the Count in supposing 
 that mining suits had never occupied the Ordinary Tribunals, 
 but were invariably decided bjr the King in Council, will be 
 found scattered throughout this Factum. It is clear, that, up 
 to the date of the creation of the Superior Council of Canada, 
 all raining suits in France had been determined by the ordi- 
 nary Tribunals. The Letters-Patent of Charles IX, of 25tii 
 September, 1563, are the best evidence on that point ; the 
 King complains therein (see § 107 of this Factum) that the 
 Parliaments of Paris and of Grenoble, and the Court of 
 BeaujoUais had prohibited de St. JtUien from collecting the 
 
 HI? 
 
— 145 — 
 
 od by the 
 f Le Gomte 
 aw of 1810. 
 encli Kinffs 
 11 preaently 
 
 n'ajainais i\A 
 
 n'ont JaniaiB 
 
 ies au Oonaeil 
 
 Im Mine» en 
 
 Oottnt thus 
 pevGu, who 
 
 under the 
 ed an Ordl- 
 €8 et doma- 
 iions of the 
 
 were then 
 i'rance, and 
 
 was not as 
 tors of that 
 r Philippe- 
 Is successor 
 isprwUnoe, 
 LegUl ition 
 dea mines, 
 \ea, vol : 1, 
 vSral^ d'ad- 
 Legislation 
 
 I supposing 
 Tribunals, 
 sil, will be 
 ir, that, up 
 of Canada, 
 Y theordi- 
 lX, of 25th 
 point ; the 
 a) that the 
 > Oourt of 
 lecting the 
 
 Royalty on certain Mines specified in tho Arrets : §11.50w«mship 
 shows tho threat of impeachuicnt hold out by tho Parlianientg'j^,j^"- 
 of Paris HKuinst Chancellor L'lIApital for endeavoring to 
 Buporsedo the jurisdiction of that Court in those matters ; and 
 §148, 194, 195, 196 and 197 of this Factum give the history 
 of that 8Ucco88ful resistance made by tho Parliament of Pans 
 against tlio attempts of Hcnky II and his successors down to 
 IIknky IV inclusively to deprive tlio Parliament of Paris of 
 its jurisdiction over Mining suits. It was only after the 
 creation of the Superior Council here, that the Grand Monar- 
 que, that man of iron-will «nd dc8i)otic sway, by Arrets du 
 Conseil that produced no cliango in tho Jurisprudence here, 
 i^ccause thoy were not enregistered hero, contrived to alter 
 tfie Jurisprudence in France, and evoked the decision of 
 Mining law-suits to tlio Jving in Council. 
 
 ^OC, 147. — That the existence of the Ordinance of Kridence of 
 1471 was then unknown in France, is evident from the fact iKnof»°ce of 
 that neither the Report of the ^yg committees which drafted ^"^ q°^'^°^. 
 the Law of 1791 (see P. 1.') and sea. of Brixuu, Legislation d , ces. 
 Mines, vol : 2) nor ' ' . IIi rtauU-Lamerville, who opposed the 
 Report, makes any mention of that Ordinance. Mirdbeau, 
 even, seems to iiave bad no knowledge of its existence. But 
 no better proof can be given of the error into whicli Le Gomte 
 liegnaud de St. Jian d^ Angely has fallen, than the following 
 quotation from tho joint Report of they've committees on the 
 Law of 1 791 ; after stating, as the reason why all Mines 
 should bi; declared *' d la disposition de la nation^^^ the fact 
 that : " quant anx mines metalliques jamais les proprietairea 
 *' de la superficie ne se sont avisos de vouloir lea exploiter," 
 the Report proceeds to state (see P. 20 of voi : 2, jBbixhb, 
 IJgislation aes Mines) : 
 
 " A regard dcs substances fossiles, tclles que Ics hnrbons de terre, 
 " plusieurs particuliers ontentrepris de les fouillor, ct vous avez mdme vu, 
 " Messieurs, qu'un de nos Rois, Henri IV, determine par Aencomiderationt 
 " qui lui parurent puissantes, permit par gr&ce sp^ciale, I'exploitation de 
 " ces sortes de Mines ; qu^avant cette epoque on atait donni une liberti 
 " ind^nie de la exploiter ; " 
 
 , " Le pr6aTnbu1e de I'arrfit de rdglement de 1744, auquel nous devons 
 " une exploitation avantageuse nous <<fTre la preuve de cette T^rit6. 
 " Vpici comment il s'expliquo : 
 
 " Sa Mfyest^ 6tant informSe que les dispositions de I'arrdt de 
 "1698, sont presque demeur^es sans eSet, soit parlan^jligence 
 IS 
 
 ^^^J 
 
 'I I 
 
 <«» 
 
OvrsiRSBip 
 or MiNii. 
 Bbizbb. 
 
 Error of 
 d^Angely 
 refuted. 
 
 — 146 — 
 
 ^1 despropri^aires h. faire la recherche et Pexploitation des ditea 
 Mines spit par lepeudefacuU68 et connaisLces de la part de 
 ceux qui on tente de faire sur cela quelques entreprises ; que 
 
 '•arrt dTl?98 ff i."^^?."'" ''"■^«f° .""^ pi-opri^tairLpar'le^di? 
 "rlnionf ' • X "^'^ "''I*™ *" Plusieurs occasions une concur. 
 
 rence entr eux (Sgalement nuisible k leurs entreprises respectiTes. 
 
 le Roi a ordonn6, et ordonne etc., etc., etc." PB^-ures, 
 
 ^HJC. 148, How then could Count liegnaud, with 
 
 that Report before his eyes, assert, that prior to 1791 Mines 
 had always been considered the property of the Crown, 
 lo those who will take the trouble of reading the Ordinance 
 of Heney IV, of 1601, thus adverted to by the committees, it 
 18 plain tliat, in respect of that lilerU indefinie cP exploitation 
 which the Comittees admit to have been allowed the owner of 
 the soil in Mines of matters not metallic, the very same 
 right 18 given for Mines of all metals without distinction : 
 the only difference being that the King remitted his one- 
 tenth royalty on the non-metallic substances. That report 
 In iS:i ^i defective in asserting that Philippe-le-Long, 
 in 1321, declared all Mines de drott royal et domanial, and 
 ttiat his successors followed his example. Sec : 146 of this 
 factum establishes the inaccuracy of that statement as to 
 fJ'fm{%^''U and a perusal of the Ordinances of 1413, 
 1471 and 1601 will readily disprove the other. 
 
 PiaintiflPs ^GC, 14«:l. In a footnote at Page 33 of Vol : 2 of 
 
 ''e^8- that work, Bria/ie has the following : 
 
 14 *-•" ^ I" ff .1°'^ romaines laissaient la proprietfi des Mines aux propri6- 
 .. ^'•f.!x^! liSritages o4 elles se trouvaient. Constantin, qui avait tant de 
 facilit68 k trouver juste ce qui lui 6tait profitable, n'a jamais regard^ les 
 Mines comme une propri6t6 qui lui appartint k titre de ^uverain. 
 Sendque, qu il faut citer toutes les fois qu'on veut connaitre la v6rit6 
 S6ndque disai^ dans le siicle d'esclavage et de corruption oA il vivait! 
 dans le si^cle de N6ron, qui avait usurp6 tons les droits de la r6pubhque: 
 
 " Ad reges pertinet omnium potestas, ad singulos proprietas " 
 A-! Ki P*"^ '*? Conferences de Gu6nois, t 2, 1. 2, tit : 4, p : 121, il est 
 ditoui lexemple des Romains, les Franpais, peuple libre, disposdrent 
 des Mines de leur heritage, comme des autres productions de la terre II 
 woute, que ce furent des compagnies privil^giaires qui obtinrent du 
 Gouvemement les premiers ordres qui portdrent des atteintes considfira- 
 bles a ce droit de propn6t6. 
 
 « u U-® *• ^"^f^t^"' *• 1. ?• 8. e4 1. 3, P. 82, dit : qui a lo sol a le dessous ; 
 * ?'2? '*'" ? trouve 8u fonds de la terre n'est pas plus au souverain quo 
 " la for«t que la guperficie produit" ^ 
 
 Eng 
 
 1 
 
 "est 
 
 "Chi 
 
 " I'ac 
 
 "exp 
 
 "des 
 
 "les 
 
 "Jul 
 
 "du 
 
 1 
 
 "cit( 
 
 "n'a 
 
 (t 
 
 (ec 
 
tion des ditea 
 i de la part de 
 reprises ; que 
 ures par le dit 
 IS une concur- 
 es respectives, 
 
 maud, with 
 
 1791 Mines 
 be Crown. 
 ■■ Ordinance 
 nmittees, it 
 •ixploitation 
 le owner of 
 very same 
 listinction ; 
 id his one- 
 'hat report 
 
 PE-LK-LONG, 
 
 %anial, and 
 146 of this 
 ment as to 
 se8ofl413, 
 
 [ Vol : 2 of 
 
 I aux propria* 
 avait tant de 
 3 regards les 
 le Souverain. 
 tre la v6rit4, 
 oA il vivait, 
 iripublique: 
 
 ias." 
 
 p : 121, il est 
 ), disposdrent 
 B la terre. II 
 obtinrent du 
 es considira- 
 
 a le dessous ; 
 iouverain que 
 
 — UT — 
 
 Tr«„i^'5?- ^S*'"' "It*'"^. '^l'**' "^ ^'8 opinion, the Law of Owhim.» 
 ±.ngland is, the author, m that foot note, proceeds to say : °' "'""• 
 
 .. J^.t" ^''*'"*^" IX mjtun droit de dixifime sur les Mines de fer ; il °'""*'''"'' 
 • Ch.riP,'n?,"-'.n' ^.'■«'t/t''>t «"» inpdt Kodal et non un droit de propri^ti 
 Charles ou son nnnistren'aurait pas mis un imp6t sur sa propriitfi • i 
 I'aurait affermee ; a declaration, 4 ce relative, reconnaitlnK par ses 
 
 ffiSl^"" r ' '"' If' *^"^'^« MinesappUennentauTpTopriSires 
 des hSntages. Cet mp6t a cessS d'etre per^u, et cela devait 6tre dCrls 
 les entraves raises i la propri6t6, st nous yovons dans le RipertoirS de 
 
 du dixidme,^ ou droit feodal sur le mineral." ""■whto 
 
 „ "«*• L'esprit des lois, la bibliothdque de I'homme d'etat et du 
 
 ctoyen et d'autres autoritSs, ne mettent point en dou to que les Mines 
 " n appartiennent individuellement aux particuliers." 
 
 ^eC. 1 5U, Bkixhe observes, with great propriety. The same. 
 
 that ihQ tenth claimed by Chaelks IX was un imvdt fiodaL a 
 feudal burthen or duty, and not a right of property ; that 
 author remarks conclusively that the ^ing and his Minister 
 would not have placed a burthen on the royal property : 
 " *i Vaui'au affermee:' The author at P. 7 m^seq ; of vol -2 
 cites with approbation, the opinion and arguments oi Merlin 
 already quoted at P. ftl ancf seq: of this Factum : and at 
 r. 17b and aea of the same volume, Brixhe quotes the deci- 
 sion of the Cour de Cassation, (referred to at P. 61 of this 
 Factum) declaring all claims to an entrecens for a Mininc- 
 licence to hav e been abolished with the feudal tenure. 
 
 ^eC. J 5 1 . HennequuV; who is cited by the Defend- Hmukquut, 
 
 ante at P 64 of their Factum, as supporting the views of the SeW 
 Defend^te is in reahty against them ; he draws no silly dis-DefendLts, 
 tinction between the precious and the baser metals. He merely '» against 
 asserts that by the old jurisprudence of Fiance, no Mine could ^^T,**" 
 be opened without the permission of the Sovereign ; and where '" 
 
 the Defendants cite with approval his statement : " Mais il 
 " suffit d'ouvrir le Code Thcodosien pour reconnaitre que dans 
 " le milieu dn quatri^me siecle le droit regalien ctait en vigueur 
 " & Eome et daus tout I'empire," we know that the meaning 
 assigned by the writer to the words : " droit regalien " is not 
 the ownership, in any sense, of the Mines, but the mere fiscar 
 burthen, heretofore referred to as the Roman canon metallicus 
 (equivalent to the French dixi&me denier) and the right of 
 Police as exercised by the Sovereign. 
 
 im 
 
 i./«i 
 
 t'i'S 
 
 rr 
 
— 148 — 
 
 I • 
 
 OWIIUBIP 
 
 or Mwu. 
 
 HMMigunr. 
 Hbnbtb. 
 
 DlOoBMIS. 
 
 HOBMAC. 
 
 D'ABaiBTB^. 
 
 OUTOT. 
 
 ■0 also of 
 Deeormii, 
 
 Momae, 
 Coquille and 
 jyArgmtrt. 
 
 QOTOT, 
 
 although 
 cited by 
 Defendant!, 
 is agidnst 
 
 thsta. 
 
 ^eC. J D4i, In fact Hbnnequin and Merlin hold 
 
 precisely the same views, as to the preferential right of the 
 owner of the soil to work the Mine, subject however to the 
 anthorisation of the Sovereign and his surveillance. IIenne- 
 Qum, vol : 2, P. 308, combats the- opinion of Henrys (L 4, 
 eh : 6, quest. 45, edition of 1772), of JDecokmis (vol : 1, col : 
 773), of Coquille, {Couiumes du Nivernaifty Utre den justices, 
 art : 2), of d'AegentrI;, {Coutumes de Bretayne, litre des 
 Droitadii Frinoe, art : 56, note 1, no. 40), aiid of Mornao 
 {aur la loi 67, de rei vihdidatione), who all hold that the 
 owner of the soil may open the Mines on his lands without 
 obtaining the permission of the Sovereign. That, by the 
 words : " dioit rega/ien,'" Hennequin merely means tlie 
 right of the State, to see that the mineral wealth of the nation 
 should not remain profitless, is quite clear from the two 
 following passages of that autlior, at P. 307 and 309 of the 
 second volume of his work : 
 
 '* A la vfirite, sous h Ifigislation romaine, la suzerainetfi impfiriale ne 
 •• s'ezergait, en cette matidre, que d<»n« uti intiret purement nscAL • maia 
 " dans cet int6r6t mfime, et pour donner k Vimpot toute son importance 
 " I'intervention du domaine ne dut pas fitre sans influence sur les progr^s 
 " de la m6tallurgie. *• 
 
 " H est du reste inutile de dire que dans un pays oA le droit rigalim 
 " 6tait un des elements du Domaine, toute exploitation, quelque fat d'ail- 
 " leurs le titre de I'exploitant, se trouvait subordonn6e ft la double condition 
 " de I'autorisation royale, et de la surveillance des del6gu6s du prince." 
 
 Why it is that Hennequiii's article has not the slightest 
 allusion to the Ordinances of 1471 and 1601, id a matter of 
 some Surprise. It seems hardly possible that he could have 
 been unaware pf their existence, oince Pastorefe Collection 
 had been published then ; and yet from the fact that he 
 merely refers to that imperfect Collection of Mathiku " Le 
 " GodR des Mines ^\ for the Ordinances on Mining, one is 
 tempted to conclude that Hennequin did not know of the 
 existence of the Ordinance of Louis XI, of 1471. So much 
 for the opinion of Hennequin, on whom the Defendants rely 
 Bo strongly to make out their case ; that author's opinion, as 
 far as it goes, is entirely in agreement with the Plaintiffs' 
 views upon this subject. 
 
 Sec. 15«J. GuYOT, vbo. Mines, has the following : 
 
 in his Beperloire de Jurisprudence : 
 
 '^'Uivt. Lieu oii se formerit les mfitaux, minSraux etquolques pierres 
 -' precieuScS." 
 
— 149 — 
 
 !eblin hold 
 right of the 
 ever to the 
 ce. IIenne- 
 
 ENKV8 (L 4, 
 
 ol : 1, col : 
 
 iesjmtiees, 
 y titre des 
 
 of MoRNAC 
 
 Id that the 
 ids without 
 at, by the 
 means tlie 
 
 the nation 
 M the two 
 
 309 of the 
 
 ) imp4riale ne 
 FISCAL ; maia 
 I importance, 
 r les progr^s 
 
 roit rigalien 
 (]ue fatd'ail- 
 ible condition 
 prince." 
 
 le slightest 
 . matter of 
 could have 
 Collection 
 ct that he 
 rniEu " Le 
 ag, one is 
 low of the 
 
 So much 
 idants rely 
 opinion, as 
 
 Plaintiffs' 
 
 following : 
 Iquea pierres 
 
 "Tout ce qu'on peut tirer des Mines fait partie du Domaine du Roi, et OwmaiHtp 
 " ai^partient A Sa Miyestd tant dans les terres du Donaaine que dans celles or Mmu. 
 " deS particuliers." Gdtot. 
 
 B0S<)CIT. 
 
 The textual agreement of that article with the opening Mizbrait. 
 sentences of Bosquet's article on Mines, in the Dictionnaire 
 des DomaineSy Quoted elsewhere in this Factum, would lead to 
 the belief that tne article in Guyot is from the pen of Bosmiet, 
 and was written by the latter before the servility ot his 
 writings had securea for him the poet of Director of Corres- 
 pondence in the Meaie des Domaines. One could not complain, 
 of course, if, in the later Edition of Ouyot^ the modified views 
 of Bosquet had also found their way into tlie Repertoire. 
 How much Bosquet subsequently modified his views, we 
 shall ph'^^' iioreafter. Happily, however, for us, the reader is 
 refer- > ^m OuyoVs article on Mines, to an article on the 
 Mar s Fers in the Repertoire for further information on 
 
 the Law of mining. Let ns examine that article. 
 
 ■'*J 
 
 same. 
 
 Sec, lo4. — GuYOT, «&o. Marque (^ /«r.«, P. 395, The 
 has an article in which he cites Lefebvre de la Planolie and 
 other writers to shew that Mines do not belong to the Sovereign ; 
 but the most interesting paragraph of the article, in this 
 connection, is at P. 396, where he shews conclusively that the 
 Ordinance of Henbt IV, of June, 1601, contemplated gold 
 and sUver-miueB. Chiyot says : 
 
 " On donna, sous Henby IV, avis au gouvemement de quelques mines ^e shewsthat 
 " d'or, d^argent^ de cuivre et d'fitain, qu'on faisait plus abondantes qu'elles Ordintnce of 
 " n^itaient J ce prince, par un Edit du mois de Juin 1601, confirma k son ^qoi appliet 
 " profit le droit de dixieme sur les minbs et mini&res, etc., etc., etc., etc." to gold* 
 
 Moreover Mezebay, in his Histoire de France^ vol : 3, '^°*'' 
 P. 1243, says : 
 
 " L'ann^e 1601 trouva toute la Gour en rijouissance : ce n'estoit 
 " que festins, balets, parties de chasse et grand jeu. D'ailleurs les courti- 
 " Sana Se promettoient un sidcle d'or, par la d6couverte de quelques mines 
 " (for, $argent, de cuivre et d'itain, qu'on faisoit bien plus abdndantes 
 " qu'e'les n'estoient Tellement que par im Edict, qui pourtant ne fut 
 " v^rifi6 qu'en Juin, Bellegarde, Grand Escuyer, s'en fit donner la charge 
 " de Grand Maistre, etc., etc." 
 
 " One hardly needed those citations from Mezeray and So does 
 Ouyot to convince one that gold is contemplated by the ^«way. 
 Ordinance of 1601, since the " de Li;BY-/*afew<," itself, refers 
 to that Ordinance as authority for its issue ; but the opinioil of 
 Guyoty in that article, based, as it a}>pears to be, upon 
 
 
 m 
 
I 
 
 OwHiRHBan> 
 or Hmi. 
 GmroT. 
 
 POTHIB. 
 
 GoTOT, by 
 implication, 
 assigns all 
 mines to 
 owner of 
 •oil. 
 
 So do 
 
 POTEHB 
 
 ^ 150 _ 
 
 research, is precious in respect of the fact that it shews mines 
 of all sorts to be on precisely the same footing ; and if 
 copper-mines belong to the owners of the soil (a fact which no 
 one appears to doubt), then, according to Guyot^ are gold and 
 silver-mines on precisely the same footing, and then do they 
 also belong to the owner of the soil. 
 
 5>6C» loo* If any thing further were needed to 
 
 shew us what GuyoVa opinion is, we have only to refer to his 
 article, intituled Vommne de la Couronne, § 3, P. 82 et seq : 
 where find a most minute enumeration of all those thingsj 
 which go to make up the domaine ; and yet no mei.tion 
 whatever is made • of Mines as part of the Domaine / he 
 speaks of the King's " droit sdb les Minea," his royalty, in 
 fact. GuYOT does not say : " DRorr aux Mines. He does 
 not enumerate gold and silver-Mines as forming part of the 
 domaine. Guyot would not, 'assuredly, have omitted gold 
 and silver-Mines, if he had thought that they belonged to the 
 Crown. The articles on the Marque des FerSy Domaine^ and 
 also on Zeeion, hereinafter referred to, show conclusively the 
 absurdity of the doctrine laid down in Guyot under the word 
 Mines, and still further strengthen the belief that Guyot^s 
 article " Mnes " was written by Bosquet. 
 
 Moreover, in the article Ldsion, P. 464, col : 2, Guyot 
 says : 
 
 "Nousavonsditquepourconnottres'ilya lesion dans la vente d'un 
 hentage, on ne doit consid6rer que la valeur qu'il avait au temps du 
 " contrat : ain*i on ne doit pa8, dans Pestimation de cet hfiritoge, avoir 
 " egard d la decouverte qne l'acqu6reur a pu faire d'un tresor on (Tune 
 *' mine depuu le contrat. Cette decouverte est une bonne fortune sur 
 ** laquelle le vendeur n'a rien d pretendre." 
 
 If, in the opinion of Guyot, mines belonged to the King 
 how could the discovery of a mine constitute a piece of good 
 luck for the purchaser ? If, moreover, the mine so discovered 
 did not, in the opinion of Guyot, follow the surface, and 
 belong to the owner of the soil, how could the purchaser profit 
 by it ? It seems to us that nothing can be clearer. The very 
 same opinion is held by Pothier and by Pigbau. 
 
 NeC» 15d, PoTHiEB, vente, Part : 6, ch : 2, § 2, 
 
 No. 344 and 345- 
 
 ♦' No. 844. Pour connoUre si le contrat renferme une lesion suflB- 
 
— 151 — 
 
 ihews mines 
 ig ; and if 
 ct which no 
 re gold and 
 len do they 
 
 ) needed to 
 
 refer to his 
 82 et seq : 
 hose things, 
 no mei.tion 
 maine / he 
 \ royalty, in 
 . He does 
 part of the 
 nitted gold 
 nged to the 
 mutine^ and 
 lusively the 
 er the word 
 hat GuyoVs 
 
 : 2, Ouyot 
 
 la vente d'un 
 au temps du 
 ti^ritage, avoir 
 esor ou (Pune 
 e fortune sur 
 
 o the iSing, 
 ece of good 
 • discovered 
 urface, and 
 haser profit 
 The very 
 
 ch : 2, § 2, 
 B ItSsion suffi. 
 
 •' MWite pour donner lieu k 1« rescission, on ne doit pas avoir 4gard a P6tat < 
 " ni 4 la valeur prisente de I'h^ritage. < 
 
 or HiRis. 
 
 POTHIIB. 
 PlSIAD. 
 
 " No. 845. II suitdelA, que datu ^estimation de Th^ritage, on ne doit Bosqubt. 
 
 «')(#'N'«#««» 
 
 J'h6ritage ce qui. 
 
 " decouverte et ou temps du contrat, le vendeur n'a rien k prttendre. La 
 " d6couverte est um bonne fortune dont l'achetecr doit profiter auivant la 
 " rigle eujua eat jmrieulum rei, eum et commodum tequi debet." 
 
 Pothier, therefore, thinks that the discovery of a Mine 
 makes the property more precious, and is a piece of good 
 luck for the purchaser. How could that be, unless the pur- 
 chaser were the owner of the Mine ? 
 
 ^eC« Jo7, PiGEAu, in his Procedure civile <?w And PiaiAr. 
 
 Chdtelet,, vol : 2, livre 3, Retrait lignager^ is still nioie explicit. 
 In treating of those Contracts, which do not give rise to the 
 Petrait, he says^ at P. 145 : 
 
 " La vente faito pour un temps du droit de tirer d'une carrifire, ou 
 " d'unb minb, n'est point sujette & mtrait, quoique cette vente soit plus 
 " qu'un usufruit (puisque son effet est d'alt6rer etdiminuer la substance de 
 " la chose, k laquelle I'usufruitier ne doit point toucher) ; la raison est que, 
 " soit que la camdre ou miae soit exploit^e par le propri6taire, soit qu^elle 
 " le soit par un Stranger a qui lb pkopki£taire en cede l'exploitation, la 
 " substance n'en sera pas moins diminu6 ; que dans I'un et dans I'autre cas, 
 " la substance d6tachee de ia carridre ou de la Mine est 6galement perdue 
 " pour la famille, et n'est pas susceptible decet attachement et de cette con- 
 " servation qui a fait 6tablir le retrait, puisqu'elle devient fongible." 
 
 In that paragraph, Pigeau distinctly recognizes the rtght 
 of the owner of the soil, not only to work a Mine discovered 
 on his land, but also the right to sell the Mii<iE to a stranger ! 
 Moreover, not one of those authors makes any distinction 
 between gold and the other metals. 
 
 ^CC« loo* Bosquet, in his Dictionnaireraisonne BosqvM 
 
 du Domains^ has an article of the most contradictory nature express ^^ 
 on the subject of Mines. After statinif that cM Mines, tems. 
 wheresoever found, whether in private lands or in the lands 
 of the Crown Domain, belong to the King, he proceeds to 
 state that the Kings have restricted their rights to one-tenth 
 of the metals extracted, and he makes no silly distinction 
 between the precious and the baser metals such as that drawn 
 in LorrVi notes on Lefihwe de la Planche. Most probably 
 
 m 
 
 ? 
 
— 152 — 
 
 
 '' 
 
 ?F'^SIIIir'' ^® ^*^ '®,^ **^ modifv his former absurd views, as enunciated 
 BosijciT.' "' Onyot a article, vho. Mines, by that more intimate acquaint- 
 Taoitm, ance with Mining law which his position, as Director of the 
 DAiioa. correspondence in the " Hegie dea Domainea;' enabled him to 
 attain. Bosquet, in that work, vho. Mines et Mini^ea, says : 
 
 " Les m6caux et toutes les matidres profltables, qui peuvent se tlrer du 
 ^ sein de la terre, font partie du domaine des Souvorains, et appartiennent 
 <i *" n'' *""* *^*"^ ^^? ^nfis du Domaine que dans celles des particuliers ; 
 Nos Roi3 86 tout riduits au DixiiMG d VexempU de ce qui se pratiquoit 
 " dans Vempire remain, qui avoit fixe son droits dix pour cent, sur ce qui 
 " se tiroit des carridresde marbres et de pierre." 
 
 Here we beg leave to draw the attention of the Court to 
 the suppression, by the Defendants, at P. 48 and 49 of their 
 Factum, of so much of BosqiieVa article as shews that the Kings 
 of France had restricted themselves to one-tenth of the produce 
 of all Mines, without distinction. We hope that the suppres- 
 sion has not had for objert to, induce tne Court to beuave 
 that Bosquet, in his Dictionnaire Domaine favors the 
 view that Mines are the property of tixe King. Nevertheless 
 the conduct of the Defendants, in this particular, it open to 
 grave suspicion. 
 Bosquet'8 Boaquet then falls into tb^ error, well refuted by Dup&nL 
 
 Roman Law H § ^^^ ""^^^^^ Factum) of stating, that the Roman Emperors 
 had reserved to themselves all other minerals and metals and 
 worked, on their own acco it, all mines of gold, silver and 
 other precious substance^ Bo little, indeed, is that the case, 
 that the most despotic, as he was, perhaps, one of the most 
 infamous, of the Roman Emperors, Tiberiua, found himself 
 obliged to invent a pretext to pu; Sextus-Marius to death, 
 when he wished to become possessed of gold-mines owned by 
 that citizen in Spain, (see the Annala of Tacitus, lib : 6. 
 § 19. 
 • ^^^^^ *^® gold-mines of the unfortunate Spaniard had 
 
 fiSi^dtnlZ i^®^ ^^^^ confiscated to the State, Tiberius withdrew those 
 'Mmes froni the control of the State, and appropriated them to 
 his own private use, making Ihem his owii private property. 
 That passaa:e shews conclusively that goldmines were not, 
 under the Roman Law, the property of the State, but formed 
 part of what French writers call the Domaine privi, since 
 those gold-mines were private property, as well in the hands 
 of Tiberius as they had been in the hands of Semtua-MaHua, 
 Dalloz, vol : 31, BSperioire de Juriaprudence, following 
 Choppin, erroneously quotes ch : 4, as containing this passage, 
 and further erroneously states that r*J«riw reserved to himself 
 
 on the anb- 
 ject. 
 
 Case of 
 
 i 
 
— 158 — 
 
 the mines in the landa of Sextm-Marius, as if thow twoOww^mF 
 authors had desired to lead one to believe that Tiberim, in th6^' "S,*-, 
 exercise of some supposed reffalian right over mines, had been *"**'*^* 
 desirons of shewing that gold-mines belonged to the Sovereiirn ; 
 the very reverse is the case. The distortion of the incident is ' 
 notsurpnsingm Chovpin, th^t zUi Mfentmr dea draita du 
 lion ; but it can only be accounted for in />a«oa by suppoainif 
 that great accurac;)^ cannot be expected from those who write' 
 as much as Fetrttre and Dalloz have done. 
 
 ^eC. J Oil. ^To revert to the article of Boaqiiet.'Bovmr'n 
 
 that author continues thus : *^r opiniiM 
 
 eappo/tvlewt 
 
 "iM7?fi?r<.T*°'? ^' .?/"^^^F' donnieiParis au mois deii.i***'**'^**'- 
 1663, il est <lit "que le droit de dixidme des mines, miaiiim mjtaux et 
 auhres substances terrestres, qui se tirent, et se pourront tirer par toutes 
 lesterres du Royaume, soit <yr., argent, cuivre, etain, etc., etc., appartlent 
 
 "JoySne*" Souvcffcinet*, sur toutes leg mtees ouvertes dansle 
 
 On comparing Bosquet's statement that the Kings had 
 restricted themselves to one-tenth of the metals and his citatidh 
 of Chables assertion of right to one-tenth of aU the gold, 
 silver, tin, and other mines in the Kingdom, with that 
 other doctrine found in Guyot, vbo. Mines, and supposed 
 to be one of Bosquet's earliest productions (see § 153 of this 
 factum), declaring the King to be the owner of all the mines 
 m the Kingdom, it becomes quite plain that Bosquet has 
 greatly modified his views, and that he now believes all 
 mines to belong to the owner of the soil. However, as we 
 shall see in^ the next section, Bosquet believes the King to 
 have the right of seeing to the development of that great 
 branch of national wealth. We do not see milch diflfej-ence, 
 at bottom, between the later opinions of Bosquet and Merlin's 
 views as already set forth at P. 61 of thisTactum: and we 
 theretore class Bosquet, in his latter and more learned days, 
 auiong the authors who assign all mine*, even of gold and 
 silver, to the owner of the soil. 
 
 ^eC. JoU. After referring to the Ordinance ofTheeame. 
 
 HraniY IV, of 1601, for the purpose of shewing that the King 
 had remitted his Royalty on certain substances, Bosqmt 
 states, in five lines, what the whole Law of France was, and 
 20 
 
— 164 — 
 
 OWNIBUIP 
 
 or Hun. 
 Boiqvn. 
 
 
 InalteDtbi- 
 lityofOrowB' 
 Domain pro- 
 ves owner- 
 sbip of mines 
 not to be in 
 King. 
 
 6tre, confonn6ment aux diff6rentes Ordonnances." ^ cepuisae 
 
 ♦l,n J^*V^'*^^r°^^^^'^'°"' in respect of opening Mines without 
 
 helS? S^r'"°' Ji«fi"?ly negativ'es thf supposition of 
 
 Tnnll ^u* ^'^'"^ *"S''* t^*^" one of Police or Supervision : 
 
 ee 8 An.i- ^^^^r f ^'''''''^ «« reproduced by ^Si 
 (see § 149 of this Factum " Ad beoks pertiuet omnium poteaUu. 
 
 ad SIWGULOS ^opm<<M." "um^teWMM, 
 
 • ^eC, J O I . ^o«yttf ^, on attaining the post of Direc- 
 
 Wn rrvP^lwr^''?^^^^** ^^* /?t>ma*W« must have 
 been struck with the reflexion, thrust every day before his 
 eyes that the 2?c nmne duJioi, in France, was JianenabS. 
 and he must have felt that the inalienability of the domain is 
 ev«rrp'''T^.^^."'*S""''^"*' ^° connection^ with thetex?of 
 ofJ/j'n^ u^'^fT^' against the supposition that mines, 
 
 formLrf^f .^"'^ Yf""^ ■^'^ *i^ ^^°g' «^' i" other words 
 torm part of the royal domain. It must have been some such 
 
 observation on the part of Bosquet, which led him to modTfy 
 his views on the sutj^t of mines. For instance, Bosquj^, in 
 tbe Dictumnmre dea Domaines, vlo. Domaine, § 2, tells us : 
 i« ui " ^® fo™"ne de Is Oouronne et les droits en dependants aonf ir.MA^. 
 ,; Wes; cetteinali6nabillt6 est un^ suite n^cessaire de^arbs^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 •tSKSffl^^^^^^ -^ B?.cia£nT£traS 
 
 Bosquet then assures us that each King, at his Corona- 
 
 "Charles VIsuivit I'exemple de ses pr6d6cesseurs • ilAt »^<r»,.«* 
 
 ^.. „.„..^ ouii,uc<;c 4UI puUTOIl lUl ec 
 
 successions, forfaitures et confiscations. BUmhard;'c^p:'';K;on'^2 
 une Ordonnance du m^me Ro . du 15 Octobre 1400 nftr.tnA*„.,» i ' j 
 " qui seront faits sur le domaine seront iS" ' ' ^ **"* ^"^ ''' ^"'^^ 
 
J to mince. 
 
 ivrir aucunea 
 que cepuisse 
 
 les without 
 position of 
 ipervision ; 
 )y Brixhe 
 m poteataa, 
 
 \t of Direc- 
 mnst have 
 before his 
 alienable ; 
 domain is 
 he text of 
 liat mines, 
 ler words, 
 some such 
 to modify 
 osQUET, in 
 bells us : 
 
 ant inaliSna- 
 ution perpd- 
 i I'usBKe du 
 nettre a son 
 affect^s au 
 
 is Corona- 
 lain ; and 
 
 /It lerment, 
 ppuT, traiti 
 )ut des vuea 
 iela Quale 
 Ordonnance 
 'aints Evan- 
 uelle prohi- 
 quo le Roi 
 ans, achats, 
 ehron, cite 
 ue les dons 
 
 — 155 — 
 
 the fnrSiefS I^ vS^n T'p'l^"^^ ''^^^^^^ <>^^T"- 
 solemn Ordinance informTfnr« }^ Parliament of that •'»':»... 
 
 the King, Royal PrineToffhe^X/' ''"'*^T' «^^'" *« V °'"'" 
 Paris, if FcJuaiy, ,1^^ l^^t^^otKlr^'^^' '' 
 
 remaSTfthtViSolfth^'t'mSe^^^^^^^^ 
 Domain, when E Hnt mate reStionri?Sf*VT?"'^^«"^ .*° *^« 
 Director of CorrcspoSce revS ^^^^^ 
 Chakle. VI, who fiad half / 11 .•*"* ^'"^ ^^® ^««t that 
 even, by ior^^'pragmau! LcS U^Z T'^^- ^"^ °°.^« 
 domaine, and whc in the vprt r^lTi,^^ ^ v°°* ,**^ alienate the , 
 his ricrht^ in mines if 111 Jrfi^ /S^"^^*^ I^^° ^^ declared that 
 ?ii.?.con<?«.. en nosScrr^viZ^^^ ^""'Ti^ '^''^f^ «"^''^* 
 one-tentfi royaltyralso pSenl T^^^^^ ""^"^^.^^ *h« 
 i^c>ni!ane,n as^decfaring null and v^^d-S'^^T""" ^ ""'^^^ ^^ 
 the domain. It is qfite ikln tW A fKV"^ grants of 
 dered himself the oX of Ss foiS^ • ^} T^^ *'^^«^- 
 he merely laid claim to thp n^oV^? "" ^"''**^ ^*""^«' ^"»ce 
 ifheor^s ad^iri^d^tnXTi'j^^^^^ ' 
 
 domain, he never would havn h^on di!! j .p^long to the 
 
 Sec. 162, ^Tho doctrine of the inalienability of eoTP,.. 
 
 mnehofthe Jomaine as is flgnraUve of the Sorereknly S "^ 
 the monarch is a doctrine upheld in evorv ^.ill,^ * 7 
 althon^h some there are, ,?ho heTdXf wto fa eSlJ 
 pehUdomameomuyhe farmed out by the Prin-B • w .i 
 fact, that Chablks h whose claim t7a X^U^^d &*? 
 

 % 
 
 BUKOI. 
 
 Fiuiiu. 
 
 La Oamvi. 
 
 fnuiu'i 
 
 opiaioa 
 
 — 166 — 
 
 th?^^'° case of the kind, amonR the French Kings, hag pot 
 tlje^urce and pnginolhifl claim to that royaltyfupou snch 
 term Hn^V" P'?''^ ^'° /'^'^ r^alien, ^s^m<IeT^Hte!^ 
 J£.?li ♦* . *^P' v*""" .°,* ^^^'T writer, among those things 
 
 fcilnni'*if .A""^ this Factum) says that the royalty 
 
 w«ii^/*i''^V"r ^ ^^^'^ inalienability of the domain is 
 
 rn^r*"^ ""f J ^^ v^y^ and de Ux.kere, in their note I 
 
 MemXr*>i'' W •' ^' ^V^<^P^i^^ P- 522, and in the 
 
 ^ S?a w' ;'^«^'« HcssoN, already referred to at P. 56 and 67 
 
 ^A^!^' See also GcYOT, i;Jo. i>matn., DiNizABT 
 
 Sec. 163. FEBRidBE, in his Otand Coulumier, 
 
 'SaViKA^ commenting on article 187 of the Custom of 
 fans, P. 1547, no. 10, haa the following : 
 
 **TliJri ^-^'" ^""'""V"' *'ff'**?''« '^^ ««« sujets pour en (^^r r<«; 
 
 « ?8^,^^?B^q Tn ^^^'^''^y^? ^» Roy, Charles IX, donn^e k Paris, 
 « *m "^ • • ,*'l.%y' ^^"'y I^. d« mois de Juin 1601. et de Loui^ 
 
 ^ S&rir?''"///>T «"J«t^« 'e^rs ven£e lours hVuaTeB pour 
 
 WunlKr ""* ^CC. 164. Le Camus, in interpreting the same arti- 
 
 hSrSS? "^ ^' ^\1?^' ^«1 • 2, of the Grand Coutumier, places no restric- 
 
 wpSrw, '*f°" whatever upon tiie rights of the owner of the soil in Mines. 
 
 .Aj^rt from that circumstance, we shaU soon see how much 
 
 , telththereisinthe observation forced from the nephew by 
 
 th^ blunders of the uncle (see § 126 of this Factum) : we shall 
 
 soon have evidence that : / » ^ '»^»" 
 
 ♦• On souhaiterait, dans les ouyrages de Claude Ferrih-e h«i.,„»„ 
 •• motiu de Titesse et plus d'exactitude!^ ^emere, bcauconp 
 
 F^Z M Vo'^'^i ?°i sweening assertion thus made by 
 F^^e, to the effect, that gold, diver and all other miriea 
 belong solely and exclusively'to the King, i^^^^^Sl ua 
 to what he calls three Ordin'atices, i. e. of ChST ixf^t^ 
 from Pans, on the 6 May, 1663, of Hbnet IV, in June 16W 
 
 uilllterAMr 
 ■hewn ap 
 here. 
 
 I 1 
 
p. 66 and 57 
 
 - 167 - 
 
 and ofLomsXIH. in Mftv 1fl<i<« ti 
 
 ofFmiere^s knowlXoSf thofie Tnlf ' "* "**'' *~* *^« extent dWiw,,. 
 
 under dTe of jh" ^Ma/lfgl ^° ^;^'°«"ce of Chable. IX, '•*"*"• 
 nances du Zouvre /TaliJ^ W ^® ^*'''' searched the 6?r<fon' 
 lection, ^^uS^iX.^^ TaiHaf^dier^, Coi- 
 
 nanco of that date to hn?n,fn? ' . ' ^^o^here is an Ordi- 
 Edition, in mo; of PjTtT'^^'^^K-^"*^^^^ o^n 
 muchfOTj^'wJ', ' ftr "^ 6'»^«':<^* Collection. So 
 date of the S^JA ot ^r SY ..^°. ^* ^«' ^^** "°^«'' 
 of Chaeles IX: but if thftY^f? 7 *^*""? '5 *" Ordinance 
 aupport of hie opiS we th nk ;^lt ^*\^*«*^ ^^ ^*'^'^>^ in 
 ed Sie opinion Sf Sw^fiB 1^7 ^^"^ ^"^'''y °°f«"»ld- 
 
 also found at length UT 69 of t/vI^p ^^' f' ^^^5 ^* ^« 
 Minerale, and at P 140 nf v«i, ^J'^^^lbdby's Ugulation 
 
 tion ; iti^ verytSf'an'dlt^uns^huf r °^^*«^^'*Co"«e- 
 
 " Chaklgh, etc.. bic k ♦«..., - 
 "salut Nousavons Stcrirf * ^"^ *=«« pr^sente lettres verronL 
 
 toutes substances terrestrcB qui 86 tSent«f "'"'"' T'^''^^' m^taux. et 
 
 •plomb, areent vif, icier, fer alun ^fw 1' ^'* '^' "^^'^^ ™Jvre, estain. 
 sel nitre. cTiarbon ou autre ^ubs^'nrlSl^irP"'""^ salpestre, sel gemme 
 moyencierentret^niraudUestetl^L^^^^^^^^ ^t poilr luyTnne; 
 
 lettres de prouision, mm % orL >S« ?^ L " *'^'i''«*=' P°'"**«8 P""" sea 
 Di DixiESMB A NOUS <W«4r»i ir/P'*":.'''''*'*^*^ <?** dro,™ 
 
 :: droit de la couronnrjSi™ t?' st'^Tu^rrl''^' '* ''"' '^^"^^^^ 
 toutesfoi8i.^««ettr,per1onne8Sui ont del ^^^^^^^^ 9»« «>it: 
 
 o»t ween ces droits, pretMans^ quo ce StS' '*• "*•" P" ^^urP-tion 
 L°"f •?' ''IO■^^s^rpez sur Nous, et J! "led t^?l.?\T?. »PP»^tienne, 
 peut nen dem&der, voulam rdraiXl it'J'J',?^'!^ •^«''«" °e leur en 
 
 ;: pret&T ,u; cer drorieurr e'st^ "^^LT^ <>« To-.^e do.Z? 
 »ucune mention en leurs contacts" etti"tl!^*'"''/"il' .^" " «" «»''^ fait 
 nostre grand interest, Pour ce^We*£ a^.J^LJ®""'*'f '"^""'^^''t * 
 do^vent demenrer reu?>i8 k nostre domabe^H^r^^'^* les dJts drolcta 
 
 , "SgAvoiKfaisons, que demnUdTLJ^'*^^'^^,'^^^^^^^'^''^^-' 
 declare, disons et A A, quehdZitdeJl^^T^^ "°"" *''*'"' "^'*«* 
 droit deSouueraineti tur toctes LFrt^L •^'. ''^ appartient par 
 
 ouqui8en,nt(^ai«.«^«S'<^^deTueK^"^^ *'"P" '^'i^-H 
 qu'elles soyer.t tenues en nostre Rov«21l ^^ ^'^P" ^uelques mains 
 
 ".n,quellesoutr..aille ^^^^^ntrC.R.'TirJu ^T^^l 
 
 
— 168 — 
 
 OwiiuniP " par ci deuant les droits ne nous ont est^ pajez, nous lea declarons vsurpcK, 
 or Mmi. " et conime teln, pouuoir OHtre poursuivis, et sang que Ioh achvteurR ou 
 FaiBiias. <• autos tenanciers de noRtrodomaine puissent pretendro Icsdits droits leur 
 Limi'FLiDtT •• nvoir e8ti vddus ou baiilez, s'il n'cn est fait expreBse motion en leurs 
 " contracts, anioignant k nos procureurs generaux, ou leurs substituts, de 
 " bire la Doursuite dcsdits droits, sans aucune dissimulation." 
 
 " Si aonnons en mandemcnt, etc., etc., etc. Donn6 k Paris, le vingt* 
 *' sixiesme iour do May, I'nn do grace mil cinq cons soixanto trois : ot de 
 ** nostre regne !e troisiesmo. Aiusi sign^ sur le reply, par le Roy en son 
 •• conseil." 
 
 •* Btroiniib." 
 
 Tbie same. ©60. lUO. It is Bui prising how Feriiere could 
 
 have imagined that the Ordinance of Ciiarlks IX, of 26 
 May, 1563, which " hy the advice of the King's Council," 
 declared the King's rights in mines to consist merely of a royalty 
 of ono-tonth on all mines oi yold, silver, etc., really made the 
 King proprietor *' privativement d toua autres " of all the 
 mines in the Kingdom. < Such ignorance shews how well ho 
 deserved tlio reproaches of his nephew, and how true it is, as 
 Camus so bitterly says of him, vol. 1, P. 69 : 
 
 " II n'y a d'estim^ dans son livre que ce qui n'cst pas do lui." 
 
 The Ordinance, referred to by terriere, cxpnissly names 
 gold and w^vcr-raines, and asserts no greater right on them, 
 than on other mines ; it merely claims aroyalty of one-tenth. 
 
 It was not until the Ist July, 1563, that the Parliament 
 of Paris onregistored that Ordinance, with a modification 
 which clearly defines and limits the King's rights, in mines of 
 all sorts, ana without distinction, to the royalty of one-tenth. 
 Hie modification, by the Parliament, is in these words (see 
 P. 59, note 1, of LamIs-Flkuey, Legislation Minerale) : 
 
 " Pourjouir parl'impSlrant du don k lui fait dudit droit du dixUme, 
 " pour le temps et termo de quatre ans, pour le reoard dea droits au roi 
 '* apparUnanty et est Wnnu lui conceriier et appartenir ia mitaux et mineralea 
 " de son royaume." 
 
 The Parliament declares that, having regard to the 
 King's rights in mines, the petitioner may take the King's 
 gift of the royal rights in mines ; the Arret may be said to 
 declare that the gift includes, for a limited time, all the 
 Kind's mining rights, that is to say his royalty of one-tenth 
 {drmt du dixteme). 
 
 The same. >^6C* luO, We have already conclusively esta- 
 
 blished, at P. 110 and seq : of this Factum, that the Ordinance 
 
— 150 — 
 
 IS vsurpcB, 
 heteurB ou 
 droits leur 
 in en leurs 
 wtituU, de 
 
 «, le vingt- 
 rois : ct de 
 Roy en son 
 
 HB." 
 
 Ire could 
 !t, of 26 
 Council,^* 
 a royalty 
 made the 
 >f all the 
 V well ho 
 e it ie, as 
 
 1." 
 
 ly names 
 on them, 
 one-tenth, 
 urliament 
 tdiiication 
 1 mines of 
 one-tenth, 
 tvords (see 
 e): 
 
 du dixiime, 
 roits au roi 
 et mineralea 
 
 rd to the 
 the King's 
 36 said to 
 le, all the 
 one-tenth 
 
 vely esta- 
 Ordinancc 
 
 of 1001 provo.4 the very reverse of the swecfiing doctrine laid '-'*"■*•■"' 
 down hy Ferrtere \ let lis now examine the third and laat j,^jjjj|j|j' 
 authority referred to by Ferriere in support of his inconsider- iiorwao. 
 ate assertion, i. o. the Ordinance of Loois XIII, of May, Do Moun. 
 1635 ; that Law is found at length at V. 175 of LAMfe-FtKU- 
 by's Ugi«latinn minhaU, and at P. 441 of Volume XVI of 
 JaamberCa (>ollectif.. That Law was not registered by the 
 Parliament of Pr<i8, ar. ? cannot therefore bo referred to, as 
 Law here (see § dS and c r : of this Factum), But supposing 
 oven that it had In a so pv egistered, what does it amount to I 
 In a preamble co:."(itr'ng r ■ two paragraphs, the King recites 
 the advantages tha t;vo accrued from his father's Ordinance 
 of 1601, and that ho (Louis Xlll) had, by his Edict of 1626, 
 created a second set of Treasurers and Keceivers general of the 
 mines ; and Louis Xlll then proceeds, in a decree of one 
 paragraph to appoint another set of such Officers, i. e. " deim 
 " conseUleraet controlleurs generavx^ alternatib' tt triknnal." 
 And there ends the Ordinance, on which Ferriere has 
 sought to build up the doctine that all mines belong to the 
 King. In a footnote, at P. 175 of the same work, LanU- 
 Fleury gives us the key to those extraordinary appointments ; 
 he says that the sale of offices had then reached the uttermost 
 limit of abuse, and that, in order to create offices for Bale, as 
 many as four occupants were appoiiited to the same office, to 
 fulfil the duties j^early in turn ; the first was called Vordinaire, 
 — the second, i aliematif, — tlie third, le tfieunal,— and the 
 fourth, ?(3 quadrieniial,— the fourth being but seldom ap- 
 pointed. 
 
 ^6C, lOl. — ^The only remaining reference made by jijg g^^jg . 
 Ferriere is to an Arret cited by Momao ; that AiTet e?* ab- tUe reason 
 lishes the very reverse of Ferriere's doctrine as to tiieF?*'*^{y 
 ownership ol tne mines ; the Arrk was in reference, not to jf^^^ drew 
 mines, but to a demand made by a seignior upon hiBcensitairehia inspira- 
 to compel the censitaire to sell to the Seignior a portion oi^^°^^'°^ ^^^ 
 the ceneitaire'a laud, ostensibly to enable the Seignior to '^* 
 
 enlarge his manor-house. Mines may have been at the bottom 
 of the Seignior's demand ; hence, perhaps, it is so stated by 
 Ferriere ; but it does not appear to be so by the ArrU. 
 
 If Ferriere had only referred to DuMolin,, whose opinion 
 we give elsewhere, and for whom Ferriere^ at P. 422 of his 
 Histoire du droit Jiomain, affects the Ingest respect, calling 
 DuMolin " the Pbinoe ofJuriata ", he might have expressed 
 
 !i 
 
 
 i 
 
— 160 — 
 
 D'AsDMmn 
 
 Cahvi. 
 
 GcTot. 
 
 OORBIH. 
 DCPOBT. 
 
 Code Hmry 
 diitorts MBM 
 of Ordinaa- 
 ce«. 
 
 a djjSerent opinion as to t^old and silver-mines ; but we fear,- 
 from ih^ frequent references to the Code Henry to be foqnd in 
 Ferrieref that be drew his knpwledge of the Ordinances from , 
 th^t tainted source, of whic^ we nnd the following candid 
 opihipu in the , 
 
 I (EUVBES DB D'AotTBBSBAU) p. 397. 
 
 " On fera bien de s'aider dans ce travail de ce qa*on appelle le Code 
 Henry, oil l*on trouve les ordo^nances rangies par ordr^ de maodres. Mais 
 coniitie le Pr6i^dent Brisaon, aui est hauteur de cet ouvrage et qui esp6rait 
 de le faire reviStir de Tautorit* da Roi, y a traTaill6 en L6gislat«ur plutdt 
 
 nicessaire d'y joindre r^tude de toutes les ordonnances pe8t<6rieures qui ont 
 Atabli des regies sur queljiues matidres du Droit Romain, du Droit Eccl^sias- 
 tique ou du Droit Frangais. Nous n'en avons pas encore de recueil complet, 
 mais il sera us6 de les incjiquer i notre futur avocat du RoL" 
 
 167, and Guyot, vbo. OrdonnanoeSf 
 verjr same Jerms of the Code Henry. 
 
 Camus, vol : 2, P. 
 B. 473, speak in the 
 
 Coriin^ in the Fi-eface to his own Collection, speab'ng of tfie 
 Code Henry III, says : " Le Code Henrjr III nTest paa 
 " composd du vrai texte des Ordonnances, niais d'un melange , 
 " et nonveau langage que I'on espgrait faire passer comme 
 " nouvelles Ordonnances, et les faire verifier au nouveau 
 " Parlement ; ce oui n'a pas 6t6 fait." With regard to another 
 Edition, published in 1611 and called the Code Henry I F, 
 Corhin says of it, that it does not contain a single text of the 
 Ordinances. 
 
 
 Ddpomt 
 entirely in 
 agreement 
 with Plain- 
 tifb' Timn. 
 
 I^6C« Ibo. A very recent author, Ehennb DtrpoNx 
 
 writing under date of 1862, with all the lights that a host of 
 the ablest of ^aodem writers have thrown upon the subject, has 
 an article, which the limits of this Factum reluctantly compel 
 us to abridge. After reasoning out the case, as decided by 
 Natural Law, Dupont, at P. 6, volume I, of his Jurisprudence 
 dee Mines, arrives, though in different words, at the very 
 same conclusion as that formed by the Plaintiffs, in 1862, 
 when, in their Declaration in this cause, as reasons for voiding 
 the '' DB HAst- Patent,'' they stated their opinion thus ; 
 
 " V. The Crown had no interest to grant ; inasmuch as, by the 
 " Laws then In force in Lower-Canada, the n'ghts of the Crown, in 
 " private lands, were, and are, restricted to lilO of the metals extracted." 
 
 " VL The Mines belong to the Platntifis as owners of the soil in those 
 " lauds and ten«nient% no part of which ever belonged to the Defendants «a 
 
t we fear,- 
 efQqndin 
 tnces from 
 ig candid 
 
 lelle le Code 
 idres. Mais 
 qui espirait 
 lat«ar plutdt 
 «s qu'il cite, 
 ue la pensie 
 ^insi il sera 
 ures qui ont 
 nt Eccl6sia8> 
 leil complet, 
 
 lonnanoeSf 
 le Henry. 
 ms of the 
 nest pas 
 a mSlange , 
 it comme 
 I nouvcau 
 to another 
 fenry IV^ 
 text of the 
 
 li DtJPONTj 
 
 t a host of 
 ibject, has 
 ;ly compel 
 lecided by 
 'sprudence 
 ; the very 
 i, in 1862/ 
 or voiding 
 tins ; 
 
 I as, by the 
 GroWD, in 
 ztracted." 
 soil in those 
 defendants MS 
 
 ~ 161 — 
 
 "Ek'Utl™ alowi^^^^^ ^'t'^^"* notice to the Ow..«sHiP 
 
 " haying beenlXd "n rwXhe'minek '"' "'*''^"' '''' ^'••"«^«' «"*"*"?.' """* 
 
 "refuJlo>th1^^tKt'rkttri?^ ^"^ onljr issue on the SSo.. 
 
 " to the DroDriarnr «nT. <• 1 . J ° """"' ■^'' regular and judicial notice 
 " of the cS;^!'- ' ""^ ■ formal judgment to that effect by ^the TribunIS; 
 
 DupoNT, loco citato, says : 
 !.' S° *?"* *'° "l"' pr6c4de il r^sulte : " 
 
 " propriJtairesHtJophrs?' '''^"''' ^"^ '* '"'^*^' «»" *d«« «y"di<«'t« «« 
 
 " .ux i^Jentt'^rpP"^*^ "' '*'"'*'' "°" P'"« «tre nicessairement donn6e 
 
 chlM'e?pjStio™* 1?' r"'^*'*'' ''? '"•'"•*™ * embrasser, comme 
 
 U plus aooroS iu I; ^ . ° s^T'Ouera ainsi les mines de la minidre 
 
 rtus." ^'^^ **"® ' *^^*« """^^tre naturel des intirfits gin6- 
 
 1 :' 
 
 propri6t6 ir'a sn?f«L .vTr , T °""*« suive nicessairem^nt U 
 
 • -^ [^^'IT^^ ^' ^^' ^»PO»i^ quotes the couclu-Xhe 
 
 etT.<7^"oTlKJ?l^ ^^^^*^>5° «^e "article reproduced at P. 69 
 
 dissont ?L.l V / •*"'"' f ''^^"'' ^^^'^ P''^««'^^« to state his 
 dissent irom Merhn, and assares as that the last Koman 
 
 Emperors did something more than impose a mere fiTcd 
 
 bnrthen on he working of Mines. No doSbt, theHid ; and 
 
 InH fw!v i^^^cti>tt/)(>«< has drawn, Wween his opinion 
 and that of Mcrhn, a distinction without a difference, let ii" 
 ^1 
 
 . m> 
 
 
 same. 
 
0W1.»8RIP 
 
 or Minis. 
 DcpoaT. 
 
 MiONIBON. 
 
 The same. 
 
 — 162 — 
 
 hoipe that 3upmt, the layman, was not influenced by the 
 desire of plnc-king a featlier from the wing of the cMre 
 lepste.m he otherwise justly styles Jterlin. If Bupont had 
 g anced at the quotation from Merlin's lidpertoire:^. m 
 mvenhy us at P. 59 of t^its Factum, he mi^hl have 'see^ that! 
 Merhn and he are m perfect agreement ; Merlin there states : 
 
 Droit article Mines qu'elle n'avait pour base qu»une interorfitotim 
 " ZlrouZ i°rS'"Zo /'"^ Tr'^ OrdonnanVS uneS™! 
 
 What is thi8/a«<?te' <fe disposer en indemnismL but the 
 dr(yit rdcahen, aa understood hy Dupont f 
 
 Sec, 170. i?M^»<, satisfied with his apparent 
 
 tnamph over the cilebre ISgiste, Merlin, then proceeds, at 
 
 •• ' J^.ir®??^!^^' '^ *^^ ™°^,* absolute manner, the preten- 
 sions of the Defendants, as to the State being the ownerof the 
 mines, in the tollowing incisive language : 
 
 Sec. 171 . Dupont then quotes Migneron's defini- 
 
 HlSIIBBOX of 
 
 same opinion . - i — .^y.^w. v.»o uouin- 
 
 MDupmt, tion of the rij*hts of the State or Sovereign, or droit reaalie^ 
 
 "ilSr T*S'"^ reference to the rights of the owil- of 7e so7 We 
 
 • shall presently 863 what corresponding rijfhts flow, in the 
 
 opinion of /)Mj?on< and of Migneron, from" owici ship of the 
 
 soil. Here are Migheron'a words, as quoted hyDupmtsA 
 
 1 . 14; 01 the same work : - ^ 
 
 " M. Migneron resume le droit r^galien dans la triple attribution au'il 
 cot. re au prince : "^ ■ i" " 
 
 " lo De r6gler la destination de la propri6t6 souterraine, en d'autres 
 
 termes de pourjoir du privil6ge de I'exploiter, les personnes qui peuveSt 
 
 " le mieux la mettre en valeur." uhuto 4U1 pouvBni 
 
 «' n.l^^ ^'^" surjeiller I'exploitation dan« ses rapports^avec I'ordre public, 
 avec la conservation du sol et avec la sAret6 des ouvriets mineure." 
 
 " I'expWtMt"''"''*'^''"" "" *'^'^'" *"'''"* ^'"" '°^ P'"''''"**^ •!"'*" <'^"*»°* 
 
 Sec. 17», i?tfpo?jnhen cites the opinion of i?^n*- 
 
 zarty noticed hereafter ; and, after berating Regnaud d^Epercy 
 
led by the 
 the cUebre 
 ')upont had 
 re, P. 193, 
 e seen that; 
 ere states : 
 
 le du roi." 
 octrine d'une 
 Questions d« 
 nterprltfttion 
 ne CONFUSION 
 mt de diipO' 
 
 ^ bat the 
 
 apparent 
 )ceed8, at 
 be preten- 
 Tier of the 
 
 6 absolue de 
 
 n'a defini- 
 
 ! regalien, 
 soil. We 
 w, in the 
 lip of the 
 ^"^ont at 
 
 bution qu'i] 
 
 en d'autres 
 ]ui peuvent 
 
 rdre public, 
 
 jre." 
 
 'en obtient 
 
 I of Ddni' 
 cPEpercy 
 
 rlri ' ^^ declared all mines to he propriety doimniahs ''^ >»»•"• 
 PupoNT proceeds to trace the historv nf lSo7i«« • ^ ' Ddpost. 
 upon the subject of mines muT^iS^i'^K^^^^ ^n France M.eK.aox. 
 by Merlin in tL oS ' ? j ^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ described 
 tod it wAmi ,, ""'^ *^'*®*'^y quoted in this Factum ; 
 beyond thevear S^^^^^ folio ^ that historical skeSh 
 
 SX^. .HbL Lntrl ^' establishment of the ConseU 
 «mS^Ill fhp oL- ^'^^' i"'^^® ^^ P'^^ose examining 
 
 i?w/>on< quotes the Ordinance of Chables VI. of 1413 
 
 and he then gives a synopsis of the Ordinance of Louw XI of 
 H71, reproduced at fength at P. 93 and sea : of tSactum 
 
 d«6i«t de d«cl»r.tion, legmndMaltre pouraT lei K eTS il 
 «< nr A^*?^ '* ^^ w ^^ '* d^couverte des mines oar un ajrent A» ir«in^ 
 
 " Ckttb PR^riBBNCE accordle par rOrdonnance dn T^nSa tt /,,. « 
 plus sage, k certains igards, que cette loi.car elle autorisait le grand 
 
 >" 1 
 
 i 
 
 1; >l 
 
 ".1! 
 
 ii 
 
OWVIBSBIP 
 
 or Hniis. 
 DaPOHi. 
 
 fifisHigoa. 
 
 — 164 — 
 
 "maltre k conKrer k d'autres qu'au propri^taire foncier le droit d'exploiter 
 " lea mines, lorsque celui-ci 4tait reput6 incapable." eipiouer 
 
 •• •l^'*"lr'jP^''*'-!* !.'°" songe que le principc de I'indemnitS duo au pro- 
 &'Zt^^^ *"".* '^»"«/0'1onnance de Louis XI, que cette indeoiSiti 
 itait rfiglfe par If grand Maitre et un magistrat, et qu'une jurisdiction 
 gpicwle^taitconftrle au grand Maitre avec le droit de perinSn on 
 IT? T^* Tr ^."?* *^/T!.<*« vfmdpeB entre la legislation des min^ 
 
 "SlSlT" J^PsTation existante, consacr/o parlaloidu2l 
 
 .. A Vp^tt? c?"f«"™,'t6 de dispositions, dans la legislation des mines, k plus 
 « tlX'SiSZ^.^""^' d'interyalle, a 6t6 signaL, pour la premSrJ fois! 
 
 The lame. ScC. 173. Dupont and Migneron^ in the last 
 
 quotation have viewed the droit regalien more from the 
 etand-point of the owner of the soil than they had hitherto 
 done ; and neither of them 4ream8 of making the absurd 
 distinction between royai mines and other mines i after quo- 
 ting a few of the various other subsequent Ordinances herein 
 before noticed, Dupont takes up the Ordinance of Heney 
 I\r , of 1601 : he quotes it as a mere exercise, by the Kinff of 
 the droU rigalifi, ; and then, in the following romarklble 
 admission, at P. 27, the author concedes that Ordinance to 
 have been a great relaxation of the droit rigalien. He says : 
 
 " Ainsi l'6dit de 1 601 ne suppnma point le droit rfealien, comme on a 
 pu le croire: il ne fit qu'en moaifier I'excrcice par grice sjUciale du ro* 
 
 SS'S'^A"*"""* *'/"* "^r""" ^' ^H7«iro», en renonpant 4 son 
 droit du dixidme, fargrjUt speouU, sur les mines de houille et de fer ne 
 wnonoa n. i a faculty de conc6der les gites des substances min6?aKo 
 leurs djsposihons rendaient susceptibles d'etre conc6d6e, ni k celle de fS?e 
 " surreiller Tezploitation de ces substances." 
 
 Notwithstanding the great weight due to Dupont's 
 opinion m that resnect, it is hard to conceive what interest 
 could remain to the Sovereign in mines, wherein, whatever 
 hismotive, he ha^ ceased to claim a royalty ; and that view 
 of the matter is strengthened by the fact, that, for upwards of 
 a century afterwards, no royal permission to work cither coal 
 or iron mines appears to have been asked, or given, in France : 
 and one is incrmed to infer from MenirCs argument in tho 
 DaomtHndZefebvrec&s?, that such was the umin considera- 
 tion of the Arret m that case. 
 
 ?nin«d ^^^" ^^^ (*'*)• ^ feature in the Ordinance of 
 
 1601 give 1^<^1». *^a* se^ms to have escaped Bupont'a attention, is 
 preference to Contained m article 22 of the Ordinance which clearlv irives 
 owner of Mil. -^ ** ' 
 
— 165 — 
 
 TorZ^le ^nm: *'' --«P-f-noo as that set oat in 
 
 K. eC, 1 74. Dupont next cites at P. 33, 34, 36 and 
 
 86, a number of the most contradictory ArrSta en Conaeil in 
 reterence to mines near Alais, for the pnr^of sheZi^ C 
 inconveniences arising from 'the absence^ of fixed Tn"fs1n 
 determmmg questions of mining grants. 
 1-1, ^^!^ Art-6ta, wnich, in more respects than one. mav bo 
 ikened to onr Canadian Orders in Council, alternately ousted 
 fin^llTj «T^*^"^-?<^ <>f tl^e mines, six times x^n 10 yea s' 
 finally the Kn.g in Council, short^ before the Revolution' 
 administered substantial justice -^^-^ ousting both oCnS 
 and by granting the mines to his own brother ! iio oKble 
 ^f the oyster ! \Dupmt states the matter without cormnent ' 
 be was, at the date of hie writing, Inginieur en X/TJ^r* 
 xmpinal des mines ; and whilelie states that, unLThe ofd 
 monarchy such things were done, ho forgets to remind is that 
 those abuses existed only at the decline of the monarchv in 
 France and after this Country had been happily sevTredfroS 
 France,-that such acts of injustice were sSdL Xu^^^^^^^ 
 by Kings, and never tolerated by those grand old larlia 
 ments of France, who watched over thf intere tB of he 
 people, m the times when France implanted her Laws here! 
 *u ^° «"ch iniquities could assuredly have taken place under 
 the Ordmanco o? 1471, as modified-'by the ParEaments of 
 Pans, which, by article 10, left to the ordinary trib.mds the 
 determination of all such questions (see P. 97 & 100 of this 
 Pactum). i?t^^n< is mistaken in supposing that the ^rJS 
 he condemns so mildly were at all inSSence% by the aT^STce 
 of fixed rules; nothing else than jobbery could have been 
 expected from confidin^gthedecision^of such qTsL^^^^^ 
 Councillors of State. What happened on that occasion ij 
 France, is said to have happened auite recently in Canada n 
 reference to mining lands In the ciaudi^re. fe "an nature is 
 ^Z?"" "''• T.^^^'T The early historjr of th. ^dTlZ- 
 
 OWXIBBSIP 
 
 or lliMH. 
 
 DCP0»T. 
 
 MtORiaoR. 
 
 DCPLISSH. 
 
 Some extra- 
 ordinary 
 ArrSt* mea- 
 tioned by 
 Dupont. 
 
 ml 
 
 'II 
 
 Sec. 175, Ddplessis. 1. 2, ch : 2, P. 123, has, inocfMis 
 
 mi8 connection, some interesting comments on the 187th favors Tiews 
 
 ofPlaintitrd. 
 
UWHIUSHIP 
 or MlNKB. 
 
 OoPblbEIS. 
 
 — 166 — 
 
 article of the Oustora of Paris, whichi8La'.viuLov.'er-r)ana.!a, 
 Ine article runs thus : 
 
 "Quieonqucalesol,aopQU iez.de-chn;.iss6o,d'ai;.nin h6ritage, ilpeui 
 etdoitawtr le .umvB^et U m^ox^ de Bon hoI ■ et peut ^difier 5ar dessas 
 et par dessous, et v fair© puits, lii-'tnents et autres choses licites, s'il nV a 
 " titre au contrairo,' ' ■' 
 
 The commejits of Dupl&i.h atu ar. fodows : 
 la propriite du sol enporte le demi . ,i« Ui dmom." 
 ^'c«tte Coatume "**' °^ ""°"' ^*'^^^* ^'^^'^'"'^ ^****^' wr I'artfcle 187 de 
 
 " n a trols cfifets." 
 
 ,. , " I-'f.sec.inl qu'iZ (the owner of the Boi\)jy-it./aire aoua son sol ce qui 
 >.n? ,.)Mt, ei autant avant en terre qu'il veut." 
 
 
 *#***##*# 
 
 * » 
 
 de son sol lui appartient, sans autre tithe que cdui de son sol" 
 
 DtTPL^SiB places no restriction whatever on the rights of 
 the owner of the soil above and below the surface ; he says it 
 K&"prmcipede droit," a principle of Common Law. Can 
 anv words more clearlv express the opinion that the mines 
 belong to the owner of the soil i If gold, even, formed an 
 exception to the rule, surely Duphssia would have noticed it ; 
 in any cmeBerroyer and de Zauriere, «?ho are the comraen- 
 
 **vv^^L'?"■^^^**'*,*®^*' ^^^ who had then (in 1726) 
 published the first volume of the Ordonnances du louvre, and 
 had the materials all ready for the publication of the second, 
 contammg the Ordmance of 1413, would have inserted, in 
 their commentaries on Dupleam, some note, as they have 
 done m other matters, contra(Jicfing or qualifying Dupleasia' 
 assertion* 
 
 Principle that 
 domame utile 
 belongs to 
 owner of soil 
 incompatible 
 with Defend- 
 ants' views. 
 
 »ec. J 76. Moreover, is not the supposition of the 
 
 King, or any other person than the owner of the soil, having 
 any propnetary rights whatever in the ?o::i and its product? 
 utterly at variance with the feudal tenv ^hich prevailed in 
 France, and was thence transplanted h . . Does not such a 
 suppce-'on vest in the ICing, tlie "ign ■ Suzerain, above all 
 " ""' V^ r *** "Stance, so- '. p.-.ioh of that domaine 
 ih by Law was exclu8i\ vested in the vassal or 
 
 oth( 
 util 
 
 ler!^- 
 
 owner of the soil ? 
 
invor-Danatia, 
 
 heritage, ilpeut 
 
 jifier par dessus 
 
 licites, s'il n'y • 
 
 r I'artlcle 187 do 
 
 's BON SOL ce qui 
 
 IS et AC OI8S0US 
 
 the rights of 
 le ; he says it 
 n Law. Can 
 lat the mines 
 1. ^'nrined an 
 ve noticed it ; 
 the commen- 
 sn (in 1726) 
 ti Louvre, and 
 f the second, 
 e inserted, in 
 18 they have 
 ig Duplessii 
 
 osition of the 
 3 soil, having 
 its products, 
 I prevailed in 
 38 not such a 
 !tn, above all 
 that domaine 
 the vassal or 
 
 OWNIBIBIP 
 
 or IfiNu. 
 Two AsBllTl. 
 
 POCQCW. 
 
 The game; 
 and rojal 
 Permisiion 
 not neoes- 
 •ary. 
 
 — 167 ~ 
 
 n«..?^^' .• '^^^ principle of the Common Law 
 
 prevailed,, even in the despotic reign of Louis XTV .Z 
 Underlies a decision of the Kino. ;„r. •? ^^^^j aoa 
 
 Reoueil JumciAiBK, Vol : 6, p. 697 & 689 
 
 itaknt,commelesmi2 Tmitl^ .t ii„;"'°'' de Charbon de terre 
 
 on I^mZt '^•f •*'"' *^.' ^^°»'« ^^'g^ts to be a royalty only 
 on ALL Mxne^ ; it is precious as haviuir been ma^e in fW 
 
 l,o.- V * ,• ^" ^'"'^^^^ ^^^^''e importance still, asTheeame 
 
 Sec. 179, ^Hie value of Pooqua de UwniM,^ 
 
 " EtallmemenU de St. LouU, art : 88. 
 
 LovsEL, livre 2, tit : 2, R4gle 52. 
 ^^ ^njoM, Art : 61.— Choppin, ibid. 
 
 .. ICT^' SoiiveraimU, livro 8, ch : desMinet, 
 " Ordonnance de Juin 1 601. 
 iJelhommeau, livre 1, Max : 18." 
 
 I 
 
OwKHBBlP 
 OF MlNM. 
 
 POOQOOT. 
 
 Analjiii of 
 bin opinion. 
 
 The tame. 
 
 — 168 — 
 
 Sec. 1 80. — A part from the fact that, in the same 
 cliapter, the author enunciates doctrines utterly at variance 
 with the Law of thia country, as settled by the Soigneurial 
 Court, on the 8ub|ect of rivers not navigable, Epavei: Bdtar- 
 dty, and DeshSrence &c., &c., &c., there is, about Pocguetda 
 lyivomere, the remarkable feature that, from his own indirect 
 avowal, he appears to have had some doubt as to the soundness 
 ofhisopmion. For instance, in his Preface to that work, he 
 says, at P. VII. ' 
 
 •• on 1^" tout j'en ai fait un «br6g6 suivi de notre Jurisprudence Prancaise. 
 en marquant les pnncjpales sources d'oA chaque riah a 6t6 ouisie «aS 
 
 *!,• ■^^^' ^^^^® Pecquet de Livoniere has given, as a general 
 tnmg, but one or two quotations in support of the rule he laid 
 down, he has thought tit to back up this particular rule as to 
 mines by no less than seven references to supposed authority 
 on the point. We must presume that, in thus multiplyinff the 
 quotations on that rule, he felt it was, in his own words, on* 
 of those : " certains ^oinU plus emceptibka de doute." 
 
 ^eC. lol. Let us now examine the references 
 
 which Pocquet de Livoniere has given us, ai'd see whether 
 they bear his opinion out. 
 
 The Ordinance of St. Louis, which Pecquet de Livoniere 
 copying Loisel, places as the 88th Chapter of the Mxhlisse- 
 ments, is, in reality, chapter 90 of that code, and is found at 
 length at P. 180 of volume I of the " Ordonmnces dea Boiede 
 France {de Lauriere'e Collection). The text of that Law 
 runs thus : 
 
 " Nus n'a /or<ttn« d'or, se il n'est RoU, et les fortunes d'areent sent 
 
 ^^ aus Baront^t k ceux qui ont prand Juttiee en leur tetre. Bt se il atendit 
 
 «« ?r«l!!S' n**"^ q"» »'«^ ^oiere m «a terre, trouvast sous terre aucune 
 
 troumtlle,BnB seroit au Vavimr, k qui la toiere de la terre seroit. oft 1« 
 
 trouvaille fu trouvie ; Et se cil venoit avant qui I'auroit perdiU il I'aurait 
 
 k Bon serrement, se il ^oit de bonne renommie ; Et sc li Awm dj ZTl, 
 
 else il diso t, Stre, j^ ne ^aww mie qmje la torn deuste rendre, il en 
 "FORTT^vp^ P'''''^'"'"-^^''^^' «t si rendroit la trouvailU au Bar^ 
 "mPFFONDS »"*'"' "'"''^ ^" ™**"^ "''"*''' ™*^' " ""•" ^ 
 
I, n TBRRB EM 
 
 OwMniBIP 
 
 OP Hnria. 
 Loian. 
 LiTomtai. 
 St. Loun. 
 
 DlOTIOXlTAni 
 
 Di TBivooz. 
 
 LlP^BTBI Dl 
 I<A PliAMCBB. 
 
 St. Lodis 
 refers to trea- 
 aare>troTe 
 only. 
 
 — 169 — 
 
 ♦T. • ^n^' . ^* '^ ®^"^®^* *'^^* ^««^. UvoniereAxxd 
 
 their followers had never geen the complete text of the Ordi- 
 
 fnstead of Ji, ^T' ^'T fe?!' P'^"" ^* erronouslj at ch : 88, 
 instead ot ch : 90 of the Jitabhmments ; and it reauires no 
 
 ^mg speaks only of a thing lost by man, and not of anv 
 
 S"ifefe;"f^'^rt^^'*^^^^^^^^ 
 
 -^KvnliT^Uj^' -n" ^'"? f y^ • " '^ '' '^ venmUvant qui 
 
 Wf S '^''^^^'<'. ^1 ^ adroit k son perrement." But the King 
 
 eft misapprehension as to his meaning, when he said • 
 
 ..<5 kffondk6e;' In the Dictionnaire de Trevoux] vol : lU, 
 Borel , „„ ^ 
 
 Sec. 183.— /^<^^m«rfW, then, is that which, afterihe flame 
 iZ£vT.^* ^^ '^' H"?'' owner, has sxxnk {ef^drS^^^^T 
 
 -Vu /^ i?*"" *^® ''*^*^' something, in fine, that has lam in tifi^"*"^"" " 
 earth qedaneter^e), not imbedded in the solid rock Is Sin^'* ^'"*'"' 
 are, and that has lain in the earth so loni? as to W^n iT^ 
 tr^e of its former o™ ; it is, in fect,T; TondM 1^ 
 domimspecuma of the ioman Law, that Law to whiclsT 
 Louis conformed so much in frarainff his Laws rS I' 
 la Planohe, vol : 3, livre TT ch • 10 S 11 P W •^'^''^.'^ 
 down the re^le^articuK. %t i J^ic^JlvVs^^;^ '^'"^ 
 
 "i)ecMwta; onenaparl^ailleuns. '""'^^ ^etmion tempore 
 
 ". ^ s'agi. uniquoment des trfisors caches en terre. ou en mnnn«„« 
 en Imgot, ou en quelqu'ouvrage monnoyi." ^ monnoye, ou 
 
 Zefehvredela Flanche then cites the Ordinance of ,<?/ 
 ZoMw, Zoy^e^ and Bouteiller. In like nmZin. i^! •„ ' 
 vol:^ P. 3, Edition of 1703, thus declSe's tTaXo^SlS 
 and Mm., v, , governed by difierent Laws ; he saysl 
 
 "^w main d'homme." **^ *** "*" «» «<^ '»«« 
 
 01 
 
 ^2 
 
170 
 
 OWHIIUrllP 
 
 or Mines. 
 
 GOQDILLK. 
 
 Cu*tom$ of 
 Anjou and 
 Maim. 
 
 LAlli-FUDBT 
 
 and by 
 
 COQOILU, 
 
 and Customs 
 of AnJou and 
 JUaint, 
 
 Coquille does not mention pold for tho rci8i>n, given by 
 Choppin, as we have sliewn elsewhere, that there were no 
 gold-mines then known in France ; but the fact that he 
 mentions Jw7v/'> - • , ., 3 that ho does not consider ail ver- 
 mines to be embraced by the words '' fortune d'' argent^ spoken 
 of by St. Louis in his EtabUsaements ; and by parity of 
 reason, GoquiLie^a doctrine would apply to gold-mines. 
 
 So much is that the case, that the framei-s of the excep- 
 tional Customs of Anjnv^ art : 60 (see P. 536, vol : IV, 
 Coutumier General) and of Maine, art : 70 (seu I*. 471, vol: 
 IV, Coutumier Gdneral) deemed it necessary, in order to 
 embrace mines, to say : " Fortune d'or, trodvee kn mine, 
 appartitnt au It'oy^ It is clear, then, in the opinion of the 
 eminent men, who framed those two Customs, ihoX fortune d^ov 
 
 i! 
 
 under those two exceptional Customs. Arguing, then, on the 
 erroneous supposition that/or^wnt? et ireuve d^or meant minev 
 it is no wonder that the concjlusions drawn by Loiael, Livo- 
 niere, and their copyists, from such premises should be 
 unfounded. However, whatever interpretation may be placed 
 upon tho fortune d^or, spoken of by St. Louis, tnere can be 
 no doubt as to the meaning of Chakles VI, inr he speaks of 
 8ILVEE by name, and then f reats of all adtbes mines quelzcon- 
 QUES, (see his Or inance ot 1413 at P. 88 of this Factum) ; 
 jrist^ereany nbiguity in the language of Louis XI, for 
 110 speaks of both gold and silver-mines (see his Ordinance of 
 1471 at P. 93 of this Factuui). Neither can the Defendants 
 pi'ofr-d that the Ordinance of Henbt IV, of 1601, does not 
 appl}' to gold, sill J? the '• de LtRY-I*atent" under which they 
 cla'm the gold, professes to have bo'^n granted by virtue of 
 that Ordinance (sec ""^ 39 & 103 of this Factum). 
 
 OeC. ^^ — If any doul - could still remain, Lam^:- 
 
 FwoBY^*"*' •" ^®^^"^' ^* ^' ^' " ^ ^^ ^^^ " ^*'^' -^^^^^ ^inerale," will help 
 to dissipate it ; for he snys : 
 
 " Mais quand au langage des 6tabli3sement^ de St. Loris, la lecture 
 " simplement complete du ch : 90, du livre ler, luquel il est fait allusion, 
 " ne perraet pas d'y voir autre chose que les epaves d'or et d'argent." 
 
 And. the same author at P. 113, note 2, of the same W( k, 
 
 says :' 
 
 " On voit dans le sommaire des Edits et Ordonnances Royaux ctmeer- 
 
given by 
 ) were no 
 t that he 
 der silver- 
 n<, spoken 
 
 parity of 
 les. 
 the excep- 
 
 vol : IV, 
 ,471. vol: 
 I order to 
 
 ; KN MINE, 
 
 ion of the 
 }rfune d^or 
 hiiig more 
 is trouvee 
 
 the Ki»)«5 
 eu, on ti ) 
 ant mine < 
 mel, Livo- 
 shonld be 
 
 be placed 
 ere can be 
 3 speaks of 
 
 QUELZCON- 
 
 Factum) ; 
 DI8 XI, for 
 dinance of 
 defendants 
 1, does not 
 ^'hich they 
 y virtue of 
 
 ain, Lam£:- 
 ," will help 
 
 IS, la lecture 
 fait allusion, 
 gent." 
 
 lamewt k, 
 Tyaux ctmeer- 
 
 — 171 — 
 
 Sec. 185.— -It is, therefore, clear that the opinion l.tok.i^h,.. 
 ot / ocquet de Ztymure, and of Zoisel, is nut borne out bv°P'°'°" "o* 
 the Onimance of St Louis. But what of the Customs of k?"" T ^^ 
 j4,ye>^ u„d J/«^.. / We anHW'cr that they arc merely excep- tonr'*- 
 t.ons to the Con Mm Law of the Kingdom, and, like aSl 
 exceptions, they pi ave the rule to 1 o the other way. 
 
 ^eC, lou. But, .y the Defendants, at P. 40 Cwto^.^qf 
 41 and 42 of their Factum, this country is .rovernod bv the ^f "'? °°u 
 Custom of Paris an . the Jurispruden'ce i?, that! wL^re a;Ki,L".\o 
 Custom IS silent on any particular question, that (luestion owner of soil 
 must be solved by the light of the Eoman Law, or by the 
 light of a neighbouring Custom, according as the question is 
 one of written or of customary Law. To that we reply that we 
 have alrendy shewn by the unanswerable argnmonta of Merlin 
 at P. 69 and serj ; of this Factum, that the Roman Law is 
 with us. As for Customary Law, we hold that the Cn stem 
 ol 1 am 18 NOT silent, since article 187 of that Custom says : 
 
 ' "Quiconquealesol, appell6rez-de-chausseo, d'aucun h6ritaKe il neut 
 
 et (loitavoir le dcssus et !e dessous de son sol ; et pent 6difier pardessua 
 
 •• et par dessous, et v faire puits, aisemonta et autres choscs licit « s'il nV 
 
 • titre au contraire." (For the explanation of this article, as we understand 
 
 it, see § 176, 176, 177 and 178 of this Factum). ' ""aerstand 
 
 But even supjiosing the Custom o^' Fans were silent, Decision of 
 whatot It ? bhall we be told that the Cuotoms ■: injou and ^««"-* Ca*. 
 of Jfame are not exceptional? Do they not, liko all excep- '"'•""'^ '° 
 tions, prove the rule of the CJoinmou x.aw to be that ownershm'''""S'M 
 of the soil involves ownership of the Mine ? More couclupive shews what 
 evidence of what the Common Law is cannot be found than ^°°°""' ^*'' 
 in the decision of the Cvur de Cassation of France, referred ^"' 
 to by DuroNT, Jurisprudence des mines, vol : 1, P. 17 and 
 quoted at length by Meklin, Ouestions de droit, vho. Mines 
 in his article already noticed at P. 59 et seq of this Factum! 
 
 The Artiii was between Daomt and Lefehvre^ and is also 
 reported at length l>y Si, y, t. III-I, P. 520. The Cusrom of 
 Ltege has n^ t one word, oue way or the other on the subject of 
 mines ; yet the Co^ir de Cassation held that, under that 
 Custom, the owner of the soil could, without molestation from 
 
 
— 172 — 
 
 OwNMBHip anv (DC, and without paying royalty to any one, open mines 
 Ch*'mm* on xiis lands. That decision can only bo tiph'ld upon tho 
 LiBmt.' Buppobition that, by tho Common Law of tho Kingdom, tho 
 owner of the soil is aUo owner of the Mine. 
 
 OHorrn and 
 Lil.nn 
 •gainst 
 Defend aaU' 
 Tlews. 
 
 The lame. 
 
 II ! 
 
 The same. 
 
 5^C3C« 1 87. Having diaposed of the references made 
 
 by Pecquet de Zivoniere to the Ordinance of Sr. Loui», and 
 to Loisely b,& Hupporting his opinion, let ub now examine hia 
 remaining authorities. He next refers to the Custom of Anjon^ 
 art : 61, and to Chopping commentary on that Custom. We 
 have already shewn the Custom of Anjou to be exceptional. 
 It only remains for us to shew that he is, if possible, still 
 lees supported by Choppin and LeBrct. 
 
 With regard to the opinion of LeBrot, it is as strong in 
 support of tiie Plaintiffs' views as language can make it. 
 Alter relating how the Kings of Persia, the Emperor of tho 
 Tartars and tlie Kings of Bisnaga laid claim to all precious 
 substances foimd within their realms, how the Eoman Empe- 
 rors levied, on all gold and silver-mines, a tribute, which 
 Valentinian has called Krusamous^ and how the learned are 
 divided in opinion as to whether the Emperor, Frederic, of 
 Germany, has included gold niities in his enumeration of 
 regalian rights, LeBbet has the following explicit declaration 
 of his views, at P. 107 of his TraiU de la Souverainete du 
 £&y, 1. 3, oh. 6, Edition of 1689 : 
 
 " Joint que cctte difficult6 doit cesser parmi nous, d'autant que noa 
 *' Ordonnanees amprennent claikkment toutts lortet de metavx; savoir est, 
 " l'Ob, l'Arqent, le Cuivre, le Fer, I'Acier, le Plomb, le Vif-Argent, le 
 •• Vitriol, I'Alun, la Couperose, le Salpdtre, le Sel nitre, comme il se voit 
 " dans les Ordonnanees de Charles IX, de Tan 1568, et de 1567, par les- 
 " quelles il ordonne, que des mines de toutes ces substances on lui en paicra 
 " le dixidme : et I'on voit que par une declaration post6rieurc que Ton fit k 
 •' St. Germain, en novembre 1583, ce Droit fut r6trcint sur I'Or et sur 
 •' I'Argent" 
 
 It is to be observed, in relation to the reference which 
 LeBret makes to an Ordinance of November 1683, restricting 
 the King's royalty of one-tenth to mines of gold and silver, 
 that no such Ordmanee as that of 1583 has been noticed by 
 any other author, as remarked by Lefebvre de la Plnnche, loco 
 citato : but with reference to the Ordinance of 1663, we have 
 quoted it at length, in refuting Ferriere's opinion (see § 164 
 and 165 of this Factum) ; ua LeBret very properly makes 
 that Ordinance serve as the uasis of his opinion that the King's 
 
""'-, 
 #*:'; 
 
 >pen mines 
 
 upon tho 
 
 gdom, the 
 
 !ncc8 niado 
 Loum, and 
 (amino Lis 
 of AnjoH^ 
 torn. We 
 ccuptional. 
 siblo, (Jtill 
 
 i strong in 
 a make it. 
 jror of the 
 11 preciouB 
 lan Enipe- 
 ite, which 
 earned aro 
 'rcdoric, of 
 lerafion of 
 leclaratiou 
 •ainete du 
 
 tant que nos 
 I ; savoir est, 
 if-Argent, le 
 ne il se voit 
 567, par les- 
 lui en paicra 
 que Ton fit & 
 rOr et sur 
 
 nee which 
 restricting 
 and Bilver, 
 noticed by 
 (inche, loco 
 3, we have 
 (see § 161 
 rly makes 
 the King's 
 
 — 173 — 
 
 S^r^f A/r'" 'PS^^l''^ ««»«■*«»♦'• on ALL metah,0.»^m. 
 GOLD, fliLVEu, Ac., &c. LeBret'i words aro: "Nos Ordon" "'"■•• 
 
 rrjl'TCTi °"""""" '»""=» «°°'- armaat iSiir- 
 Mvoir est, 1. 0« L Aboent, etc., etc." Can anvthini? iiioro 
 
 t" •^.bo!;tTotke'''r"^"r/ ^^^^^ yetX XiS 
 
 LXi;«lnff ^. ''•°" trust from the Defendants, that 
 
 In commenting on the Custom of Anjou, which is an 
 exceptional Custom, Onoppm, vol 1. livre 1 art • 61 P q^n 
 states that trea.ure-trove and mines are ver/dikreit things ! 
 
 That is in direct, contradiction with the Ordinance of •w 
 St. Loms, which gives gold-troasure to the ffinT T is^"* """" 
 however, an answer to the sophistries of Loiael, m oted bv the 
 Defendants at P. 50 of theiV Factum. ButthelaSeof 
 Choppin shews conclusively that, although the cTs3 of 
 -4,y.«, by the express words " fortune ior m mixe » SvS 
 gold-mines to the femg, yet, in the rest of the Kingdom SZ 
 mines, hke all others, belong to the owner of the s??l! aid the 
 pnnfi^^fM "^^*1 "'mines of all sorts, without distinction 
 oTcTo^tl ""^'"'^ ''^'"'^ '"''y- ^b«-- *^« W"age 
 
 " Hnnl^ p^** ^^ ^^'"T »'«""buent la dhne de todtbs sobtbs db m^taux 
 
 au iivre i, titre i, art. 6, du Dnrname de Prance. Ce aui doit fairn tmi. 
 PCREMENT ET siMPLEMBNT, comme plus auguste et plus relev6e." 
 
 Language could not express more clearly that, what ever 
 Btrangeness there might be In this disposition of that Custom 
 It disappears on cou.parison with the Common Law of the 
 Kingdom, as e.tab h.hed by the King's own LetteSi>a ent! 
 
 m^^f/l?*^' n'"^' a royalty of oSe-tenth on all sorts of 
 mines, gold and silver not even excepted. 
 
 y 
 
 i 
 
 ! 
 
 1 
 
 OeC. 1 OO. ^True it is, that, from a variety of exam- The 
 
 plea as to what certain Sovereigns of Egypt, Rome and 
 
 8am«. 
 
 !Si 
 
 t I 
 
!! 
 
 1^ I 
 
 iM! 
 
 r :;ii 
 
 \t 
 
 Nff 
 
 OWNBBSHIP 
 
 or MiHU. 
 Choppir. 
 Bbillon. 
 Arret of 1296. 
 
 — 174 — 
 
 Poland have done, he says, not very logically if he means 
 the early Kings of France : 
 
 " Do cela je conjecture que les Ancima RoU s'attribuaient tous 
 les tr6sors, non pas pour prendre tout I'argent monT.oy6, trouv6 
 par hazard, mais les mines d'or, ainsy nomm^s par excellence : car autre- 
 
 " ment la monnoye d'or troUv6e par hazard a coustumo d'estreadjugee au 
 Seigneur du territoire ; mesme en ccs petites Provinces la Coustume 
 
 " desquelles n'a rien prcscrit touchant les tr^sors. A quoi se rapporte un 
 
 !! il"?'^P ^'■'■^^* <^" Parlement, de Toussaints de Tan 1295, au profit de3 
 
 " Rehgieux de I'Abbaye de St. Denys, pr^s Paris." 
 
 With less of logic, still, Ghoppin, that zeU defenseur des 
 " droits dn Eoi," as Pocquet dk Livoni^ee, Fiefs, P. 599, 
 has called him, cites that Arrfit " au profit des Ruligieux de 
 "I'abbayede St. Denis, pres Paris,^' in order as he says, to 
 shew that the early Kinga owned the gold mines, since trea- 
 sure trove was invariably awarded to the Seigneur haut-jmti- 
 cier.^ Now let us see what were the circumstances of the 
 Arret. Within the limits of the Justice liaute et basse of the 
 Monks of St. Denys, a lump of gold, whether wrought or not, 
 we have not been able to ascertain, was found lyh.g upon 
 the surface of the ground, bnt not imbedded in the soil. 
 The Parliament gave iheu- Arre'> adjudging the ^old to 
 the Monks " non tanquam thesaurum, bed quandam rem 
 inventam. The gold was awarded not as a treasure, but 
 as a thing found, an epave most likely ; no doubt the fact of 
 its having been found on the surface of the ground, and not 
 imbedded in the soil, took it out of the purview of the Capi 
 tulaire fie St. Louis. The one thing quite clear about that 
 Atiet is, that it certainly does not prove as Choppin pretends, 
 that treasure is awarded to the Seigneur /laut-justfcier, the 
 main reason of Choppin for awarding gold mines to the King 
 under the Custom of Anjoit ; the gold was awarded to the 
 Monks, IlautJusticiers^ not as treasure, but as a thing found. 
 For the Arret see Brillon, vbo. mines. 
 
 Choppin of 
 opinion that, 
 
 feeC. 1 o\)% Choppin, looo citato, is a variance with 
 
 even, under ' himself, and with the very article of the Custom of Anjou 
 Cuttom of that he comments, when he says : 
 
 " Mais combien que les mines tC argent soient attribuees au Boy par la 
 " Coustume, si est-ce que si elles sont trouv6e8 en la ten-e d'un partlculier, 
 " ilest raisonnable d'en payer I'estitnation au propri6taire, par argument do 
 '' loi 1 demetallor, lib, 11, wd. en ces mots, Competentia ex largitionihuB 
 " no8tris jjretia suscipianV 
 
 *' 2. BouTEiLLBR en sa somme rurale dit que presque tous les Francois 
 
 Anjoo, owner 
 of soil to be 
 indemnified 
 for mine. 
 
— 175 — 
 
 Choppin. 
 Dblibkcqu» 
 
 n^^"* '■'="'?*;«? feature about tlio writinKs of this liU 
 ti^fXndf of Xtvf"?' '" '>? "'«»'- I'oSbBor™ X 
 
 ^fo t,r^«; £tr, atirsfeiS . 
 
 a..d bccaose probably, Chogpm felt tbat sncli n refeS 
 op, on 'SThfvf l'^™;,"" "c'"'''' ^""^'o" "«»« W 
 
 i les Francois 
 
 ^.rr.^^^/' ?PP'"— -Such is the passage, from which Dele- D""«c. 
 ^^^^\ -^^^ff^slahon des Mines, vol : 1 P 9K± rmmfoH „. ""'s work 
 P. 63 of Defendants' Factum^ inVp,.a ti of I'j •' (quoted at written, aahe 
 to the K-Jtid. wl 1 ^^^"^^""^J' J°/er8 that gold-mines belonged states, with 
 we have alt Jj^ T f^f'^mf^^ words at length, and KF««t P"oi- 
 rU ! u ^'^i*^? Bouteiller'a words at length. Z^S'eJem,/^ P '^"''y- «« 
 had been w.^t/'^'^ -.t' ^" ^^-^ P''^^^«^ *« '"^^ ^oSk, thaT his X?^""''"^- 
 " fla excle^^^^^ ' " «^"« precipitation 
 
 " vrir^''3i! /""^ n^'gbgenee qu'on pouS-a /decon^ 
 vnr , we see ntrong evidence of that haste, eo little eon- 
 ducive^ to accuracy, in the fact of his hav ng in shaken 
 
 o^^f Jhe'^on^' «t"^"T .'^VT^r " - --2t the 
 owner ot the soil ( '\jprometaire du fonds, " says Deleb%aue\ 
 
 Delehecque^s error in tL less excusabie^hatle r/i otffi 
 Arret as a specimen of the dog-Latin then in vogue without 
 
 EJ'"^ ^'^' *^1 ^'^^^ ^^^^^« «^e lump of^oid to the 
 monks as having " omnimodam jpstitum altamethaZam 
 over the land whereon the gold m as found. We have t^Sr 
 shewn how much Chx>ppin must have drawn uporhk imad- 
 nation m order to infer that BouteUUr spoke of go Id or sHvf . 
 
 Zrhfl *^'' ^""^'f'' ^""'^^ "^^'^^y '^^^'- to trlsure-trove . 
 now Debecgfue, who appears to have had no time to consult 
 -ffot^M^, gives us to understand that, in so many word 
 foutezUer states that the Custom almost universaayLougl - 
 out France was to award gold-mines to the fcui and 
 silver-mmes to the Baron. Ve subjoin side by sfde the 
 language of JSouteiiler, Choppin and meZoJe for th« 
 purpose of shewing how mucfeach one of tt two latt ht^ ' 
 
I'" 
 
 n 
 
 <i'^ 
 
 ! ' t 
 
 h ' 
 
 P-| I 
 
 Hi 
 
 — 176 — 
 
 improved upon his immediate predecessor. Tlie italics are 
 our own : 
 
 BonTEILLER. 
 
 OWHBRSBIP 
 OF UlNKB. 
 BOCTIILtllt. 
 
 Ohoppih. 
 Dblibicqui. 
 
 Comparaison , 
 
 of text of 
 
 BooTBiLiiB, " Fortuned' argent 
 
 Ohoppin and «' est au Baron 
 
 DBLIBBOQ0B '^ouauBer." 
 
 to shew errors 
 
 of two latter. 
 
 Choppin. 
 
 Delebecque. 
 
 " Bouteiller en sa Somme 
 " Rurale dit " que presque 
 " tous les PranQoia 
 '* avaient une coustume 
 " pareille selon I'an- 
 " cien vsage de 
 " la France : car il 
 " parle ainsi : " La 
 " ^^ fortune d^ argent ap- 
 " " partient au Baron 
 '♦ ''ouauBer. Titre, 
 " " du Droict au Baron ou 
 " " au Her." " 
 
 " Et au dire de 
 " Bouteiller dans 
 " sa Somme 
 " Rurale^ au titre 
 " du Droict au 
 " Baron ou Ber, il 
 " paraitrait que 
 " tel 6tait I'usagc de 
 " presque toute 
 "la France." 
 
 Other blander 
 of Dblbbbo 
 
 Better for the author, far better for the public, it were, if 
 books written with such carelessness had never been published ! 
 Not only has Delebecque been thus misled by QhovpkHa 
 improper and unfair conclusions from the writings of Bou- 
 teiller ; but PocQUET DK LivoNi^EB, Fiefs, P. 599, has fallen 
 into the same error ; see P. 61 of the Defendants' Factum, 
 where they quote Pooquet de Livoniere^s opinion, but replace, 
 by their tiaual dots, so much of de Zivoniere's opinion as 
 states that silver-mines do not belong to the King, and that 
 Choppin and LeBret are both zkU% defenseura des droits du 
 roi. No doubt Pocquet de Livoniere was desirous of being 
 ranged in the same category as Choppin and LeBret, since 
 the King was then peculiarly the fountain of all honor. 
 
 As to Delebecque we shall have further opportunities of 
 pointing out his inaccuracies as we proceed v;ith a short notice 
 ot his opinions. 
 
 ^eC, lyi, After noticing very briefly the Ordi- 
 nance of 1413, which, as Delebecque, at P. 266, vol. I, admits, 
 givec to the owner of the soil the right to work the mine, on 
 paying the King's royalty, he proceeds to draw a conclusion 
 iBconsistent with that proprietary right ; for he says, at 
 P 257, vol : 1 : 
 
 " En efiFet de cette Ordonnance r^sultent pour les mineurs et autrei, 
 " 1° le droit de recherche, 2° pour Pinventeur le droit de propri4t6 sur la 
 " mine." 
 
he italics are 
 
 XEBECQUE. 
 
 lu dire de 
 ller dans 
 ime 
 
 ;, au titre 
 jict au 
 ou JBer, il 
 ait que 
 it I'usage de 
 e toute 
 ice." 
 
 lie, it were, if 
 3n published ! 
 •^ Okoppi-n's 
 mgs 01 jBou- 
 )9, has fallen 
 nts' Factum, 
 , but replace, 
 j'« opinion as 
 ing, and that 
 dea droits du 
 ons of being 
 LeBret, since 
 >f all honor, 
 portunities of 
 a short notice 
 
 5% the Ordi- 
 
 'ol. I, admits, 
 the mine, on 
 a conclusion 
 he says, at 
 
 neurs et autrei, 
 propri6t6 sur la 
 
 — 177 — 
 owne? Jlhe^oil^Td™?hf ZT''' ''f '? ^" ?^^' «°"W theOwK...„, 
 
 iVier«-»rd8 eivenTo'VtTiv Z'™ '"'«':P™;«'i»n. in fact, as that 
 of U71,Thfch emranri.SH Promulgation of the Ordinance 
 
 to nolTlhf ^!a~ttT«*3^^^^^^^ 
 
 yol:l tliat it received some triMna modifi/at^nrH, • hf' ^''^ '"°'^''5««- 
 mattentive Z>g^fJewMe has bppn w/ii ^ moameations ; how tions by Par- 
 reading the moT/Sonsmad^wlr T^- ^^ ^"^ person Jjament%nd 
 nnH inn^^^i • T? " K^, "y "^6 Parliament (see P 99 tl^en quotes 
 
 BnrCtr^r ' "* »'r tI^S.! n^orbTon^^o'^h'-e-a?' 
 
 ij J.J.. Ordinance of 
 
 " de Louis XI ; il parait en e^t oiif l«i. Z' -V ^ '"^'■^f Par I'Ordonnance owner of soil 
 " reconnus. ikais ce n a^trat nl t 1 n^ rn **" rrif^^'^^ du sol y sont « right, at 
 " ainsi qu'il I'a fait ? cSce oup n^ 1 1^ "^ gen6rali86, en s'exprimant least, to share 
 " p6riode dent nous nous occuponset ,^..w !/ ^^'■^'' '""l'^'' »«"« '» "^ P^S*" "^ 
 " 1471, SI PAS LA PHOPKiS rS t^JZ '''^"** ""','* prdonnanceder^ine. 
 "i-an. W,enefre,ATi"la^;L^";;;;W^^^^^^^ «- «'^- 
 
 That is a precious avowal from Mr. DeUhecque ! 
 
 tho.^ n!n?' ^^^-—DeUlecque then notices the period of Brror of 
 HffordeT thf ff 1^^^'^ ^' ^^^^ ^^^^^^"•-' noticed as having ^'f-^ 
 
 Sate't«^tT^^^^^^^^ 'T '>^' Buccessful-^fSt;. 
 
 the SovereiansiS S tT7^'*^"' ^* private rights by tents of 
 
 'rhaf.,, ^? until Henry IV issued hi! Edict of 1601 O'd^ancea. 
 ni" e Stte^^ has altogether escaped jJ^lo^Si 
 
 3'|,?;^r""^ ^^'*^^"^'*^- f^nowing^tafeL't'Vi^n'^.^ 
 
 •' nwSytrLclT7L£ ^'-^.^na^c^ des rois 
 
 " eepices-" ««M»wra<i(,» rf« ,„»„,, gt ^o leurs ditRrentes 
 
 23 
 
I'' 
 
 If. 
 
 i; 
 
 ■^H 
 
 OwniBSBip 
 OF Minis. 
 Dglibicqui. 
 D'Epkrcy. 
 Lam^-Flecbt 
 
 Error of 
 
 Beltbecque 
 inexcusable. 
 
 Ordinances 
 specifically 
 mention gold 
 and siWer- 
 inines. 
 
 — 178 — 
 
 Whatever palliation there may have boon fo'* the error 
 oiRegnaud d' mercy, who spoke in 1791 before the Ordinances 
 had been published, there is no excuse for Delehecque, who 
 might have scon the Ordinances, had he had time to look at 
 them. That Delebecque has adopted Regnaud d'Epercys 
 blunder, is evident from the fact, that, in speaking of the 
 period of the monopolies, Delebecque^ at P. 264, vol : 1, says : 
 " A cette 6poque les Ordotmances d^'signent les difforentes 
 " sortes de minerals; mais, pour tontes,. la 16gisb "on est 
 " nniforme." . 
 
 In order to shew that the Ordinances of the first ]>eriod, 
 as some modern writers have been pleased to stylo it, did 
 enumerate the minerals, we refer to T. 88 of this Factnni tor 
 the Ordinance of 1413, which enumerates the mines in these 
 words : " 3/ a plusieurs mynes d'argent, de ptomh, et de 
 cuyvre, et d'autres metaulx" ; we also refer to P. 93 of this 
 Factum for the Ordinance of 1471, which enumerates the 
 mines thus : " y a plusieura mynea d'or et d'aeqent, de 
 " cuivre, de plomh, estain, pottin, azur et aultres meatmxet 
 " matierea:' Had he read those two Ordinances, he might 
 have been spaied the shame of writing his twaddle about gold 
 and silver-mines. 
 
 Better, we say again, such works never had been 
 publibhed ! 
 
 Delebecque'i SgC. 1 94« DeUhecque then proceeds to analyse the 
 
 ofOrdtire Ordinance of 1601 ; and from it he concludes that the rights 
 
 ofieoi of the owner are not respected by that Ordinance. " *or» 
 
 riTewntoSaysi^^^eJccizwe, "the owner of ihe soil could not work the 
 
 be incor7ect. " mine, without first obtaining the permission of t\iQ Grand- 
 
 " Jlfa^^re a permission which the latter might refuse. Very 
 
 true, M. Delebecque ; but, then, the Parliament of Pans, m 
 
 enregistering that Edict, did so only, after a struggle ot 
 
 several years' duration, the several phases of which are well 
 
 described by LameFleury, Legislation minerale, P. 74, 
 
 note 1, and of which Lame-Flewy, P. 85, note 1, says : 
 
 " Cette Cour eut en definitive h peu pres gam de cause. it 
 
 may be as well therefore to draw Mr. Delebecque a attention, 
 
 for the next edition of his work, to some of the phases ot that 
 
 struggle. 
 
 25^r Sec. 195,-~Henrt IV, finding the Parliament^ of 
 
 di«re?«rdoa p-yjg (jisinelliied to sanction the powers of the Grand-Mattre 
 by Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
f 
 
 — 179 — 
 
 as to the disposal of Mines, addressed to that Parliament fmr 
 special Lettrea rfe Jtisnon, V on the— 13 May, 1603 -2° 17 
 ^ly, 1602 -3Mdate erased from the lilist^Lld J 
 12 beptember, 1602, expressly commanding tlfe Parliament to 
 enregister the Edict ot^l601 purdy an^ simply. On tie 
 recomt of each one of those Injunctions of tlif Kino- the 
 Parliament answered " Persiste es deliberation " ; and the 
 
 'Sl'fimw^'^f'' of Parliament was: " Les dites Lettres 
 (de 1601) soront enre-istr^es 6s registres d'icelle, a la charge 
 quelajundictionattnbu6e par P^dit aura lieu seuIemeS 
 pour le reglement des mines et les malversations commises 
 par ceux qui seront employes en I'execution dn dit 6dit et 
 reglement, et sans quk les officikks puissent pretendre 
 
 "Cnt:f a^TtlSl; '"" "^' '^^Proprietairesdes tLs men- 
 To two other Lettrea de Jumm of tlie 7 January 1603 
 
 and 16 February 1603, the Parliament returned the same 
 
 answer : '• Persiste es deUUrationP 
 
 OWNRRSBIP 
 
 OF Minis. 
 
 Ordinahor 
 of 1601, and 
 incidents of 
 its tnregutra- 
 tion. 
 
 I 
 
 Two other 
 Ltltres de 
 Juision also 
 disregarded 
 by Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 Sec, 1J6. Henry IV, by Ze«m fl'^ ,7Mmow, of A seventh 
 
 the 3 May, 1603, declaratory of his intentions, yielded, at last ^/""^' 
 so far as to consent to require the Grand-M^tL to associate SdLTSr- 
 with him, in his decrees, " ^e nomore de Jnges porte par les 'led, but. on 
 Ordonnances. ' and further declaring: '' n' avoir entendu et^ji^^^^ ^''^^"^■ 
 n'entendre par I'Mit lait sur le reglement des mines etplrlument 
 m.nieres de ce royaurae, que autrcs que le grand maUre ^^enregXed 
 son lieutenant general putssent, en cas de contradiction Ordinance 
 "juger de Vouverture, travail et peix dHcelles mines, rouE lk °^ '?°V ^'^^ 
 " KEOAED des proprietairesy ' and S°'' 
 
 How can Belebecquc persist in declaring that the rights of deciaTation 
 the owner of the soil are not respected, Avhen the King declares*^'*' enregig- 
 that the »nx aJM^^« mtW (the price of the mine, not theKn^lt" 
 surface damage) shall be determined by tlie Grand-Mattre, and -dl^T 
 paid to tJie owner of the soil, before he shall be dispossessed ««-'""^* '"'"•- 
 In the sa :;o leU.,s de Jussion the King grants an appeal torS'-^*' 
 the Ordii/aij tribunals from the decisions of the Grand-MaUre 
 and his '^uUnant, and that their decrees shall remain 
 unoxecutr d pending the appeal. Notwithstanding that con- 
 cession of the King, and notwithstanding those Letters and 
 othev Letters of the 29 June 1603, (ha Parliament still per- 
 sisted in its refusal to enregister the Edict. 
 
 Finally the Sing addressed to the Pai-liament, from 
 Chantilly, on the 26 July, 1603, very sharp Letters, whinh 
 
 i -il 
 
 III 
 
 tit) 
 
I 
 
 '.' 
 
 t;i 
 
 i;.: 
 
 t. i> 
 
 
 — 180 — 
 
 OwBBBSHip the Parliament obeyed by entering an order that no Judgment 
 
 OF M1SI8. Q^ j}je Grand-Master or of his Lieutenant should be proceeded 
 
 Jneoflnd with, pending the appef^l, as we have shewn elsewhere. The 
 
 incidents cf Parliament further ordered it to be endorsed upon the Edict, 
 
 its enw^rtsfra- tiiat the enrcgistration had been made " du tres expres com- 
 
 'r*^'(s V " mandement du roi, rciterd par plusieurs iettres de Jussion." 
 
 uu& FiKUBT^^^^^ ^^^^ .^ aware that, in the language of Parliament, such 
 
 an entry meant that the de'iberations ot Parliament had not 
 
 been free, and left the Parliament at liberty to decide such 
 
 questions as might come up, pt ecisely as the Parliament had 
 
 decided in the matter of the de Si. Julien-GuxNT ; see § 107 of 
 
 this Factum. 
 
 SpC. J 97. Again, vv hen Martin liuze succeeded 
 
 de Bolleaarde as Grand-Maeter, he was invested with his 
 office by the Parliament of I'aris on the 31^ August 1604, 
 ^' dla chairge de iCentreprendre cour, juridiction ni connais- 
 " aance que celle qui eat attribuee par Vedit et reglement des 
 » dites mines et minieres " (see Lame-Fleury, P. 173, note 1). 
 In like manner, on the 15 March, 1633, a descendant of that 
 person, another i/ar<m Ruze, was invested bj the Parliament 
 of Paris with the office of Grand-Master " a la charge de ne 
 " rien entreprendre sur \9i juridiction conteniieuse, ains tenir 
 " la main a Vexecution des inrrs et okdonnances vekifi^es 
 " en la Cour et Arrets d'icelles.^^ 
 
 Here then we find the Parliament enjoining on the Grand- 
 Master to observe the Ordinances verifiees ; the Ordinances 
 of 1413 and 1471 had certainly been verified, for the delibera- 
 tion had been free ; and the Parliament of Paris, by its latest 
 indicial act, in respect of mining, just before the creation, one 
 "may say. of the Superior Council here, orders the observance 
 of those Ordinances. How then can Mr. Delebecque sav that, 
 at that period in France, the rights of the owner of the soil 
 were uot regarded ? How can any one say that here, at this 
 period, those rights are disregarded by the Law? 
 
 Investment 
 of the two 
 Ruzti in 1604, 
 and ie33, by 
 Parliament, 
 with o£Bce of 
 Grand-Mas- 
 ter shews 
 thatjuris- 
 prndence of 
 France, 
 shortly before 
 establishment 
 of Superior 
 Council here, 
 was favorable 
 to Plaintiffs' 
 views. 
 
 Unnecessary 
 to follow 
 Delebecque 
 into history 
 of mining 
 legislation of 
 Prance, sub- 
 sequent to 
 creation of 
 
 finpAriQr 
 
 Council here. 
 
 Sec. 1 98. Delebecque then entCTS into the history 
 
 of mining in France subsequent to the creation of the Conseil 
 Sonverain in Canada ; but it is unnecessary that wo should 
 follow him on that ground, eincc we are afltected by those Laws 
 only subetMjuent to that event, which have been enregistcred 
 in this country. After reviewing, in his own way, the legisla- 
 tion of France during the remaining period of the monarchy, 
 
 I 
 
— 181 — 
 
 Judgment 
 )e proceeded 
 vhero. The 
 n the Edict, 
 
 cxpres com- 
 de Jussion." 
 lament, such 
 Bnt had not 
 decide such 
 liameut had 
 
 see § 107 of 
 
 ze succeeded 
 ed with his 
 .ugust 1604, 
 m connais' 
 'iglement dea 
 173, note 1). 
 dant of that 
 3 Parliament 
 charge de ne 
 
 je, anis temr 
 
 ES VEBIFI^ES 
 
 )n the Grand- 
 ! Ordinances 
 the delibera- 
 , by its latest 
 creation, one 
 3 observance 
 ^que say that, 
 iv of the soil 
 , here, at this 
 
 to the history 
 )f the Conseil 
 lat we should 
 )y those Laws 
 enregistered 
 ly, the legiala- 
 ne monarchy, 
 
 Ownership 
 or Minis. 
 
 DltlBICQCI. 
 LOUBL. 
 
 chablbs vr. 
 
 Precious 
 admission of 
 Delebecque, ia 
 support of 
 Plaintiffs' 
 views. 
 
 pelebecque, influenced principally by the legislation of the 
 latter days of the Monarchy, says, at P. 274, vol : 1, that, in 
 France, under the old system, the owners were far from being 
 considered owners of the mines. Yet, holding those opinions, 
 he makes a most precious avowal for us, when he states, at 
 P. 291, vol : 1, in speaking of the Law of 1791, that the doc- 
 tnne we contend for is rational and just. Ho says : 
 
 " Mais tout en declarant les mines proprifite nationalo ou publique, ne 
 pouvait on pas, sans contradiction, accordcr la preference ax propri6taires 
 dusoi? Cette preference ne pouvait-elle depeiidre que do la propriete 
 priv6e des mines ? Et, en considerant los proprietaires fonciers comme 
 propnStaires de la surface, cette consideration seulo ne suffisait-elle pas 
 pour leur assurer le droit do preference ? En eflfet, I'exploitation amdne 
 des degats A la superflcie, de \k la n6cessit6 d'indemnit6s, de Ik des diffi- 
 cult6s, des expertises, et dans lo but d'y obvier, ne doit-on pas desirer 
 autont que la chose le comporte, de voir les proprietaires du fonds, et par 
 la de la superflcie, exploiter par eux-m^mes les mines qui s'y trouvent." 
 
 feeC, Ijy, Loisel, in Iliile XIII of his Imiitutes loUd 
 
 Coutumierea, {Lauriere's edition, vol : 1, P. 281) is of opinion in contradic- 
 that gold and silver-mwe* belong to the King, but that all *|?° ^'*'' 
 other mines belong to the owner of the soil ; and he qualifies "^*''' 
 the ownership of the latter by stating that the permission of 
 the Seignior is necessar;^ to enable the owner of the soil to 
 open and work other mines than those of gold. Loisel^ at 
 P. 280, vol : 1, of de Lauriere's edition, says : 
 
 " XIII. Nul ne pent batir, coulombier k pied, asseoir moulin ni bonde 
 " d'etang, mfouiller en terrepour y tirer miniires, metanx, pierre, platre, 
 " SANS LE cong£ DE SON SEiGNEUii ; si CBtn'est pouv son mage." 
 
 How little weight is to be attached to LoiseVs opinion in and at Ta- 
 that particular, may be realized on perusing the Ordinance of "^''ce with 
 Charles VI of 1413 (see P. 88 of this Factum), where the King *"* °^ ^'^'' 
 states that the miners " out besoing d'etre prescrvez et gardez °*°"*' 
 " de toutes violances, oppressions, griofz et molestes pak 
 " NOUS," and further that " plusieurs Seigneurs tant d'cglise 
 " comme seculiers veulmt et s^efforcent d'avoir, en icellcs 
 " mynes, la dixiesme partio " and again that " et s'eforcent les 
 " diz Haulx Jtisticiers de donner grand empeschement et 
 " trouble en maintes maniores att,x maistres qui font faire la 
 " dite euvre " and where the Kmg expressly declares : " Afin 
 " que doresnavant les Marc/iandset Maistrea de tmfonds des 
 " Mynes qui font ouvrer. . . . puissent otivre?- continuellemeut, 
 
 " mns ettre empeschez ne troutlez en leur onvraige 
 
 " mvdons et ordonnons semblablement que les Ilavlx Jmti- 
 
1'. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 
 It ;: 
 
 4 
 
 <JWMIR8HIP 
 OP MlNBS. 
 liOISBL. 
 
 Choppik. 
 
 RiBUFFI. 
 
 LoYsa^n. 
 Constitution 
 of Emperor, 
 
 FuEOEnio. 
 
 The same. 
 
 — 182 — 
 
 " ciers moyens et has, baillent et delivrent, aitadits oitvnera, 
 " marclmns et raaistres des dictos mynea, ehemins et v(mes, 
 « entrees et yssttes:' As^inrcdly Lowkl could not have heard 
 of that Ordinance, or of tlie Ordinance of 1471, wlien lie 
 stated that no one could open a mine without the permission 
 of the Seignior. It is also pos:ible that, when he framed Rule 
 XIII, tlie Ordonnance of 1001, published some few years 
 before his death had not come to his knowledge. 
 
 Sec, 200. In explaining that Rule XIII, Lokel, 
 
 at P. 281, vol : 1, says : 
 
 " Ghoppin, danssoa Traite du Domnine, livre 1, titre 2, n. 6, ^crit 
 " qu'en Alleinagm on ne peut sans la permission do I'empereur, ouvrir sa 
 " terre pour en tirer des nietaux." 
 
 " En France, les mines (Tor H (V argent appaktiennent aw roi, enpayant 
 " le fonds au propri6taire, Voyoz Rehuffe, sur la loi inter puUiea, de verlo- 
 " rum aignif. page 115, col. 2, ligne 21, et la rdgle 52 de ce titre." 
 
 " A regard des autres mines, elles appartiennent aux PUOPRifixAiRES 
 " DES FONDS qui peuvcnt y fouiller comme il leur plait." 
 
 Loisel bases his opliu'on upon the dictu7n of Choppin as 
 to what the Law of Germany wai. That Loisel couW infer 
 that the Law of Germany should serve as a guide to the Law 
 of France on this subject shews how little reliance is to bo 
 placed on the opinion of Loisel ; and this ia the face of the 
 positive declarations of the Kings themselves on the subject. 
 However the admiseion of LoiseL (hat all other mines belong 
 to the owner of the soil is most precious to the Plaintiffs^ 
 when taken in connection with the fact, that the Ordinances 
 of 1413, 1471 and 1601 draw no distinction between the 
 precious and the baser metals. 
 
 History of 
 Constitution 
 of Emperor 
 Frederic. 
 
 ^eC. il\j\, "Wo deem it right to devote a few 
 
 words to the history of this Constitution of the Emperor, 
 Frederic, becanse we find it cited by Loisel, and by Dalloz 
 and other "•'"+"»° T«-.rr,„.TT ^.,„ v^:^ .•.. .i .. 
 
 writers. Loyskau, dea Seigneuriea ch : 1, nos. 
 Ij 2, 3, 4, .5 and 6, gives us a narrative of an incident, which, 
 if it did not give rise to the memorable constitution of 
 Jioncaille, most certainly furnished a pretext to the victorious 
 monarch for crushing out the spirit of the people he had jnst 
 then vanquished. Loyaeau says that, as Frederic Barlarossa, 
 
ux pkopbiCtaire3 
 
 — 183 — 
 
 wna retnrnig from the conquest of Lombardy, lie saw a splrn- Owsiwhip 
 di(| castle, aud asked from liis attendants the liame of tho^' "'.""• 
 Seigmor or Lord ot the castle. The attendant gave the name ofo^Ti'iSor 
 the beignior or Lord ; but a flatterer, then i)resent, stated that Fbbd/bio. ' 
 the Jiinperor was the Seignior or Lord, of that caetle ; a^"""- 
 wager immediately took place between the attendant and the 
 flatterer as to the meaning of the word Heionior, and tlie ''''"' ^•"°<'- 
 Jimperorwas requested to decide the Avager. Tlie Emperor 
 remiired the assistance of two learned Doctors at-Law, Biagare 
 and Marttn ; the former decided in favor of the attendant, 
 wJule the latter delivered a lengthened harangue in support of 
 tJie flatterer s opinion, and maintained that the Emperor was 
 beignior or Lord of the world, aud the master and owner of 
 the property of all his subjects. The Emperor, whether he 
 iiad got up the scene as a by-play to give a color Jo 
 Jus conduct, or whether he really believed with Martin that 
 his subjects Droperty belonged to him, issued from a Lit de 
 Justice, that he held at lioncailU, that famous Constitution, 
 wherein that monarch appropiiated to the Crown all mines 
 witiiout distinction, all rivers, etc., and left his subjects scarce 
 the shadow of ownership in the soil thev tilled. That sort of 
 Law may have suited Germany and Jtaly ; but it is hardly 
 the sort of thing that British subjects would long tolerate, were 
 It transplanted here. If, to-day, England stands unrivalled in 
 respect of the development attained by her mineral wealth, it 
 18 mainly owing to the fact that, at the Revolution, the 
 Commons of England swept out of the Con^titntion all inter- 
 terence by the Sovereign in the matter of m-nes, and that, 
 tor nearly two centuries since the statute of William and 
 JMary was placed upon record, the mining interest of England 
 has been tree trom any tinkering or jobbintr by the SovcMeign ' 
 or his favorites. *^ ° 
 
 ^eC. ti\j4)* Loisel, iu liis Rule LII, states, at 1*. Lwei ia coi:- 
 
 328 of de Lauriert's edition, vol : 1 • tradiction 
 
 ' with himself. 
 
 " Le Roi applique h sol la fortune et treuve d'or." 
 
 In commenting on that Rule, Loisel places himself iu 
 contradiction with the doctrine enunciated bv him, in his 
 commentary on Rule XIII ; there he assigned both gold and 
 8}J^'ei' mines to the King ; here he only gives gold-mines to 
 the King ; silver-mines, he ^iv^s to the Baron. He 
 admits, nevertheless, that the o ntprudence of France as 
 
il: 
 
 fil! 
 
 — 184 — 
 
 o"m""," r'^.^"? ^y Bacquot, ch : 32, P. 350, has 1»een otherwise ; 
 LoiiiL, Lioiaef, moreover, cites the case of a treasure as he calls it 
 
 BouifitLiB. (see § 187 and 188 of this Factum) found at Aubervilliera, 
 and adjudged by ArrH, not to tlie Kino:, hut to the monies of 
 St. Denis. He further supports his opinion b^ art : 60 of the 
 exceptio lal Custom of Anjou already referred to by us, and 
 by art : 46 of the a'so exceptional Custom of ^r. 'ague. Lcud 
 then cites Bouteiller, in his Somme rurale livi 1, titre 36, 
 (P. 255, Fdition of 1603) as placing " la fortune a'- nomhre 
 dea tresorsy 
 
 LoUel finds fault with the framers cf the exceptional 
 Custom of Anjoa^ for having qualified foi >ie dor by the 
 addition of the words en mine ; but we have already shewn 
 that, without such an addition, the Custom would not have 
 included mines (see § 183 of this Factum). 
 
 BODTEILLKU CJ 61AQ 
 
 does not iup- iaec. ^XJO, The ^to^d8 of Bouteiller^ as found at 
 
 Ca^vtewe ^' ^ '^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^tion in the Advocates' library at (Quebec, are : 
 
 iiijndroit 
 
 Observe the caution of Bouteilhr ; he does not give it 
 as his opinion that fortune d'or belongs to the King ; " maw, 
 aelon aumna " {according to some writers), says Bouteilhr, 
 fortune d'or belongs to the King ; " aelon aiicuna " means 
 that a few authors have said so. Nor does a single line in 
 JBouteiller lead to the inference that minea are included in the 
 designation of fortune d'or. Indeed that remarkable caution 
 of Bouteiller is in keeping with the fact which Choppin, 
 vol : 2, livre 2, titre 5, No. 10, P. 215, Edition of 1662, has 
 transmitted to us concernm^ BouteiUer, as to the latter having 
 been " Conseiller du Roy, Charlea VI." The fact that Bou- 
 teHler was a Councillor of the very Sovereign, who issued the 
 Ordinance of 1413, which, among other mines, treats of atlver- 
 mines, and speaks, (as we have shewn already, at P. 80 and 
 92) of this Factum) of the owners of the soil {maiatre dea 
 traffonda) as being also owners of those mines {Maiatrea dea 
 Mynti). readily accounts for the caution of BouteiUer, when 
 he says " aelon aucuns " ; it would also lead to the belief 
 that his own opinion was not so formed. 
 
 What more likely, also, than that Bouteiller, this Con- 
 seiller du Roy^ was concerned in the framing of that Ordinance 
 
— 186 ^ 
 
 l^D^fcXfstSti^Srl^^^^ few will believe, wifhOw..«.„ 
 perhapB even f ,0 fram^SeO ?''""'"''" of Chakleb VJ,°' M«„. 
 certai&y does not ^^^J^^^^ ^^^^ (whiehS--- 
 coi. d aave share, the pinion of^ ff '. "^f''^")' ^7^^ ^''T"' 
 belong to the Baton, and that/r> ^nT^ ^^ ^°'' - ""'""^ " ^'"'^ 
 
 ^M mcun mines. 
 
 I LiTMiftia. 
 
 215, 21^and1?7^;."^^°Tf.'r^'' ^' ^'''^^^ *'t^« «> ?• 3U, Chopp„. ,n 
 J^a'^JfC^^^^ question of^- ^ 
 
 that W^iKas nofe hiZin'l^-T /^r^^/ «^ewn »»"- ^ 
 of tho same work, £ouU!^r bt oi? « ' ° ^l''*' *l^- ^^6' 
 and by references to B^ultl K Lf ?r\'' -^^ 4^^^^ 
 has been the otiior wav Ami v!7 . * *^® Jurisprudence 
 
 whom POOQUI^ DE LiWre i. 'm- V™T i^.'^^' ^H«^^^N, 
 
 " d^fenseur des droSd^i^i d^ Fiefs, P. 600 calls a « zd 
 
 own, but :. eafi^fS^rh calWT'T "k ^^'^^ ^^ ^^^^ 
 After stating, a cordi^ to & ,u" "'^^ ^^^« qoeation ». 
 of gold had'leeu found^ in the earth *' .I" ^'''^"^' P'^««« 
 
 ^GC» ^l/0#-— Cnoppiif vol • 9 T* 1 • 
 
 C^mn, after stating that, nnde?X Eom.n^T '"^ "V^es. Plaintiff,' 
 individuals held gold and othprm,-r.n! ^"^^^ ^^^r private 'iews. 
 
 ;; et pui^ance fpparSl'e^t'aT R^ ^1 ' "^roS"^"^^ 
 " particuliers." ^' ** proprieto aux 
 
 It is impossible to conceive how tbo lon^ •*!. -x 
 i.eointi.JeUitird\ad;i?hZ"rofi„T;;el1 
 
-*. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT.3) 
 
 ^/ 
 
 
 
 1.0 i^Ki lii 
 " m 12.2 
 
 S at ^ 
 
 11 S tti no 
 
 
 i^^^^^^s hhi^^^^^b mh^^^hh 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 '/ 
 
 <i^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 V ^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 "\- 
 
 <«^ 
 
 ^^Vt^ 
 
 o 
 
 \ 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporalion 
 
 23 WBT MAIN STMIT 
 
 WIISTIR,N.Y. MSM 
 
 (7l6)l7a-4S03 
 
 '^ 
 
.n^ 
 
 
' ' 
 
 — 186 — 
 
 Owmaa the metal (the pretended property of the Sovereign) from 
 OhopiS'' ^®^?? separated from the rock, without destroying toe latter, 
 LamI -PuoKT which is the midoabted property of the subject. 
 
 The Mune. 
 
 Sec. 206. — Choppih, Vol : 3, 1. 1, titre 1, no. 4, 
 F. 5, £dition of 1662, tells us that the Boman Emperors 
 levied a duty of one-tenth on all mines for the State, and 
 that the owner of the soil received another tenth. 
 
 We now come to the passage in Chcmnn, vol : 2, livrel, 
 titre 1, in P. 16, Edition of 1662, upon wnich the Defendants, 
 at P. 46 of their Factum, appear to rely so mnch in support 
 of their case. 
 
 Choppin says : 
 
 " L'Empereur FaiDiuo I (of Gennuiv), estant en 8on IH de Justice, 
 ** en un lieu d'lulie, appelli I^nehalia^ declarA quels estoieni les droicts 
 " de RegaU ou Royauz. Les Ducbez, Morquisats, Comtei, Monnoyes, 
 " Peages, Fodre, tributs, subsides, droicts de moulins, droicts de pesche, et 
 *' autres droicts 4 cause des riuidres, salines, miniires d'or, et autres 
 *' mitaux tires des veines de la terre, eomme il est contenu au liure 2, de 
 " Badeuic. ch : 6, et auz Feud«», ch : 1, Quae tunt Segalia, Lite. Penna. 
 **in2. quieumque. O. de omni agro deeerto. lib. 2." 
 
 Choppin does not state what the Law of France is ; he 
 merely states what the Law of Oirmany was then ; he does 
 not even assert that the Oonstitution or Fbeobbio I ever was 
 adopted in France ; nothing of the sort ; but if he had made 
 any such statement, he would have well deserved the epithet, 
 bestowed on him by de Livoniere, of " eiU d^enseur des droite 
 " dH roi "/ How scarce authorities in support of the Defen- 
 dants' position must have been, when they singled out that 
 passage from Choppin, as favoring their views. As well might 
 they have cited to us the Laws oflhe Esquimaux 1 
 
 That passage of Choppin h immediately followed by 
 these words : 
 
 " An moyen de qaov le Roy Charles IX par son Edict du 26 Hay 1668, 
 " yMM en la Oour de Parlement le 1 Juillet ensuivant, ordonna que lo 
 ** droict de dixiime comptoit et appartenoit au Roy par droiot de souuerai- 
 " net6 iur tovkis lee minee, minidres, et autres substancM terrestres." 
 
 Now, bv glancing at that Ordinance reproduced at length, 
 at § 164 or this Factum, from Lam£ Flhdbt, Ligitlation 
 minirdley P. 59, it will be seen that the King expressly men- 
 
- 187 - 
 
 the other nin^tenthg of Jon^"" m"^^' ^9 ^^^"'^ tl^en, do"' *'•". 
 whom ol^ than the o^eTof thre^j,"^^^, 1»«? JeUg fToS;?; 
 to shew how CAoppin had been tJSJ^rJ; ^^'"''^^^^^^ereB.iuo;. 
 
 Defendants' totte^Sg ewe • we W rt^.*° ^l^ '"PP^"** *° ^^^ 
 • ^' ^e Hope that we have succeeded. 
 
 •nppomhe' vX^ w'^Tr'* ^"S^ «fo°«d°ot toCHoP,« a„ d 
 The unwi!IinirnM8 of !lK'^,*r^*^ ^.*° «°'<* »"d eilvermines J*"""" t*"*"* 
 
 pronon.ceTSXVtiorn ^.''^S^ ^^.^ ^f " "^'^' " 
 in ravor of the doctrine i)ronom,H!:i ?°®*"**° *V^^ vohimesrlew*. 
 
 if. by any forced inZ etXn of^h^^T?' "P^V^" ^"^^^'on ; 
 
 Customary Law or evL of tC nJ^° ^''™"'? ^^^ ^^^ ^^ the 
 
 given themine8trtheKr?;t«^''*u*°*'^'*^^®7 «ould have 
 
 Save doneei" tf we mavYa^drn??^^^'^^^^ 
 
 P/u.^»-* j.^.- ^", may jndge of them by thenhftm»t«'; „u:.i. 
 
 ly followed by 
 
 dants^Uo^L^?*^*^ * I'. ^? °^*^^'' F'"'*""* the Defen- B.aLo. cited 
 P 371 i ? Bwu.on'8, Diciionnaire dee arrets, vbo Mines ''^ ^'^'"'J- 
 J^- 371, tn>w, where it is said : « En FranprW S; ^':?,®^'"t«. contra. 
 
 wehavoflWn^^ -V/* V.^^^^ and to «wM*^fo. A s '*•»»• 
 
 Iwl howtonndlL^Ji"^^^^ Y^ have already 
 
 notice this iSdS^tfSii* Sr» V/ ^' "^r ^^aa'T to 
 
 tk»., TOder'hoXrSJri? M '•»8?"«». «»le« « be 
 
 11 
 
— 188 — 
 
 i i 
 
 ^ 
 
 Ownuiir 
 ov Ifnu. 
 Bkiumm. 
 Dalms. 
 
 Dauoi init> 
 
 2aot«d bj 
 efradantt. 
 
 concluBion onn be drawn ; and that conolnsion is in keoping 
 with wliat jffrt^Zon, P. 370 of the same article, states on the 
 subject, namely : " Lea rcines d'or et d'argent font partie des 
 ♦' fruits, et entrant dans la jouissance de ru8ufruit,''^and also 
 with what he says, vbo. mindravx, P. 370 : " Las mini'raux 
 " font portion de la teire et de spb entrailles." So much for 
 JBriUon^ who, we think, has not, by reason of his contradio- 
 tions, much strengthened the Defendants' case. 
 
 Sec. 209. T>AUj(»,mh\sIiipertoiredeIJg%dati<mf 
 
 vol : 81. vbo. Mines, ch . 1, § 6, 6. 7. 8 and 9, P. 604 and 
 605, has an article, which completely destroys the pretensions 
 of the Defendants, although Dalloz is cited by them, at P. 63 
 of their Factum, as supporting their views. Before giving a 
 svnopeis of that article oTDaUoz, we regret having it to say 
 that nere again occurs one of those ruses, resorted to by the 
 Defendants to bolster up their case, and several of which have 
 already been exposed in this Factum,. At P. 68 of the 
 Defendants' Factum we read : 
 
 " Dallos, a!n<, dans son r4pertoire de Mgislation, (tome 81, vbo. mines 
 " et minidres) s'incline aussi devant ropinion g6n6nJe : " Lea mines, " 
 " " (dans les Gaules), dit-il^ furent tout d'abord de domaine public, ea 
 " " ce sens qu'elles apparaisscnt de bonne heure comrae grevl^B an 
 " " profit du roi d'une redevance qui comme le d' '.npirial, 
 '* " oonsistait en une quotiti du produit." 
 
 " *' En, 786, tout Charlemagne, let minet tont fortnellemmt (.ijm* a« 
 
 •• " nomfire de$ droits rigalieru, quant aux mdcis d'or." " 
 
 All the words found in that extract from the Oefandants' 
 Factum are also to bu found, and in the same order in 
 Dalloz : but how different a meaning has been lent to those 
 words by the Defendants in substituting a comma for a 
 pciiod, and in, then, suddenly dropping the quotation in the 
 middle of a sentence. As the extract from the Defendants' 
 Factum now reads, Dalloz is made to say that, under Ohab* 
 LEMAONE, gold-mines formed part of the domain, and were the 
 property ot the Sovereign. Let us now see what DaiUoz 
 actually did say. Dalloz, loc : oit : says : 
 
 " En 786, tout CharUtnagne, let minet tont formeUement mint au 
 " nornbre det droitt rigalient, QnAMT aux minks d'or, Mr. Deleheequt 
 " P. 264, induit d'un passage de Chopin, qu' cite lui-mAme 4 cet £gud un 
 " arrAt du parlotnont de 1296, qu'elles appartenaiont au roi comme d^pen* 
 " dantes d'un pur droit rigalien et ce meme auteur iHoute que primitive- 
 '" ment les mines d'argent ont M, comme les mines d^or, une dopendance 
 
— 189 — 
 
 cnTAOiTot. 
 
 tit : du droit au 
 
 Thenme. 
 
 words '* Udant aht «,»la r^ * »T^ regahena » and the 
 in .heir Facti^ a^mma fnr?V.' V/r^nlly substituting! 
 Defendants have mSX7^^'P!"°^^\^«^*^^' ^^^N tl»o 
 
 that what ^rZJtot'ehZ^C^^' J) foz merely Ld 
 
 wo are to bSleveT.SwwTl "{l^S«f '^r' ^^ 
 done by Ohablkmaone. namlf^n • ' -i^^' '"''"">' ^"8 
 bnrthen^u all min4 Sh^t dttinc^^^^^^^ Si ^ ^^^ 
 
 gnage to designate the Dofendj!^1Z2int^.^^^^^^ 
 
 Bomaf^L^?i^^**)*T^^''"''^'' ^•' «PcaksoftheErro,of 
 goman Law on mines ranch as it has been treated nf k„ »*"«>« ^d 
 MiffiLm, as shewn elsewhere n this Factum !r.^ °^ ]^yCHom.„to 
 
 Romanl^lsUtion : " ' ' "^^"^ *^**' *° *^« ^««t stige of JrjhSx. ft!,« 
 
 " ceHaine redevanoe.^t deVSerfiL* St r^d^TitWOiS ^."« 
 
 BoraS'wielition^oT^^^^^^^ that France adopted the 
 
 above. E^zmiZo^r^r.wf^ gives the extract quoted 
 Septus MohZ. ^^JlTu^ ^"^ r^''^?'^^ ♦« t^o ««se of 
 
 elsewhere Thp «««« ® .? ° Twitru, as we have shown 
 ei8ewnero.lhe passage js from Tactfus, ^nwa^,, Book 6 
 
 " beyond the possibili^ nf f L kI ''f °^ violence, was seen 
 
H: 
 
 or Mnu. 
 
 Dalloi. 
 
 Ll/ftBVM Dl 
 LA PUKCHI. 
 DCPOMT. 
 UiOMROR. 
 
 Dalioi, in 
 calling legit 
 lation of 
 France "a «<• 
 ri< d« t/ltoH- 
 nemmit, 
 commitB an 
 error, weli 
 refuted by 
 DopoHT and 
 
 UlONIBOS. 
 
 — 190 — 
 
 Roman Law^ goldmineg were owned by individnala, not by 
 the State ; since the Emperor, in order to eocnre certain goldf- 
 mines that ho coveted, had to invent a pretext for the death of 
 their owner, that the mines might become forfeited to him, the 
 Emperor, as head of the StaLe. The passage leads to inferences 
 directly the reverse of that drawn from it by Choppin, DaUoz 
 and others. 
 
 ^ec. 210. — Dalloz, loo: cU: then refers to the 
 various Ordinances on mining, dividing the legislation on this 
 subject into six epochs, namely : 1* from 1321 to 1548, 
 2° from 1548 to 1601, Z" from 1601 to 1722, 4' from 1722 to 
 1740, 6» from 1740 to 1791,6' tlie modem epoch. His division 
 is not very logical, and the old legislation has been better 
 classed by Lami-Fleury, as we shall presently shew, into three 
 epochs. DaUo3 analyses the Ordinances on mining pretty 
 much as Merlin has done ; and it is therefore unnecessary to 
 do more than state that DaUoz concludes, No. 13, P. 606, 
 that, under the monarchy, the Legislation of France on mines 
 had been nothing else than a " -Wrw de tdtonnemenit.^^ How 
 mistaken he was may be seen on reference to Dppont, Juri$- 
 prudence dee mines, vol : 1, P. 23 and 24 ; that author shews 
 that the legislation, which Z^a^e so much despises, namely the 
 Ordinance of 1471, contains the germs of the Law DMoz so 
 much admire?, namely, the modem French Law on mines. 
 DupoNT, /<w; cit: says: " Oette conformit6 de dispositions, 
 " dans la Ifigislation des mines, ^ plus de trois si6clo3 et demi 
 " d'intervaire, a 6t6 signalfie pour la premiere fois par M. 
 " MioNEEON {Annalea dee mines) 86me s6rio, t : 2, P. 668)." 
 Kot a sing e line from DaUoz asserts the belief that, at any 
 period of French History, did the Sovereigns of France 
 exercise proprietary rights over the mines of that country. Ho 
 merely states what no one denies, that the Sovereigns con- 
 trolled the working of the mines for the greater benefit of the 
 State. 
 
 quotes ' ^eC, 21 J « ^The only fault to be found with DaUoz 
 
 ^"itMCHB ^^ *^® manner, in which he has quoted Lefebvre de la Planche; 
 DaUoz has unintentionally, no doubt, made L^ebvre de la 
 Planche state the very reverse of what the latter has really 
 said. The Defendants, at P. 44, 46 and 64 of their Factum, 
 have made the same mistake: the error of both consists in 
 attributing to Lefebvre de la Planche observations, by way of 
 
 i \ 
 
— 191 — 
 inake^^w ^ 7" A/'*'^*' Dal oz and tho Defeudante"' «"■•. 
 
 been sUtod by z/^re ^ITu^ctl'^^ZST ''" 
 
 lucroase the sphere of hia usefalneeftrhif masKSd 'th« 
 chances of hw own promotion. I>febvre de ZP&Zle h^ 
 thuB been improperfy made to sav that tL !?{«„;« ■ .^ 
 
 of gold and sSver mines No^fhe very revZ L^^^^^^^^ 
 
 •peaking of the BovaltT, he aava" "I^nJj • » *i 
 
 «,n«en?ent cetto^iJ^'eTriSt qa^« d^'.'SSHr' 
 
 .Kr^ri? j'.^L" «««•""»" tSheop^fi xk 
 
 m the notes had been written bv />/^&>m.^ iw^ iuj expressed 
 two sets of opinions h^gZ Snch^STJ^^.^^^^' *\^ 
 other. In like manner WfikiSr/i L ?5 ''^ "^^ . ^«^ 
 states that /br^unSX d^ nSj^de^X''::'^n'd !^^ 
 
— 109 — 
 
 
 OVIIUBIP 
 OP MlHI. 
 LoBBk 
 LBPfiB7M Dl 
 
 hK Fiuivn. 
 D'AwutbA. 
 
 D'AbobbtbC 
 fcron Plaint' 
 ib' tUwi. 
 
 " Peut-4tro pourroit-on aoatenir que om mota fortune et trmnt indl* 
 " quent plutAt un tr^sor qu'uae mine. Oepeadtnt lea auteura laa ont re- 
 " gard6H, comme s'apnliquana i I'un et * I'autre. QuoiquHl m toit, U 
 " quAtion a peu d'intdrdt, et soit dana rancioD,BoitdanB le neuveau-monde, 
 " on ne connoit point de mines d'or ezploitAea duta ritteadue dea teiTM de 
 '• I'oMissance du Roi." 
 
 /om, then makes the remarks quoted by Dalloa as the 
 opinion of Lefebvre de la Planehe. Lorn expresses no opinion 
 one way or the other ; his words '♦ guoimt^U en boU '' may 
 serve as an accompaniment to CAoppiwt " (Teit une beUe que*- 
 iiony 
 
 ^eC, /i\o» By a great misapprehension, D'ae- 
 
 GENTBfi, on the Onstom of Bretagne, has been cited in support 
 of the opinion that gold and silver-mines belong to the Kiug. 
 Tliat author, on Article 56 of that Custom, Nos. 33, 39 and 
 40, P. 227 and 228 of Edition of 1621, has the following : 
 
 " 88, Salinte an sint do regalibua "? 
 " 89. Salina »unt etiam priuatorvm." 
 " 40 Auri fodinn ? " 
 
 " 88, Salinas, quod inter re^ia rcponunt, perquam vetud est auctoritas 
 *' et {. 1. D. quod euiutqtu tmtuen. nom. I^tucia, inquit, concessa esse 
 " corpora, excipit vectigalium publicorum causam, auri et argenti fodi- 
 " narum, et salinarum. Fuisso etiam olim publicam Salinarum procura- 
 " tionem apparet ex L inter publica, D. de verb, eign^f. et L H quu. C. de 
 ** ttctig. Pontiflcibus quoque idem iuria oetendit cap. luper guwvtdam, §. 
 *' praeterea, ext. de verb, eignif. idem et Imperatores constitufiro, cup, 1, 
 *' quae tint regal, et ante oonstitutum imperium fiiigae ex aaiinis vectigal 
 " ostendit saliiiatoris appellatio, et vecdgal d salarii annona constitutum, 
 •< quod ait Liuiue^ lib. IX, Deead. 8, cuiqui preerat Haliaarchen appellabant 
 *' alibi salitorem, cuius Cic, altcubi Epistolis ad Atticum, meminit, et 
 " Joseph ot Gainodorue, lib. vj. variarum. Salinas Martio prim&m Rege 
 " institutas Liuius et cwteri jprodiddre. Sed tamen privatorum quoquo 
 ♦' fliisse indicat I. magiiputo. inprineip. D' de refme evnim, quod et Alex. 
 " notavit I. diuortio, ti tir in/undo, pott Oloe. in D. »ol matritn. et Lud. 
 "' Com. in § ti/undum. ibid, ubi et se conauluisse volaterris acribit inoau8& 
 **ardu&, atque \tk obtenuisse, cum in fundis priuatorum repo^rentur 
 *' qiuunuis multi consulerent contrarium per d. c I. tit. quae tint regal." 
 
 "89. Sedcrebrisexperimentisdocemur etiam priuatis ista competere, 
 *' et plena sunt littora nostra tiUibus priuatorum salinia, qnibus sal non 
 " eSbditur, ut alibi, eed quibus conflscitor et ooqoitur, utili mortalibua 
 " inuento, nisi antiquorum exempla, et priacarum legum auctoritas cupidita- 
 " tem principum nostrorum denuo provocaaset, ut iustis Dominis nego- 
 " tium facesserent ea de re, quam prisca tempora, et vAupatlo per quam 
 " vetus et ipsorum principum consensus comprobaaset Qnare magno dolore 
 " bonorum omnium factum, et ingenti patriae commnniadetrimento, vt saUs 
 " artifices magnis incommodis et pubhcanonim moleatUs wati extemas 
 
— 198 — 
 
 est tomporum Phllippi ValcBJj KSi"" '^"•""° '^'» inuentum, inlurUor Mmu. 
 
 TAMICM 1P8A NON MAOIS Pki vaPUM .« J^ .f • ^ ' **'• ^"^ ""* '•«17«'- Q"^ 
 
 '« ., K. n_._ , /'«»'»« . auofl «> «n ., .* ...^^ decimsm 
 
 - ,^ .u.»»a«, (to. r" 
 
 collipbantur Jn agris publicls. 
 
 " hiHcopre PrincinVsafnu' «ff rT/^Th 1"^^ '^^ 
 quiB in de voctigalia priscia rt«rm.^?^ n*''.''' ^*^"- *'*• 'J- Cod. Et 
 PopuI.Itom.fui4appKJeMnrT '=?"'K«»'.''"tur i„ agrig publ cS. 
 
 Po4i. ,uoquo 8U0 tempore rewSf J: 1 '^"''^.''."'b. 4. mcminit ; et 
 
 CIO est Com. Taciti locus, cum S^-SSa * ^i* pri^torum fuisse indi- 
 "rentur.TjberiussibiaepU-s^^dlcT^rJib i"^^^ ''"*'"'^"*'" ?"'>'•'=•• 
 
 . X r r . *^* ^^ we understand anv thim, «r ♦!. '«tnhew. 
 
 quamt Latin in nae in the dava of />'>!«„ f..,^ »Jio Ing />• jr- 
 places gold and 8iIver.n.inP«rmL \i ^7?"'''<^» *''»' author^*"'^** opl- 
 when found on DrTvTrTanr^f "' u"° ^^"'«« ^l^cJ^ belong, ?'»'' ♦» »>• 
 
 Moreover. we^^tCri' ^^^i^e^'r^^^^^^^ 4'?iKSj/' 
 the question and answora it na tlTa if ^ ^ ^^**^" "® P"t8 
 
 PBivATOBUM." In discnssC th^nni;- ®*lV°"® '^'»' «<*«"* 
 by stating that the^S f«ni 3iT*'?u'">- ^S' '^^^^^^ 
 Digest, j,f^ <n^t^^uniJ^7 ^, *"*^«"ty .d-aw 1 oAhe 
 among regaliZriSS HeTnfJ^ V/^' ?^*°'"« saltworks 
 
 Romans, Vf a S fperintenden? nf/u^ °*l"*^"°«' ^•"^"R ^^o 
 decides the aue«S[fi';l?l.^L**^»-^<>'-ks; and theS he 
 
 ho begiM by stS^that iT^" *^,«^^.^ *"d Bilver-min^, 
 SoverlTgn, Vd anf sHver m^^ .^"^''r^^ «^"'°''' ^°' the 
 RoraanW; which in hlnn^n-®" ' *?.^ *^'' *l"oting tlio 
 case, he ag^n dS^ ^K Z" ' ^^P^'^fu^^ *^** '''^^ ^f the 
 gold and ^sUverS^ by s?vW '°A ^" *^? ."^^'^ti^^. ««» to 
 and silver and of bitSien^ ^' TL* •**'''^ <™'"<» o^J?oW 
 oiPUM SUNT, ^infmdoZiJ^^ ^ '''''' " "'^^^ ^«- 
 " aut cretae fodinaToC « T'""'*'"''' ^°*'" lapidicinae 
 
 i^M^Sil^J^^eeTJithtif ::r. ^"1*'A« ^ «^*'^fy "» that 
 in thS peeunS^ which fed^^i^IJli^r ^?^*"' ^° ^^^^^ ^'t 
 from ^^f o.-'/ipiniot%f in;;?^^^^^^^^^ 
 
— m — 
 
 OiMuwBip Camiu, No. 778.12, where it it said : " D'Argentri £Utt on 
 D'AlTuvMil" opposition dirocte avoc Dunioulin. Quelqnes-unB prttendent 
 »-.I- *'" que c'6tait80U vent par emiUation, plut6t qne jjar convic- 
 " tion." Sec also Arrita de Frain^ vol. 1, P. 167, where Uhin 
 reproaches D'ArgmtrS with having dissented from Du J/oUn 
 " plus par 6mulatiou et par jalousie, quo par raison." Now 
 wo know that Du Moling in treating of the Arrit ou Brandon 
 
 RlHVHOV. 
 BoDWOH. 
 
 Pf'IITiJIDS. 
 
 ThaQiame. 
 
 holds that gold and silvcrmines may bo seized by the seignior 
 as fruits of tlip soil and as being the propertv of the debtor, 
 for the debt {oentuel) of tho vassal owner of tlie soil. An d 
 since, neither in tho passage onotod above at length firom 
 jyAraentr^t nor in treating of the like seizure, nnder article 
 
 ! 
 
 RllDtlOl'S 
 
 opinion in 
 faror of 
 PlainUfBr. 
 
 Th« lame of 
 
 POITAIIUI. 
 
 Boowov 
 
 bMMhU 
 
 opinioaon 
 
 § 136 of this factum), wo mnst come to the conclusion that Du 
 Moiin tjxA D* Argentritae in perfect agreement on this point. 
 The error into which some writers nave thus fallen, as to 
 the opinion of IPArgmtri^ can be explained on the srpposition 
 only that they merely read the first sentence of the passage 
 above quoted, and followed onr author no further. 
 
 Sec. 2 1 5. Rentsbon, in his TraiU du droit de 
 
 gairdenobU et bourgeoises ch : 6, nos. 41, 42 and 43 discusses the 
 question of ownership of mines, as between the mufruitier, 
 and the proprietor ; be quotes, with approval, DuMolin's 
 opinion ; and, in no. 42, says : 
 
 " Quo dira-t-on des mines tPor et cPargent, de fer et de plomb et autres 
 " mitaux, eomme ausai des carri4res de pieire, de marbre, d'ardoise, de 
 *' crtie et autres f 
 
 He gives all saoh mines as are open to the nsnfrnctnary, 
 and snch as are not open to the proprietor ; ho qnotcs the 
 opinion of Pontanua on the Custom of Bloit, as favoring his 
 own views ; and finally he allndes to the Customs, such ai 
 Afijou and MairUy which derogate Irom the Common Law, 
 and give gold and silver, neither to the proprietor nor to tlxo 
 usufructuary, but assigns gold mines to tl\e King, and silver- 
 mines to the Baron. Docs that opinion of BmvMon look as if 
 he thought that, by the Common Law of France, gold and 
 ulver mines did not form part of the domains ptivi f 
 
 S6C« 216« ^BouKJOir, in bis Droit Oommun de la 
 
 France, vol. 1, des Ifiefs, part : 8, ch 1, sect : 1, § 61, note, 
 
— 196 -. 
 
 «cW-31'Jrlil''L h'^ K-^ rFl'^*^ »»»« '>l""«on that Oww..m, 
 jjoiu mincfl belong to tho King and bi vir niinoa to the Baron • "' ""•■•• 
 
 we nave already dwciisBcd and oxp oded in this Factnin *'*"""^»» 
 Slrt Tt^ A "^^^ ""'^ 8>lyor-mine. to tho King, as forming 
 
 '..a P ^^* 2J'''-~LAMfeFw0BT,Z^<7/,^a<t«,„ min^rafo, in LiMi-FLMtv 
 .118 Preface, P. 5, divides mineral leaia'ation intn f»,r«n ""'"•• 
 epochs, which in his summary, he divide? thus? SuonW" 
 
 PremiIh. PlR,oDi (U18~1548).-Lib«rt« .baolue 
 d'exploiter les mines." 
 
 " D«"i»«EplRioM(1648-1697).-Conce88lon torn. 
 „ ff 'jj",'*' *°"^«'' '•« "ines i un privi. 
 
 " Titoisrtin: pjRioDB (1897-1 791 X-Retours succes- 
 Bift aux systdmes des deux prvmidres 
 " penodeB." 
 
 rZ.^ ^t'.^ J"^^^'"^* dayman (//j^^Mwur au corp» imperial '^nA^h.mt 
 6fe« minef) has niade most profound researches on the Lemsla- tJ'^^K'"*'" 
 tionoftheOld Monarchy in France, on the subjUtSes- S'J!: '" 
 
 appreciate tlic difference between the force, as Law, of an**""- 
 Ordmance registered in the Parliamc - of FrancoTa^d th(2^ 
 
 W h?r IS** '»°l«P^'-a<=ed in the second period refer^d to 
 
 tiJn in'f»..T^ ''• **'' *V T^^'^' * ""^^^ ^^^"^ble compila. 
 tion, m fact tlio most valuable collection extant of miSinir 
 documents under tho ol.l monarchy of Franco. At P 169 
 inTi^'V'^ n* T^-i^'" th,,s definea^he old legiltion on mine!,' 
 oftwi"""^!.^''^'^' ^.*^^ ^^**"n« t^^t'&io old legislat"^ 
 of trance, such as It has been transmitted to us in Lower 
 Canada, had any other than a fiscal object, namely Te 
 coUec.ion of the one-tenth royalty. He says : ^' 
 
 " nMALE^rf«'?^«"„-z''!J""° /' *'*PP«*"«' 8"r >« nature emntUlUmmt 
 FMCALE au penonnel de$ minet lusqu'en 1781. II a touiours Dour hiit 
 
— 196 — 
 
 i; 
 
 
 II 
 
 owwwiiitF Again, aa if to raiM all donbU as to his opinion, he MTi. 
 
 U«"'"w..t»tJ'-172,notol: *^ ' "^ ' 
 
 " On n'» pu. danH U noteil, di la page I09 que donnw una id<« conftiae 
 '• d« ce qu'a M I adminUtration pi-imiUva dea mineH do 1418 i 1S48. " 
 
 " En CO qui concornc la msconde piriodo do la ligiitlation dea minau, la 
 Th« lama. " '**'''" ""* P'"" '**^"' i »"•'«>■* lo titro de aurintendant, donn4 i Robarfal, 
 " 8t Julien ot Vidal, 4 Leacot, Collongca et do Troyea, il no a'agit Jamais 
 •• quo d'un conceaaionnaini ginin\ ct tomporaira de toutea lea mlnea da 
 '• royaumo, lur lea privileges eiorbiUnU duquel lea actea do 1648 4 1697 
 *' donnent toua lea datailn JiiiirabieH. " 
 
 " Ewriii, an eommetuement de la troitifms pMndt on volt poindre une 
 •' adinini»tration Uehnique dea minm, qui ruperd d^llniUremeDt son carac- 
 •'t«k» mcAL qu'4 la fin du XVIIMme niAcle. Kiio ne ae deaaina bian 
 •• nettoment qua dana Tarrit do 1781 ;— co qui juRtifle la diriaioi: introduite 
 " dana cat easai aur la personnel dea mines. 
 
 SfiC .^lo. According, tlicn, to Zamd—FUury 
 
 during the first and third peiiods, tlio adminiHtration of mines 
 had a purely and essentially JmcoI character, and the droit 
 rigalien must have been of a lilce purely and essentially /»caZ 
 character, and the royalty, a mere fiscal burthen. 
 
 With regard to the second period, Jcuowing, as we do, 
 that the Law of mines liad been well settled by the Ordinances 
 of 1413 and 1471, we find nothing in the private grants, bit- 
 terly opposed, as they were by the Parliaments, and tempo- 
 rary as the King declared them to be, nothing, in fact, that 
 altered, repealed or modified a single provision of the organic 
 Laws of 1413 and 1471 on mining. 'Hicn again how severely 
 Henby IV, in his Ordinance of 1601 has jn^ed those private 
 grants, we have already shewn, when ho declared in tne pre- 
 amble that " experience had shewn many grave defects which 
 " it was fitting to remedy. " 
 
 If then those grants had not already expired by lapse of 
 time, the obnoxious portions of them were set at nongut by 
 the Ordinance of 1601. 
 
 The same. ^GC, «l«7. LAMfi-FLEdBT, P. 74, note 1, gives us 
 
 the history of a great strnggle between the King, and the 
 Parliament of Paris, as to the enredstration of the Edict of 
 1601, a struggle that had no loss than 18 phases, thoiigh it 
 lasted but two years. That straggle wns one {Lami-Fleury 
 tells us, P. 85, note 1) in which " cette Gour ent en definitive 
 " k peu pros gain do cause." In deliberating finally on that 
 •Ordmance, i,he Parliament of Paris decided and ordered that 
 
— 197 - 
 
 mo<liHcation ; and the PaHSi.nn/ *^'."K acquiowod in tl.o ,.^ 
 ot>revo«ting'a,.y improper^ ^'''' .'1'° r-^er J.tJU, 
 
 the very same pfmor, in fL'tt)^*? ,"'o, proprietor, .vitho.-. 
 
 of Canada, to oxoroi^ iTthulZ ^T/r' *''" *>''''«'"«nt 
 At P. 83, note 2 La*nJ ffvl Tn ""' ?*^ ""* "•"'"o liereaftor. 
 appointed Xnrf-^ilr ^^.7^ • V'!^* ^^ ^'^^^^''^'^ ^^ 
 apart from the coiSTc^if hS^t^"^",'^'''' «* <''^^'t ^l»''ch, 
 the gold diBcovSe^ BSeS of hx" S""" ^^?^>' »''«^^» "«' ^''« 
 Edict of 1601, and tK U.e&t Jr''^ ^""«''* "^'""^ *'•« 
 mines, cqoally with all o hor m n^ ^a^2 ^'^^•^'•"f/^W 
 moreover, that the Edict of iZi v *^""cl"8ive evidence 
 
 it i8 expressly PwlkilT^Z^lT^T ^* *''^ ^^''^^ ^^^^rein 
 anyootnorLvEaSr^* n^t nr-^''°,''°''^T"' »S^'» «tc., 
 Grand-Master (see p"^f5'z:^.K^;>y '""^'^'^ ^^ ^^« 
 
 the mod*;fn ^'IZS.T ^'f"'' (°°* *« ^° '"«t'^'^«« ^rraWi 
 phin anS w^^^oT^ 1- .^'*^*'y)^«« preceptor to the Dan- ''■"«'• 
 
 part : 1, p. 40, JidLion of ITflS ♦ ^ ' '? *^'*' ^^"'•^^' *• 2,PWnUft. 
 of the objectTcomSo. th JSL • ''* !f " '"""*« enumeration 
 reference madeTSiifnlr'*'^ i" '"'^ ^ '^"'^ *h« only 
 " Bnr les mineS^"' 'iW S«l*^f; ^^''' " droit de dixi6n^ 
 of the ininea. ' assuredly, doe« not mean ownership 
 
 q«n «. *^' ?^^* — ■^'**''*' ^°^ • 2' Edition of 1772, P „ 
 
— 198 — 
 
 \i I 
 
 i ' 
 
 t f 
 
 '. '! 
 
 UHMIRIBIP 
 
 or Un»$. 
 DiGoii(u. 
 
 MOHAO. 
 
 VOIT. 
 
 MiNIIB. 
 
 Tboploio. 
 LooBi. 
 
 VODSAW). 
 VORT fATOn 
 
 Plainuffa' 
 Tiewt. 
 
 Plaintiffii 
 have not 
 bMn able to 
 procure 
 IfniH, 
 Troploho, 
 LooRi, and 
 
 FODOAIO 
 
 cited bj 
 Defendiuts. 
 
 from giving the rety lengthy article of Hmry» npon this 
 Bubjeot. Mmnequin, vol : 2, P. 308, states that Droobmib, 
 t. 1., col : 778, and Mobnao, npon 1. 67, de ret vindicatione 
 share the opinion of H«nry». We regret that we are com* 
 pelled from want of time to leave those two writers nnappre- 
 ciated. 
 
 ^ Sec. SS3. VoET, in his Commentaieres on the 
 
 Koman Law, with a statement of the Law of his day, says, 
 at P. 169 of the i7a^t«« Edition of 1707, vol : 1, book 7, title 1, 
 No. 24, d« untfruciuy that the owners of the soil have 
 the right to work all irinea on their lands. It is of that work 
 that Camusy vol : 2, No. 396, says : " II y a pen de llvres de 
 '* droit qui joni-sent d'une estime plus jj6n6rale." 
 
 There are other writers on this subject, whose works we 
 have not been able to procure ; some of them, such as Minieb, 
 l^oPLONo, Loob6 jSs Fouoaed, have been cited by the 
 Defendants as favoring their views. Not having been able 
 to procure those works, we are obliged to take the Defendants' 
 statements on trust ; and yet we have shewn, by a scrutiny of 
 the Defendants' misquotations of Proitdhon^ Lefebvre de la 
 Planehe^ Boeguet^ DaUoZy Choppmy LeBret and Benne^ruWy 
 how much danger thero is of that trust being abused : whv 
 the Defendants cite LeMaietre is quite a mystery to us. With 
 reference to G'tdnoie, cited by the Defendants, he bases his 
 opinion upon the de St. Julim-gVB.nt ; we have already most 
 satisfactorily disposed of that grant, and shewn that it utterly 
 fai's to support tne views advanced by the Defendants. 
 
 iS'"''"' Sec. 224. A most striking illustration of the 
 
 Juristt of contents of the the prevailing ignorance of the contents of 
 J^*jJ^°Jj7^jfthe Ordinances of the French Kings is to be found in an 
 Ordinances, opiuion delivered by three eminent French Lawyers, on the 
 14 February . 1767, and registered (for what reason we have 
 not been able to ascertain), at Quebec, in the Bigiatre 
 Frangaisy letter G. P. 260. We have already, at P. 90 and 
 91 of this* Factum, alluded to that opinion ; we do so again, 
 as it reaches other points in the case. The names of those 
 three Counsel are Blie de Beaumont^ Target and Bouchet. 
 He opinion is found, at P. 266 of the Keturn to an Address 
 of the Legislative Assranbly of the late Province of Canada 
 of the 29 August, 1861, and printed in three volumes, by E. E. 
 Frechette, by order of th6 legislature. Volume 1, printed in 
 
taieres on the 
 
 itration of the 
 
 ~ 189 — 
 
 t\%'SyS!oalt :^^^^^^ °f ™o-' o''-'-^^^ 
 
 rtM/-voluiDe2, also printed in 1863, containaTiH? nS? *^' "'«« «'i 
 ces, DeclarationgoftheKW aud JaSt^fl Ji*'5l♦^S*°*^•]S;■fi**"<>»' 
 Co^rt8,of Canada, on Sei^orial rWof?^ *5 ^^ ^^^ French TA.O.T. 
 eame learned aJd CnfXuTl ^'zS^^f ^"? '^'"^ ^7 t^e «-™"- 
 
 Mowing the Chief Justice ThA^'^T*'*. ^^^iaux, 
 at iaaue between the mSi^I^^^ °"'^^ *^« ^"«««on 
 
 ll^^-^in^'t^^Tt^ca^Tr:^!,'' -orial submitted for 
 "l>a«OTtooriran«io/'LTin OanX Jt^T 'l'"*" «>ntainea in the 
 "now subjected to tWSionJfSsKS^^ *^'»ty. «d 
 
 that thejr are called upon to Snsidw i„ tiS" rf^.^T^^' "« «f opm'on 
 Mt«n«,fngue8tionwSha?eh2«^lK.^*'^H ^''** 'J^«« the 
 « the Sitiff of France -intiie^f^jZyT **** *J«»'D»on of His Majesty. 
 
 ;;m«i<m^ftheSo«r;iS.p?weTto^c&£„Al!:^^^ "^1*^ *»>• ^S'- 
 " upon which .uch d^iKTst £ uSii/?"* ^ '^^'V^d the principle, 
 
 to the^pf Jc°ai' whSn^^^^^ *«^ ^*« 'application 
 
 gentleieh who de^im^ed Thit!^®''^"^ P?^.* °°* ^^^ «^e 
 t1lecontent^^rf^tt^ntc^^^^^^^^ *^«^ «***«-ent of 
 
 Sec. 825. ^The opinion adverts to the fact thaf^u 
 
 thercservationg as to timber are varionalv wnrl? • T*^""*""*' 
 
 that b^a. VO.Z^^'^r^.^^SSl.r^^Z S"^"*' 
 "«l^f^S?antL'iia't^° *^ respect o„,y « «„ 
 
 •• hfs «J;««, ;Zbut trthWooSd STiivSj^^!!,''^***.** ^''f " 
 
 dause^thelbndanJSul^SStiSttilSJj^^^^ ''^ «»« 
 
 " be in/aiww of the oranUc beciuM It Sa h-^-i^ "' u * *?* *«»««o» must 
 
 "require that we\ho3d' SSSlv iW^tk " ^^'"'^^ "** •" 2««» 
 " obligations." • "'^'■™>'y /WW the |wrfy l<mnd by such 
 
 nghf w.™ . feud.! borthep. rioTtt!?" KiS''£.XK 
 

 OWMBSHIP 
 
 or MiMM. 
 DooomaTi 
 
 MAVX. 
 
 OB Bmcmoit 
 Taboit. 
 
 ROUCBIT. 
 
 The same. 
 
 i |i^ 
 
 i f 
 
 — 200 — 
 
 " Bubiectfl as an enfeoffing seignior, not a» a sovereign ", 
 and that consequently the abolition of the feudal tenure nere 
 has swept those mining rights away. 2 ® It establishes that 
 in such matters the Sovereign is equally with his subjects, 
 bound to the observance of the Laws of the Realm. Hence 
 we infer that, in respect of the monopolies granted by Henri 
 11 and his successors, adverted to at P. 112 and eeq^ : of this 
 Factum, the grants were utterly void as being utterly at 
 variance with the then fundamental Laws of the Kingdom. 
 3 ® In reference to the clause, requiring notice to be given of 
 the mines, to be found in the Original Grant, the fundamental 
 principle " is that, if any doubt existed as to the meaning of 
 that clause, it is to be interpreted against the King, and in favor 
 of the party hound to eive notice ; and consequently since the 
 King aid not, in so many words, reserve the ownership of the 
 mines, then have the mines not been reserved by the King. 
 
 S^CC* «i«D* ^Tho opinion then discusses the question 
 
 whether the change of sovereignty has wrought any change in 
 the relative positions of Monarch and subjects in connection 
 with those grants ; the opinion cites BlackaUme, the Treaty of 
 Versailles, and concludes an able argument by observing that 
 the Law upon this point has continued unchanged under the 
 new Sovereign. 
 
 Then comes the question as to the effect of the clause, 
 contained in the Original Grant of the Seignory (see. P. 27 of 
 this Factum re(][uiring notice of a! 1 discoveries of mines to be 
 given to the King, 'me opinion states : 
 
 "The patents of concession contain also the following claase : "On 
 « " condition of giving notice to His Miyesty of mines and minerals, if 
 *' " any should be found in the said concession. " " 
 
 In the case submitted it is " cuked whetJier this clause in to be understood 
 " as constituting the King joint proprietor of the tninet and minerals which 
 " may be found upon the property ^nted, or merely as shewing a desire, 
 " on the part of His Majesty, to lie informed of their emtenee, in order to 
 " hAve it in bis power to provide for the security of these treasures, and to 
 "pKUtct tliem from conquest, tor Hm ben^t of the state; and whether, 
 " under any circumstances, the King would not owe the grantee an indem; 
 " nity, or be held to give him a considerable share in Qie profits of the 
 " mines ; or whether tM pbopristor qf the Mnd is not, in virtue of his title 
 " to it, proprietor ofthemines also, and whether companies could be formed, 
 " with privilege or otherwise, who could dispute bis right " 
 
 The question could not have been more fairly or squarely 
 put. Let us see the answer : 
 
 ** The counsel answer that this question also ought to be decided by 
 
>» 
 
 > a Boverciffn , 
 dal tenure nere 
 establishes that 
 th his snbiects, 
 Bealm. Heuce 
 inted by Henri 
 ind aeq : of this 
 >eing utterly at 
 the Kingdom, 
 se to be given of 
 thefandamental 
 the meaning of 
 [ing, and in favor 
 luently since the 
 Une4ipofthe 
 red by the King. 
 
 isses the question 
 ht any change in 
 its in connection 
 ne, the Treaty of 
 )y observing that 
 langed under the 
 
 ct of the clause, 
 ory (see. P. 27 of 
 »of mines to be 
 
 lowing clause : " On 
 
 aines and minerals, if 
 
 »» 
 
 «0 in to be understood 
 M and minerals which 
 ^ as thewing a deHre, 
 exiitmce, in order to 
 lese treasures, and to 
 state; and whether, 
 the grantee an indem- 
 in ue profits of the 
 it, in virtue of his title 
 lanies could be formed, 
 ight" 
 
 I fairly or squarely 
 ightto be decided by 
 
 — 201 — 
 
 " " thinir hn^ ILP i" "*^ *"d refined, without h^l X. ^^}^ P"^ ofn" Taroit. 
 " private 2ielL«r7 ^% P/otectthe workmen .^°';?.''°""i '° P^^ «ny- «°''°«"- 
 
 June^SMK 1^2 V:"' '-f T^> ^^^3, and of 
 ;• that he ma7«^.r:U':viV?Lr^ ''' 'T ^«°°"^ '^^ SjL'^S """^ 
 
 Sec. 227 TTiof • ■ 
 
 that the Ordinance of lTl3 rinrn^' ^"' J^«t'"c% states T,.ne.a, 
 turn, contains these word 7 "SSll ,^- ^« ^^ ^^''^ Fac-opIS,;^ 
 Now GOLD IS NOT ONCE mentioned inTln^l-'"'^ '^ ''^^ ^^^'"f?". S?»." ""' 
 (vJo. min^j), who appears to wi^®,^""^'"*""©! Dbnizakt *^^''""*'«'^' 
 
 tents oftlie^'Ordina^n^e' tel s us f, i ''»^™° '"^'^ of the con/'"'* 
 
 t^hat the Ordinance ohll3 does noflti V? ^'''^^^^ ««en, 
 
 ' being unadvisable to do so sin^^^h u^^ *^ «^'*i '»!««8. it 
 
 but the best evidence of thfa inlf ^""^ .^"^^^^g ^^^ tho Kino. •'' 
 
 rnshed by a pen^roflhe'SXl^^S^r^r P ^"^-- 
 
 ppmion make any mention of the Or^ • '''^- ^^'^^^^r does the 
 
 Sec. 228 n^^^■ • 
 
 the nature of the Edict ^fUirdrLr', *'^ ^T'^" ^ *o^''— . 
 the opinion on other matters founded as it tT '^' ^"^"° <>^ 
 that 18 unanswerable. According hL I tu'^'"'' reasoning 
 the King had intended to Sve the min "^ *J° 0?'°^^°'-^^ 
 said so, according to the maxfm ^ « ^ '°*^i ^® ^^^uld have 
 
 " dmt- The cfause mr b^interZff f "'^"ft ^^'^ S?"^^ 
 party bound to give notice l^fi *h^f^ favorably for the 
 

 I :lt 
 
 ^ . ^^ 
 
 OirmuHip 
 or M»ii. 
 Lovu XIV. 
 
 — 202 — 
 
 rights in mines consist of the one-tenth royalty and nothing 
 more. 
 
 Locis XIV, 
 bj iutroc- 
 tione to 
 OoTcrnor 
 and Inten- 
 dant, tnd by 
 ■•▼eral 
 ArriU shews 
 his intention 
 to have been 
 thttt cmtUai- 
 ru shonld 
 have all the 
 donaine utile. 
 
 i t 
 
 ! I i 
 
 SCC« 229. It is, liowevor, fortunate, that we are 
 
 not left to mere conjcctnrc for the discovi ry of the KingV 
 meaning, when he stipulated that notice of all mines should 
 thus be given to him. Louis XIV, by instrnctiona under his 
 sign-mannal, countersigned by Colbert, on the 20 May 1674, 
 and registered in the Archives of the Superior Council, at 
 Q obec, Keg : A, folio 64 (see Doc: Seign: vol : 2, P. 29), 
 eojoined on Messieurs de Fronten~c and D uchcsneau io affix 
 to their grants no other condition than that of clearing the 
 land and bringing it into value within 6 years. Such instruc- 
 tions are inconsistent with the idea that the King intended to 
 reserve the mines. 
 
 Again, on the 10 November, 1707, Intendant Raudot 
 wrote trom Quebec to Chancellor de Fonichartrain, deploring 
 the evils arising from the unusual reservations which the 
 Seigniors had been introducing into the concessions made by 
 them (see Doo : Seign : vol : 8, P. 7), and advising that the 
 King should issue a declaration secnring to the tenants " the 
 " ownership of the lands, with all their appurtenances ". Tlic 
 Chaneeller promised to attend to the matter ; but it was not 
 until 1711 (see Edits et Ordonnances, vol : 1, P. 323 et seq ;), 
 that the King fnlfiUed the promise of his Minister, and issued 
 the two celebrated Arrets of Marly ; for an analysis of those 
 Arrets, see P. 123 (a) of volume A of the L. C. Reports, 
 Seigniorial Court, 1856. 
 
 Captain Moreau, having applied for a grant of a Sei- 
 gniory, received for answer in 1719 (see P. 132 (a) of vol : 
 A of the L. C. Reports, Seigniorial Court, 1856), that the 
 King had, for several years past, resolved to grant no more 
 lands en Fief, but only en roture, and that Captain Moreau 
 might have a small grant en roture. Although that, 
 like many other royal purposes, was not adhered to, as 
 regards lands in the present limits of Lower Canada, yet 
 steps were taken towards establishing the loture tenure in 
 the neighborhood of the present City of Detroit, U. S. A. 
 The grants at Detroit, when compared with contempora- 
 neous grants within the present limits of Lower-Canada, throw 
 great light upon the King's intention, when he required notice 
 of all mines to be given to him. At P. 26 of vol : 3, Doo : 
 Seign :, and at P. 325 and 241 of vol : 1 Doc : Seign :, we find 
 several gr-ints en rdturefOne to Chauviny another to Bonhom- 
 
— 203 — 
 
 ono of three flrrants inqfJo nn fi."^ "*. ijBBY-r»wn« is shewn by 
 
 i736,tot]ie§ie,iraVr/. f |amo day, 23 September, difference 
 
 J2-i^^ oL , ,^''''''"' '^''' Vaufireuil and <?e 7a 6for' ""'tween 
 
 oc/|fl^<er0 and reproduced at T. 243 e< seo ' of vol • 1 nf 7^7 «"""• "»' 
 'S^^JJ'n ; Now, while, in the thron\,^nJa* 1 \ " V -^^^ • Detroit, nd 
 Fief, the Kincr n„r /i I ?'^'^"*^ ^*^* mentioned mgranuoiio- 
 
 „f*T.„ij^' »^'".™ ^-f^f, WO find tho very same offloern 
 resemng the ownership of tho rainea ? WJiv do tho srMita A 
 
 nmiea ( la it not becaose, by the Arrii, of Marly all lands 
 01 me sou all the domaineultle, without onrtailment and that 
 
 rv Tn ^XToT'^'i"," "' "" """<» was aS" t'ely nee«- 
 
 sary, in oidor to prevent the mines from passineto the tenanta 
 
 at Se roit. In any caae, if tho King had in eSded to Srvo 
 
 he minea, m the ttree grants m J<u"f, why did he no? sTsol 
 
 g™nS'ps;s^iSfpir '"" ''"'« ™»«".^ '>■- --5 
 
 off ,^^^« ^30. Finally, those three grants en Fief,^, 
 
 afford concnsivo evidence that tho clause, requiring notice *''''" 
 apphes to alt mines, without distinction, to gXnd fifv^r a^ 
 
 iWlLw ^ ' '"^ ^'"^.^ ^* '' ^^^^'''^> on all hands 
 
 irrespective of the evidence we have adduced, that the baser 
 metals passed to the owner of the soil, so have the min(?of 
 
! i 
 
 Owniunip 
 
 OF MlNII. 
 
 Jntendant, 
 
 HOCQUART. 
 
 — 204 — 
 
 gold and silvor. That the lands owned by the Plaintiffs, and 
 which the Defendants seek to affect by their «' de LI:kt- 
 Patent " had been conceded and held en cemive^ and that, 
 conseanently, all miues, even of gold and silver had passed 
 from Uie Crown, throngh the hands of the Seignior, into the 
 liands of the Phiintitfs' auteurs, as censitaircs, long before the 
 issue of that Patent, is a matter of express and spec'al allega- 
 tion in the Plaintiffs' Declaration in this case. However the 
 decision of the Seigniorial Court, and of Commissioner 
 Turcotto have, once and for ever, settled that (question ; but of 
 this more hereafter. 
 
 1 • 
 
 
 I ^'1: 
 
 Jndgmcnt of 
 Jntendant 
 
 tiffa' views. 
 
 S^C. S31* The interpretation placed upon that 
 
 HocQCART, »» obligation to give notice ol tho mines is still further exempli- 
 toBiate.quar-gj,^^y ji^ jj^jjgj^Qntof the Intendant Bocquart, (who signed 
 Mreement the three grants en i^ie/' above-mentioned) ; tho judgment was 
 wiih Plain- rendered on tlia 14 October, 1729, and is reported at P. 143 of 
 ..».. „:»„. ^^j . 2 ^^ ^^^ . g^fgj^ . Tiie Judgment is, moreover, a valua- 
 ble precedent as affording evidence of the jurisprudence of 
 this Colony on mines, and as effectually refuting the doctrine 
 that the owner of the soil, who is able and willing to work a 
 mine on his lands may be driven from it by the first discoverer, 
 inventeur, as Delebecque, Vol : 1, P. 257, calls him. 
 
 It is true that the decision of the Intendant was in refe- 
 rence to a slate-quarry ; but the first law-book that one opens, 
 will convince him that slate and other quames are included in 
 xiiQ -woi'dB mines etmlnteref, under ihQ old Law of France; 
 sec, on this head article 2 of the Ordinance of 1601, P. 104 of 
 this Factum, by which tho King exempted mines d'ardoise 
 from the payment of the royalty. The principle, then, being 
 the same, let us see what Intendant llocfiuart decided. A 
 slate-quarry had been discovered, on uncouceded lands, in the 
 Seigniory of I'Anso a I'etang, owned by one Sarrasin. We 
 say unconceded lands, because the judgment of the intendant 
 forbade all persons from settling on the lands, until Sarrasin 
 and his associates should have taken tho extent of ground 
 they required, for mining purposes ; and Sarrazin and his 
 afsociates do not appear to have made the discovery, since we 
 find JSarrasin, in his Petition to the Intendant, expressing the 
 fear that some persons might go there, under pretence of being 
 the >■/•«< discoverers, and disturb Sarrasin and his associates in 
 the working of the quarry. Now what was the judgment ot 
 the Intendant ? " We forbid ", states the Intendant's decree, 
 
— 2QS — 
 
 " disturb the'^saFd'sicuTEr."" •' ''^^T ''^"'^ ""' ^i""!''^^' toO.«B«H.. 
 " choice tl.ey Imve n.arjo in Ti ''^'''.', ^^ ^"^ ^ssoc-ates in tho^ "',""• 
 
 ;; operations! or";: e^tt n " 'Stj'Sl^r *''f ' f^l-^gi'Str;. 
 " taken the extent of crra!L\\\J ' "^'' ^'"^^' ^'"^'^ ^'a^o 
 ; disfurb them and L?cS<? i n t '^ ,"'''•' k ""*' V f'"''^'''' '^ 
 "of6latobe!onffinfftotho^,^/2.^'%'''"'"'^'%' cf the quarry 
 " tlie eontraveiifn/, !^r t ' f ^T ^f'Z''V P^'" '^^'""^t 
 •'grater penalty TflhoJg^'/,!/^^"'^^^ ^^'^' ^''"''^ «"^^^*'- 
 
 H"g, the "Seignior m^^h' Li? r^^^«'7»"«We or'nnwil. 
 working of tSe quan'v t « nl •'"';, «"^?g«ted, for the 
 entitled to the grant niid t L.f ^ " *''" "*^' ^'^^'S'""'* ^"s 
 Intendant to tlfe fir!rZlovere^' ^"^"^^ ^'''^''''^ ^'^ ^'^^ 
 
 notice of the Minrs ia/..^^? • • p"'*^*^' '^(^frastn, to give 
 confinns the vt Hkw ihiri*^*^ i^'^^V'^'?^' ^^^^'''^^nd 
 referred to i.. § 22-1 & 2 of tl i« Fn f ^^ ^i'^ "^""^^^ ^P""^" 
 
 notified of tlie existS^ieo of ?hn 11 ^ """ '5^^'?"' "P0» >^ein 
 Hnna ,.^* . . Y'^iBiuico 01 tJiat Blateouarrv Min^^^A.^^.-^J 
 
 overy, since we 
 
 NO CHAXOK EFFECTED IN LAW OF MiNmo BV 0RDIXVXCE8 
 
 KNHE0X8TE«KD ir.KE SINCE THE CREATION OF THE • 
 
 SUPEEIOK COUNCIL. 
 
 "» «ow ex^ino wfeufcr a,°'"o7 the t,« ^JJ^om tl ''fit !^'^^^"°' °' 
 
i f ji j ' i n 'l w i ! .m-^'-'V'mff 
 
 i \ u 
 
 ^206 — 
 
 owKMinip From tlio instant that Jacques Carticr planted the Jteur 
 
 OK Minis. ^ ^ya on Canadian soil, this Country became a portion ol 
 
 -, the Crown Domain of France, subject to every Law, save 
 
 S.Zn'om o>one, governing the Domaine ; that one exception consisted, 
 
 CaZIa -^from the very nature Of things, in the eschision of the rule 
 
 as to the inalienability of this new Domaine ; then a wuacr- 
 
 nesSjand merely requiring settlers to developc its vast resources. 
 
 There is therefore, nothing surprising in the fact (whatever 
 
 Th. «mo stress tlio Defendants may lay upon it), of the lung having, 
 
 in his Edicts creating the " Comijc^nie dca cent AasoGili ou 
 
 du Canada,'' the ♦' Compagnie dea Indca Occidcntalea and the 
 
 " Compagnie d'Occident ou dea Indes," treated the mines 
 
 of Canada as his property, since the Country was a mere 
 
 wildernrss, and had tlion no cenaitairea. 
 
 And yet th > Defendants seem to think that, because, m 
 the several Edicts creating those Companies (see. art. 4 ot the 
 Edict of 29 april, 1627, Ed : et Ord. vol : 1, P. 1, see alfo 
 art : 20 and 24 of the Edict of May, 1604, Ed. et Ord.yoU 
 1, P. 40 and see also art : 7 et 8 Edict of August, 1717, ILa. 
 et Ord : Vol : 1, P. 377.) the King granted to those Compa- 
 nies all mines in the wilderness of Canada, it necessarily toi- 
 lows that the King must be the owner of minos on pnyate 
 lands ! Discussion is impossible with men, whose minds lead 
 them to such conclusions ; and yet one must endeavor to lead 
 them to the light. The grant to the " Compagnie dea Lent 
 Aaaodea ou de la Nouvelle France, " terminated in 1 ebruary 
 1663, by an abindonment of the Company's rights to the 
 King (see Ed : et Ord : vol : 1, P. 33). It is, therefore, 
 hardly necessary to .etVr to it; nevertheless, on examining 
 the text of the Edict creating that Company, it appears that 
 the King gave Canada to the Company enjuaiice et betgneurze 
 with the MINES, ''pourjowr toutefoia dea dttea minea confor- 
 " meme7ii a VOrdonnancer There is surelv no innovation 
 there upon the Common Law of France I ! The Comj^any 
 was merely placed on the eame footing with regard to niines, 
 as the Seigniors of Old France ; and we have already shewn 
 that, in Old France, the Seignior had no right to the mine, 
 except upon the refusal of the cenaitaire to work it. in 
 April following (1663), the King, by EdicN created the 
 Conaeil SupSrieur, with power " de connaitre de toutes causes 
 « civiles et criminelles, pour juger souverainement et en 
 «» dernier ressort aelon lea hix et Ordonnances de notre 
 " Hoyaume, et y proc6der autant qu'il se pourra en la tonne 
 « et manicre qui se pratique et se garde dans le ressort do 
 
cd tlio jl^T 
 a portion of 
 ^ Law, save 
 on consisted, 
 
 of tUo rule 
 hen a wilder- 
 ast resourcej. 
 act (whatever 
 [ving having, 
 { AssooiSs ou 
 %tales and the 
 ;d the mines 
 
 was a mere 
 
 it, because, in 
 I. art. 4 of the 
 '. 1, Be6 also 
 et Ord. Vol : 
 ist, 1717, M. 
 those Cornea- 
 lecessarily tol- 
 n>8 on private 
 »3e minds lead 
 dcavor to lead 
 ignie dea Cent 
 3d in February 
 rights to the 
 ; is, therefore, 
 on examining 
 ,t appears that 
 ce et Sdgneurie 
 mines confor- 
 no innovation 
 The Comi)any 
 igard to mines, 
 already shewn 
 t to the mine, 
 3 work it. In 
 ut, created the 
 de toutes causes 
 linemcnt et en 
 xances de notre 
 rra en la forme 
 .3 le rcssoTt de 
 
 — 207 — 
 ^not^o oo»r do parlomont do P.rU " (eoo M: ct O^d : .ol : 1, o...„„„. 
 
 or UiNU. 
 
 snrfaco. ^^ "'® ^°''' "" «*bov^o •'^"d below the 
 
 tl,« »^^' ^^'?* ^^^'^°' ^" ^"^'' 1«6^. the Kinc chartered 
 
 20oftlS?^r*' ^'f ^''^' Oocidentaesr He'^ by Art •^'^°""''- 
 
 « W^/«.»>v,-,a!; .v..®.'? J°"" » perpotuitfi en toute nrnnri.'.f/. 
 
 confirm t].Ja ,X"""»S«'-'igo ; Art : 22 ai 
 Se?^nbriI^d\Sa1ei'dS';f ^ '''' CompanyTh; 
 
 CoLany to co^ed^'tl^utg^r^^^^^^ ^'^-«the 
 
 " islots », the K n tSr« ll^?""' ^^?''' "^^^''^s, isles et 
 interfere 'with p Wte n^ ?- n' ^ •^' T'' ^? ^"derstood not to 
 ceded, over wficKo fe in^' A ^^T. ^^^^^ ^^''^^y ^on- 
 pany'; rights consitd^'Sy ^ 
 
 already established ; the S-Int ,,noL; • °".g"\o''wl rights 
 only have reference to m,'t£;i,"''°"*'^'"^^ m Art : 24, can 
 King closes h? Edict SZ«^""''V''',1"^^*"^«' "°«« the 
 " en'autre chofes ,X X>,-?'r remarkable words : " Sauf 
 P. 64 of this Factum? wf' ®' ^^uteui «n toutes » (see § 72 
 not owner of tlm ^^ l^^^s'owf n'°^'-^ '^''' l^'' ^^"g ^^' 
 Dotgi-anttothesSfor thlmrn^^r'"^' *^** ^^^ ^'>l^t 
 what we object to s Z li! •'"'"^^^'^ the unconceded lanSs ; 
 
 under the -Z ullFatent^l th^ "P ^^ *^« Defendants 
 ■^•■.KY ^ajcn^, to the mines on our lands. 
 
BB 
 
 OwNKfttHIP 
 
 or UiNis. 
 Sopinion 
 Council o/ 
 
 The SRmc. 
 
 — 208 — 
 
 of tho King : " Soront lea Jngos 6tablia cii tons lc3 dits lienx, 
 " tonus do juj^cr Hiuvantlcs loix ct Ordonnancoa du royaiunc, 
 " ot lea Otficlei-s df auivro et so confortnor i\ la Coutunio do la 
 " Prcvoto ct Vicomto do Paris." Hero tlioii is ft dc:;laratiou 
 incompatible with the supposition that tho Coinpuny should 
 liave any j^rcivtur rights in mines on private lands than tho 
 royalty ot one-tenth contemplated by the Ordinances of 1-413, 
 1471 and IGOl, which tho Courts of tho Company were ordered 
 to observe. Moreover, wo have only to glance at the 01 grants 
 made by the Intendant during tho Company's rulo iu Canada 
 (SCO Doc : Seign :, vol : 1, P. 1 to 79), in order to become 
 convinced that tho mines were not reserved ; tho only clause, 
 in respect of mines, to be found iu tho grants, is the usual obli- 
 gation to give notice. 
 
 Sec. ^3o« Tlic last lingering doubt, if any exist, 
 
 as to the Company's rights on private Ian Is, disappears on 
 penisalof tho Memoir addressed by Mr. Barroys, on behalf 
 of tho Company, to Lieutenant General, de Tracy <, and to 
 Governor Courcdlcs, and Intcndaiit Talon, on tho 15 July, 
 1005, enumerating, in 31 Articles, tho Company's rights, and 
 prayin*' for a recognition of them by the Superior Council. 
 (See J^l : et Ord:, vol : 1, P. 51). "Art. 10 of that Memoir 
 reads thus : 
 
 " Que les concessions qui Rc font k I'avenir seront donndes par mon dit 
 •• Sieur I'lntendant, d tela eena et rentes qu'il sera par lui jug6 A pro- 
 " pos en prisenco du dit agent ou comiris general de la dite Cotnpngnie, au 
 •' nom de laquelie tous les litres de concessions seront pnss6s." 
 
 To that article tho Superior Council answered : 
 
 " Rien ne pnrait plus conforme aux intentions de Sa Majestfi ; ainsi il 
 Mmble trds-iuste d'accorder ce qui est demand^ par cet article." 
 
 It thus appears that, even for lands to be thereafter con- 
 ceded, tho only condition which the Company had power to 
 annex to the grant was the payment of such cens et rentes, or 
 annual dues, as the Intendant should fix ; and lest any other 
 burthen should be entailed upon the grant, the Intendant 
 alone should be authorized to make the grant ; and the Supe- 
 rior Council declares that nothing can be more conformable 
 with tho intentions of His Majesty. There is little room for 
 supposing that such grants by tlie Intendant would not have 
 transmitted the mines to the censitaires, subject to tho one- 
 tenth royalty. 
 
— 209 _ 
 
 Sec. 236 whni 
 
 effect of tljoE.liclcro«li„„,TV, '""•'' ''" 'I'MlRlit of llio "*"■"'■■' 
 e«.ng„,.i,i„ „,„ Company, L"<|t^„'?;'.'«. ";,D<«on,bc,-, 1J74 ■"»"".:; 
 
 Sec. 237 -A 
 
 the King issued the two t&lTl^Vl ^"^' "P°" which The ««.. 
 <?< (?/•</: , vol: 1 p qutn! '^^T "^^"^^ d^ Marl,, faoe irj . 
 
 ton than rf tUre de redevani ^^'.V^ ''"^ other condi- 
 the King ratified qnito a numhl?:.7°" *''° ^ J»lj 1711-1 
 by the Governor a\d I,' "£7^ ^^ "!?''^-'"'^"'> '^^^^^^ 
 to mines, tiian the usual obllStJnn nf- °- ''^^'''^ condition, as 
 Kmg expressly mentions and^confirms ^Jw^ k^ "^° 5 '^"d the 
 notice, as one of tJie conditions oflho "*.* obligation to give 
 
 iui ^«" ,8<^ pointedly drawn to th« 1„?."°°^'°" ^^^ t^^c King 
 thathedidnotcon8i:dertlm?nJ„.V "'*"''''' ^"o must infer 
 «V the Mines. I i r /fe a resi^va. 
 
 15 March, 1732, (see M : eeOrd- ^ ?^ /'' ^""cil, of the 
 marks the King's intention fhatfh; sl? •"• ■^' ,^- ^3^) ^'earh 
 trustee for Bettlement-purpos^ Vruf ®f'g'!«>r should be a mere 
 he domaine utile, ih^e £%' of «nl""i^ ^^-^^ «^ P«rt Tf 
 transmitted to tho cmeiiai^^ '"^^ ^'''««*«« t/<e7?being 
 
 Sec !^K TO- 
 
 beeamepe;;S^?h;ianT:ag^^^^^^^^^^ -the country x.. ..„,. 
 
 guarded, when He undfrtook tn I„ ?'^®''-^'^" '^^ame more 
 charter of the « CW^^n^'XwLS'T".^^^ '^ tl^^ 
 had been more cautious^ driwn ^^ ^f^^ntale, » 
 " CW ^Moo/^ » in ijt "" J ^awn than that of the 
 
 when He charte s the -Oom^^L ^n ^"f t^° Sovereign 
 
 iriT, merely giving to tW ?S ^^'^'^^^ in Angus ' 
 
 themeelves.'^sEouff nri L^T??"^ «?cJ» ™ines --. i? -' 
 
 es^si^ould open up du^rinrthe%™S 
 
 V4 iiicir 
 
or Miaul. 
 Bditi it Oe- 
 donhancii 0/ 
 Canada. 
 CoHMisaioiil 
 0/ Govemori 
 »ad latba- 
 danU. 
 
 The lame. 
 
 — 810 — 
 
 wiv?1eiro« ; mi the Kin;^ expressly orders, M ho had done 
 witli »««" Otmpagnie den Imla ^Wuknlaha, tlmttlio Lawa 
 nml O lliianccrtoftho Ki.i{,'.loiu, m\ thu Custom of Paries 
 Bhall be observed iu all things («i'o K^'«t ot A»«K"Bt, 17U, 
 art : 7 and 15, Kd : t< 0,d : vol : 1, P. 377). Tlio existence 
 of that Company is reco^'nized by an Ordmanco ot tlie Intcn- 
 dant, llocqnarU in April, 1733 (»ei3 /i/ : at Ord : , vol : 2, I . 
 374) and the Company seoinH to have been a mero tradini; 
 corporation, and to have subsiritcd until the ccnquc t of the 
 Country, for wo find enrc},'i8tered hero no Ldict tor tlieir sup- 
 proBsion ; but their hold upon the po 1, or upon anythiiig ebc 
 than tho commerce de ciston seems to have been more uuam- 
 nary than real, for we constantly find justice administerod in 
 the KinK^ own name by Otlicers of his own aiiKtintinent, and 
 all the grants arc made by the Inte-idant iu the King s name, 
 with stmulations in tho King s favor, and requiring to bj con- 
 firmed by the King himself, as was tho ease with the veiy 
 6ci"Tiiory now called Rigaud-Vuudrcuil ; and the I.itendant 
 continues, as before, to require a mere notice to bo given, not 
 to the Company, but to tho King, of all mines lonnd \yithm 
 the extent ot the grant. Assuredly there la nothing in the 
 charter of that Company to justify : he be' lef, which the Defen- 
 dants affect to hold that the Company's charter made any 
 alteration in tho Laws of the Kingdom, in respect of mines. 
 
 The Bam. ScC. 239. Some further light is thrown upon this 
 
 subject by an inspection of tlvo several Commsbions held by 
 Oommiiilon the Governors and Intcndants of Canada. The only instni- 
 of Gorernon . j ^i^g mature of such Commissions, rcfornng directly or 
 5:;j" Sctly to mines, and to be fonnd in ih^MUsct Ofmnan- 
 
 CCS are the two Commissions of dc Ckamplam of the lo Octo- 
 j m ; • w iftlQ race vol ' 8. V. 11) «'nd of the 15 February, 1624> 
 * <^*-.^-.ber 1612 ^ee voK 3, ^.^^^) ^^ j,.n,a,, 1654 
 
 race vol • 3 P. 17), cf Beauharnois, as Intendaiit. tl..^ 1 
 &I, li02 (see v^l : 3, P. 66), ui Baudot, the El4. „ ^^ . u- 
 aant,ofthelJanuary, ^705, see vol : 3, P. t \ '^a 0^ 
 Xon, as Jntendant, of the 31 March, 1710 (see vol : 3, P. 
 63) The two Commissions of de Champlaxn (the Country 
 b'l^v then a wilderness) contain the following injunction : 
 
 .-^ KJT-r en la dlte tcrro ferine, soigneusomcnt rechercher et reconnal- 
 V • "t x)rto- •'■'> mines d'or, d'argent, cuivro et autres ni6toux et 
 ,,. ■ '; .«Pa^.refouHlcr, tirer.purgeret affiner, pour are convertis, 
 '■ " '. .. * .:„„! .,.,'Ji ast nrescrit oar les Edits et ReKlements 
 
 " ? .c d - 'st'. oJon etain<5i -u'il est present par les Edits et R^glements 
 •' de sa ■■:u '-fu, i8t6, et ainri ^t par nous sera ordonn6. 
 
- Ml ^ 
 
 n'«l.tt 1.0 " r ;:in''7 ""^'''"« >'" -^ ^'" -^ ^-^^^^^ ^- assort a' - 
 
 Vt';!.c' t,-own domai ; \ o"' ;;:^ m IX^'-'r^^' "''' T' '-"""•• 
 I'olic<> nvrr thu inin..H „ I, . i ^ • • ^ "*'^*'''<* " nVlit of ^mi^^ 
 
 IRIRtP 
 MiMII. 
 illDITl IT Ol- 
 
 troas„r.« shoi Id Z i' LT"'"' '''", "'>'''"-^' *<^ ^^'« that those ""-"•'o 
 King's iominnnrare: ^' ^''''^'^Pl<^^n \ tu Z>my, thc/>.»y.. 
 
 '=<''n'ne il e^t preterit par Ho^(Lzl.-.: '"'"'^'' ^'' convertir «i «,«„<. 
 
 w^/a,/^ ct nm.irnux, pour lui iidef A sunnnrt. r i "''^r''«'> «"•" «"<rr, 
 a* chnrgo lui apporte." supporter Its autrcs d6pcn8e8 quo 
 
 iiihi.I'/^f^^fi"^' '* 'M*''^'"' ^'^^^8 mininc matters na hoin„ -^*"''' ''"'". 
 
 "■gl.t of police »„d IXdonl? .iS'T '' ' "»''''"!',"^<1 
 
 Intcniants i„8tT«,r"d VuM,t '//"'^ ^'"8 «n H.o tl.rco 
 " do I103 driits dmJ&XfT\\ ^ ^'^ "■ T'rctptim 
 
 ^//•o<^« dc dix voxir cnf oMZIi castors »\.c, &c, &c. » ; tlio 
 on nnncs ; U KL fn- fh Z'V;'';''!i* " *^'" ^"'^■^^"th royalty 
 and ZW.']W 1 rinr4.f an<ror ^^'^^ «'^^ 
 
 J.HVO classed the Kin.'s n"a!t/of o"^^^^ ^'"^ ^^-^"-' 
 
 wo halo^t'adVsrtcd?/^^^^ ''" ^""r^'*'- -'^'^ -^-^ 
 
 near I)siroli /^Sith,. ? • '^ 'I'^eronce between the irrants 
 
 cTn^da{sZ'r22^^^^^^ present limits of Kwe 
 
 make it p'ain to our mi'ml tKi ' V § .L^^ '^"^ Factum), 
 
 d^rot.7"4'''°fr-'''^ 
 
~ 212 — 
 
 ■or iitsut. 
 Whal Law, 
 govemi ease, 
 Fbbnch or 
 
 Bnglisb 7 
 
 metals, and to the light inherent in the Head of every State 
 to compel the working of the mine for His own and the public 
 benefit. 
 
 OHAFTER V. 
 
 fKENCn LAW GOVKBNS THIS CASK. 
 
 Frtnch Law 
 governs case. 
 
 Sec. 240.— A 
 
 which we should have 
 enquiry as to which of 
 
 question, 
 
 perhaps discussed before now, is the 
 
 the two Laws. French or English, shoulcl govern the decision 
 in this case. Tliere is no no essential difference between the 
 two Laws, as regards this cise, as we shall presently shew ; 
 however we shall devote a short space to that enquiry. "We 
 shall not dilate upon the effects of art : 37 of the Capitulation 
 of Montreal, which was g anted unrestrictedly by General 
 Amherst, and which secured to the French Seigniors and 
 censitaires of this colony the fnll and free enjoyment of all 
 their property, real and personal. Nor shall we pause to 
 shew how that enjoy ment would be incomplete, and the 
 Article violated, if French-Canadian Seigniors, holding from 
 the French Crown, in trust for their future censitaires, lands 
 and Mines, even of gold and silver, were debarrred from 
 executing that trust, and made to violate the very condition of 
 their grants by witholding, from their future censitaires, for the 
 benefit of the'English Crown, mmes of gold and silver intended 
 for the censitaires, — or if mines, forming but one undivided 
 whole with that real estate, could be governed by any other 
 Law than that which affects the real estate itself. Neither 
 shall we dilate upon the effect of Art : 42 of the same capitu- 
 lation, which required that the inabitants of this colony^ should 
 continue to bo governed by the same Laws which had 
 thitherto prevailed therein, and to which General Amherst 
 made answer : " They become subjects of the King." It is 
 also unnecessary to refer to the Treaty of Versailles. All 
 these would serve our purpose ; but we nave the highest and 
 the strongest evidence, namely, the settled, unvarving 
 jurisprudence of this country, for nearly a centnry, establishing 
 the fact, that property, real and personal, in this country, for 
 so much of it, at least, as consists in Soigniorie8,ha8 never 
 been governed by any other rule than the public and private 
 Law of France. 
 
 
— 213 — 
 
 lawoftZtfas^t^^^^^^^^ that tl.o Ow.;.a.H,n 
 
 vol : 1, ch : 4 P ;fP°""^cd by I3lackstonk, Commentaries''^ M>«^- 
 & ^0 n,,rl T ' ii''^' ^"'^^y, Prerogative ch • -^ P os o^ ^^'^ ^<»w 
 mip«;' ''''^„^«'^^ Mansfield, 2 CowmrV' oaq J hi" ^^•,^.^^<"'*'-«.c«v 
 question ; tliose anthoritica nvn ,T,.„ ■ ' ' • "V' ^^'"^^^^ this Fbuob or 
 
 of their OM'n. thoso ro^ro i n , \ "^^« existing Laws 
 
 theKin^. And Xn S •/"^'''* ""'^I altered by 
 
 may, inicd. alter L exttinTi'^^^t *^^^^ ^^'"^ ^in^ 
 
 ce(/edeountr;,theyrirXS 1/ ''"^f*^^^ <>^^''— 
 the Consfitution of tho Pnn7,» ""7*^""" "i«ao according to 
 
 Lords and Commons an A^I' * « ^"^- ^^^^^^ ^^^ *^**^' ^^°"' 
 lature lmvi„rtK;,2f^^^^^^^^ of tl j, ^^.^^ ., 
 
 one, then, imngine, that tho fc;»l *''' I^ranches. Let no 
 
 ofOctober,1763 6f Illl««rS "',^2; '"' "^^''^ Proclamation 
 of the Sovereign ,i^^^^^^^ ^^^T^ ^Y J'is feeble echo 
 
 published in French havn!„ ^?^'j^'!^^er, 1764, not even 
 Law, in civil matters nnon . f "'^'v '^ <^"g'-afting English 
 True it is, that the CoS?ts a d '^l?'"''' ^^ '^'^ «^*""'r.>'- 
 General iJ/t,,^ay,wer^ in theLl^n?i"^ appointed U 
 
 and criminal, by EnSrl J. ^^f^ ^"^t«' civil 
 
 out the right/Even the T;. "' '''° ^^^* ^«^« not 'make 
 General unSer GXmor^«lM„'''''''' ^^'''''^ Attorncy- 
 that English Law harLfwn-'f'^''^' compelled to admit 
 So8tron|ly had nublie nnJn- .'"^•■^'^"ccd into the colony. 
 England tha in 176fl aT " n ^^"^ <^"'cction grown hi 
 General jr^ley flrmaflv «3'^ ^^ ".'"^ ^c>.^r, and^Solicitir 
 trifling porti^nTnW^^ that a very 
 
 th sconitry ; and as ear?y a 1770 A,«''? "^troduced inti 
 others were entrusted by 4vLnor ^wS'^' -{^'T''^'^ '"^"^ 
 preparing for the ouininn^r.iT Car^e^on with the task of 
 fn%la^d,a draHZa^^^^^^^ ^^ *^- ^-wn 
 
 Canada. Upon CvgneTs draft nffln ^' «PP'icable to 
 5amo«, Advocate Sera] ^/>.^ '"^ ^!'*^'"' ^''' ^«^f* 
 Gcneral,;ndiifr llSrW^f 9 fVl'^'Tlmvlow, Attorney 
 reported that Article 37 oni^^^^^^^ unanimously 
 
 virtue of the Law of Nation L?P'^"'^V°" ^^ Montreal, by 
 pie all rights of> roper ^Lm Iv't?'^ *" the Canadian'peo^ 
 
 Conquest^ogethe^Si £n,?dlfc '1' '\^'^'' ^^^'^^ 
 and, as a conseqnence and iii ''2'^ ?"*'^*^c^ 
 ensured to them all tl^ Laws tlmf l!7 °^ *^^' P^'oposition 
 secured that propeftrHe^eotl^f'*/:''?*!^'' ^^'^ned and 
 Act » was paiseS bf hfw IV'r ^-S'? ^^^^' *^° " ^^''^^^^^ 
 t^e old Ere^nch Law^ ^^'l^Zfol^'iftZ^^-^^^^^ 
 
OWUKRSHIP 
 
 OF Mines. 
 What Law 
 govemt case, 
 Fbincb or 
 Enqlisb ? 
 
 The same. 
 
 I 
 
 I ' 
 
 The same. 
 
 
 — 214 — 
 
 Every one must agree tliat the cliange was for the better. It 
 is a singular fact, however, in connection with this matter, 
 that the desire in England to do justice to the Canadians kept 
 pace with the growth of discontent in the thirteen colonies, 
 and that, both culminating together, that justice was linally 
 done to Canada, that had nearly been denied her on the 
 insensate clamors of th.; other American colonies about 
 toleration of the Popish creed, the French tongue and French 
 Laws. So far as the Laws were concerned, they might have 
 discovered, had they felt so inclined, that the two systems are 
 not BO far apart, as they, no doubt, imagined. 
 
 Sec. 241. We may, perhaps, be toll, that the 
 
 claim of the Sovereign to mines, especially to gold and silver- 
 mines, is a prerogative of the Crown, inseparable from the 
 right of coinage, "and from the Crown, and not to bo governed 
 by any other law than the Public Law of England. Now we 
 deny that the right of coinage is in?eparable from the Crown ; 
 the early history of England is replete with instances of private 
 individuals having exercised that right ; BlacMone, who 
 refers to some of the cases admits that the right of c( inage is 
 not inseparable from the Ciown (see Blackstonk, Gommen- 
 taires, book 1, ch : 7, P. 277). In any case, the obnoxious 
 Patent is not, as we have already stated, under the Great beal 
 of England, where the right of coinage exists ; it purports to 
 be under the Great Seal of Canada, bearing a date at which 
 Canada, unquestionably, had not the right of coinage. 
 
 Sec. 242, Apart from all that, our answer to the 
 
 objection is quite plain and conclusive. Blaokstone, book 1, 
 ch : 7, P. 239 & 240 Chitty, PrcrogaUve, ch : 3, i . J5, .^b 
 & 30, and the British Encvulopedia, vho. Prerogative, divide 
 the prerogatives of the Crown into direct or major Preroga- 
 tives, and Licidental or Minor Prerogatives. According to 
 Blackstone, the right of coinage is an incidental or minor 
 Prerogative ; and, according to all writers on the subject, the 
 direct or major Prerogatives are essential to the very existence 
 of the monarchy, constitute the pillars thereof, and are the 
 inseparable attributes of the Crown, and of the political 
 capacity of the Sovereign; the direct or major Preroffatives 
 are engrafted on every eoil, wherein the flag is planted. Un 
 the otlfer hand. Incidental or Minor Prerogatives are of such 
 a nature that, without them, the sovereign power may be 
 
 I • 
 
le better. It 
 
 this matter, 
 
 madians kept 
 
 een colonies, 
 
 ) was finally 
 
 her on the 
 
 ►lonies abont 
 
 e and French 
 
 might have 
 
 systems are 
 
 3l I, that the 
 Id and silver- 
 ble from the 
 ) bo governed 
 >nd. Now we 
 Q the Crown ; 
 ices of private 
 ickstone, who 
 of c(inage is 
 NE, Gommen- 
 he obnoxious 
 the Great Seal 
 t purports to 
 ate at which 
 )inago. 
 
 answer to the 
 STONE, book 1, 
 3, P. 25, 26 
 ogative, divide 
 ajor Preroga- 
 According to 
 ntal or minor 
 he subject, the 
 very existence 
 and are the 
 ' the political 
 • Prerogatives 
 ])Iantea. On 
 28 are of euch 
 owcr may be 
 
 \f 
 
 — 215 — 
 
 ceS%L^^^^^^ only and do not 0.-.v,as„r. 
 
 existing code of Laws r, S. Z'r P conquered, having an °^ »''''<•". 
 
 in the manner preTcribedb, ihTc' ".t' • ^"^''^^^^^cd tl.ere, "'t'/^^"' 
 already mentioned ' ^^ *^" Constitution, as wo haveEcHT' 
 
 with the'Edfcto Jui^\^Joi1 D^ 'T? ^" ««"f«rmity 
 
 questlonwithinthescJJe^f SencYi Lawfo°'* ^'■^"« ^'"^ 
 have chosen their ground and w. L ^ ^"'' adversaries 
 
 that ground. Whf can obTeot m li T/^^'^'P*"^ ^^^ttle on 
 gefandants. But does not tSM? ^^^^^Certainly not the 
 Patent, implicitly dedaJethaf 7 ^^''*' ^",^^^«^ ^y the 
 preference by rem.irTnf M!^. *^'® T^^"" «^a" ^avi the 
 
 in the very last phase oHi Si -Tl-"^'".^^^' ^^'^^^ '^ 1«33, 
 the creation of d^ SnSir^p^""^^^?,*'^ ^^ France before 
 Martin Huze was exoreX nr^r. ".''T', ^''?' ^^^and-Master 
 Paris from assuminSSLS?'?^,^^ ^''^ Parliament of 
 priatin. the owne'f/lhf so U? Waf rno?'i' ''T 'T'' 
 expressly enjoined on the Grand TuLfl ! °^ ^l th^t Arret 
 
 was not the Ordinance JCifx? of U7w''f And finally 
 preWe to the owner of ^^el^ ^^^^t^^Z^ 
 
 tative of the Sovereign here rlclS/'';^ W^'^ ^^P''^^^"- 
 ^< denombrement &1, &e from „n '^ ^'''^'^'^^^' '^^''^^ 
 Canadian Seigniors ? By what o^hpr T """^.i generations of ' 
 LawofFrancShasthe^vletnho ^'^ ^^'*." ^^'^ ^"^lic 
 and in his euits-atlaw iTSr^^^^^ 
 
 ;.pon the late C^urWS;!. tl'^'l"? T'-H""""""-. «>•»' 
 -hen. upon .ho Superior Co-^'r,: A^a'j;Z^;X\n,=: 
 
m 
 
 OwxcasBiP 
 OF Minis. 
 What Law 
 ffovenu case, 
 Fren-cr or 
 Ekglhh ? 
 
 
 — 216 — 
 
 Conseil Souverain f Did the Cowbell Souverain in the good old 
 days of Engl ish-hatinw Louis XIV, dispense justice on the prin- 
 ciples of tlia Public Law of England ? Finally what means 
 the Seigniorial Act by calling the Sovereign a Seigneur 
 Suzerain ? "We deem it unnecessary to pursue this enquiry 
 further. If we have done so thus far, it is because a French 
 News-paper published in this City, has taken it upon itself to 
 state tliat the Public Law of England should govern this 
 matter. 
 
 
 OH A-PTER VI. 
 
 ENGLISU LAW MORE FAVORABLE TO THE OWNER OF 
 THE SOIL THAN FRENCH LAW. 
 
 Sec. 245. 
 
 mo«"fovora. ^CC. :554t>. ^Wo promised to show that it matters 
 
 ble, even, litt'c by wh'ch of the two Laws, the question under discussion 
 
 ihaa Frtneh ^yQy^\^ x^q decided, and that by the one, as well as by the 
 Law to owner _ _ ^ •' - i •/ 
 
 of Eoi!. Other, the Plaintift's must equally succeed. Let us now redeem 
 
 that promise. For a long time, the mining interest had 
 been weighted down and dwarfed, in England, by the 
 pretensions of the Crown as to the ownership of what some 
 craters are pleased to call the royal metals of gold and silver ; 
 an incessant struggle had been going on between the owner 
 of the soil on the one hand and the Sovereign and his favorites 
 on the other, until that revolution broke out which drove 
 the Stuarts from the throne. Suffice it to say, that one of the 
 very first cares of the tirst Parliament which assembled under 
 William and Marv, was to settle this vexed question ; an 
 act was passed, 1 "W. & M. ^h : 30, § 4, declaring that : 
 
 " No mine of Copper, Tin, Iron, or Lead, shall hereafter be adjudged 
 reputed or taken to be a Royal Mine, although GK>ld or Silver may be 
 extracted out of the same." 
 
 As gold and silver, except gold in alluvial form, are seldom, 
 if ever, found nnassociated wiui one of the four baser metals 
 named in the statute, in greater or in lesser quantities, the 
 controversy was thns virtually ended : and from that day 
 forth dates the unrivalled pro.iperity of the mining interest in 
 England. Having an eye to that statute, and to the possibility ot 
 the very question under discussion being raised, we took the 
 precaution of alleging, in our Declaration, P. 9 and 10 of 
 
I at it matters 
 
 question ; au 
 
 — 217 — 
 
 " bearing oo.rte "j „,i'"'"' S"" «»<! otl'or S™ ''^'S.'' ''^'KMy. 
 
 Sec. 346 c 
 
 following upon ,ti3j„y^JJ»'"'oAmenoan Edition, has the S""'" '» 
 
 before the passing of the statnto Tm'' '*^' ^^^^^ centuriel^^K'''"' Sta- 
 Lawforgottenbvthp F^^nJ; 1 , William and IWa^v- '"'«' " 
 
 oftheiVenchS^^i^fiW''^?^^^^ tho O.^- ' ^E"*^""*!!! 
 
 had BGtfuf fi • ^^ . ^*^ '^'200 Jost sio-ht of l»r S ^fdmances settles tho 
 
 twelfth ye»r of , ho IS;,"Swl>^r?'^P«»«Ji^^^^ 
 
 ho Tower-records. T„ the preS^j^^i,^ ""^ ^^^P^^' of 
 the Records here citod T i. ^ author states : « AM 
 
 " mli. • ^ i^'^'^^'''^ the 3 a. in his pi^^,- ^' .^"^""^ says : 
 i. ,7?/?;;^" ^^'' *^«^lftl^ year o^h rei^n l/T^ ^^^^^ at dsil 
 
OWMEBiaiP 
 
 or MiHii. 
 BHOLun Law 
 fATorable to 
 Plaintiffi. 
 
 The same. 
 
 — 218 — 
 
 "/or the common henefit of the Healm, granted for liim Lis 
 " heirs and successors, free liberty to a'l and every person of 
 " this Realm, that they and every of them might dig for mines 
 " of Gold, Silver and hid Treasure, within \m or tlieir own 
 " soyl, by the view and oversight of snch Clerks and Officers 
 " as ho and his heirs should api)oint, and extract, fine, and 
 " coyn the same at his Exchange and Mint, at tlteir proper 
 '' costs, to augment the money of the Realm ; rendnng to 
 " him, his heirs and sncco sors the full third part of all the 
 " pnre Silvery and the full moiety of all the Gold which should 
 " be so digged, fined and coined by them, " reserving the 
 " rosidne to themselves : whicli he likewise ratified by his 
 " Letters- Patent in the 15th year of hia reign, as this memo- 
 " rablo Record (not hitherto published) will inform us, now 
 " worthy publike Contideration, to excite all ingenuous per- 
 " sons to a diligent scrutiny after sich Mines ; to recruit, sup- 
 " plv the extraordinary want of Gold and Silver Coyne, to 
 " advance the Trade, improve, pay Land rents, and defray 
 *• tho extraordinai'y puhhke Taxes of the Kingdom." , 
 
 S'ra'p/tentof ^^C, 247. — Prynne, then, gives the text of the 
 Kdwabd W\ Letters-Patent of the 15 Edward III, which recite the statute 
 reciting and 12 EowABD III, adverted to by Prynne. Those Letters-Patent 
 run thus : 
 
 confirming 
 fiat Statate. 
 
 " BEX Omnibus ad quos, &c., £c., salutem. Sciatis, quod cum in 
 " Parliament) nostro apud Westinon. Anno regni nostro duodecimo convo- 
 " cato, considerate tarn nostri quam populi regni nostri communi utilitate, 
 " ad instantem requisitionem Communitatis ejusdem regni nobis per Peti- 
 " tionem suam coram nobis et ConcHlo nostro in eodam Parliamento fiic- 
 " tam ; de asscnsu Preelatorum, Gomitum, Baronum, et aliorum de Conci- 
 " lio nostro tunc ibidem existentium, concesserimus universis et singulis dc 
 " dicto regno, qudd ipsi et eorum quilibet solum suum proprium pro Mina 
 " Auri et Argenti, et pro Thesauro abscondito quaerendo et inveniendo 
 " fodere, et dictam Minam Auri et Argenti per visum et testimonium cujus- 
 " dam Glerici per dos vol hseredes nostros ad hoc deputandi purgare et per- 
 " affinare ; ac dictum Thcsaurum inventum per visum ejusdum Clerici extra 
 " solum trahcre possunt pro suae libito voluntatis : Ita qudd totum Argen- 
 " turn sic purgatum et peraflinatum ad cunca nostra et hsaredum nostrorum 
 " deferatur Gustodibus Gambii Tcl Gambiorum nostrorum cut hseredum 
 " nostrorum per Indentur. indd faciend. ibidem liberand. ad monetam indd 
 ** cudcnd. Et qudd singuli Dorainorum praBdictorum omnes sumptus et Gus- 
 " tas qui in praemissis apponendi fuerint, de suo precio facient et apponant. 
 " Quddque tertia pars monetae sic cussae nobis et Haeredibus nostiis rema- 
 " neat ; et duae partes ejusdem Dominis, qsr-rum solum iilud fuerit, libe- 
 " rentur : Et qudd totum Aurum praedictum sic purgatum et peraffinatum, 
 " et Thesaurus inventus, per praefatnm Glericum et Dominos, qui Aurum 
 " illud sic purgaverint et Thesaurum invenerint, vel illos quos ad hoc 
 
for lum Ilia 
 vy person of 
 lig for mines 
 )r their own 
 ind Officers 
 It, fine, and 
 lieir proper 
 
 rendnng to 
 irt of all the 
 vhich should 
 eaerving the 
 tified by his 
 this memo- 
 •m ns, now 
 ;eniiou8 per- 
 recruit, sup- 
 ',r Coyne, to 
 
 and defray 
 ft. . 
 
 text of the 
 ;e the statute 
 Jttcrs-Patent 
 
 s, quod cum in 
 odccimo convo- 
 muni utilitate, 
 nobis per Peli- 
 arliamento foe- 
 >ruin de Conci- 
 is et singulis dc 
 prium pro Mina 
 ) et inveniendo 
 imonium cujus- 
 purgare et per- 
 im Clerici extra 
 d totum Argen- 
 dum nostrorum 
 n But haaredum 
 d monetam ind^ 
 sumptus et Gus- 
 3nt et apponant. 
 as nostris rema- 
 llud fuerit, libe- 
 et peraffinatum, 
 nos, qui Aurum 
 >3 quos ad hoc 
 
 219 — 
 
 
 "inventura extra so?.? J'''"'""''' P"riare et norJm "^"'"'"''"J^smo. 
 " occasion™ velimDP^r f'"™ '" '"o^A PrLS .""!;' ' «* Thesiurum 
 
 " peraffinatum fld^r 'J"'' • ^'^ qu<id totum Ar^fn/^" Mmistrorum nos' 
 '•tumet per?ffina^l"'*r,Sl™P^«'cl>-cr!^^^^^^ sic purgatum et 
 
 " dictorum'^hredum^n f Thesaurus inventus aTt""" •"""''«'• P^^S^' 
 :: sic oussB^,S:SoS"J-'^^^^^^^^ nostrum%t 
 
 " sauri inventi nob «^f <«t'"s Auri sic purkt ?t n^l^*"^ l" P'" "onetw 
 " dietis liberetu? ei 1 A""'?'''''"^ "ostri8^remLenn?*"f' et dictj The- 
 ;; Domini vereor„malES"f"?'- '" ^^'^^ supSt^ Ir'^'lT"? '"''^ 
 ;: h^redes nostrir/ofeSf. "^?'--nt 'v7ffL3jtt'^J'^!' 
 
 " Thesaurum .-nven um ilT"/',* ^'''*'' Clerici nostriDu?lT'1'°"''F'«'^'«t« 
 
— 220 — 
 
 Jp'mi*""^ in England, every m«»n may work mines of gold and silver, 
 
 Oolo"mimi»o "^accompanied by coprer, lead, iron or tin, on payment of a 
 
 Act. SiiaHio- royalty of one fifteenth. The effect of the 1 William and 
 
 HiAt Act. Mary, gh : 30, § 4, has only been to abolish the royalty, 
 
 BATwn"' wherever the precious metals are accompanied by copper, lead, 
 
 iron or tin. "We presume therefore that Fnglish Law is 
 
 much more favorable than French Law to the position of the 
 
 Plaintiffs. Under English Law, there is no Koyal Permission 
 
 required at all ; that Koyal Permission has been 
 
 granted, and in advance, by Edward III ; in ninety-nine 
 
 instances out of the hundred, there is no royalty to pay, 
 
 because the gold and silver are associatei with copper, lesd, 
 
 iron and tin ; and, in the very few cases wherein a royalty 
 
 can be claimed by the Crown, the English royalty is only 
 
 one fifteenth while the French royalty is one tenth. 
 
 Gold UiDing 
 Act of 1864. 
 
 J' 
 
 Ijl 
 
 Sec, 249. Our Own Canadian Statute, " The 
 
 " Gold Mining Act of 1864: ", the 27 and 28 Victoria, ch : 9, 
 as amended by the 29 Virtoiia, ch : 9 {The gold mining 
 amendement Act of 1868) and by the Quebec Statute, 31 Vic- 
 toria, ch : 31 (Tlie Gold-Mining amendment Act of 1868^, has, 
 in our opinion, made the matter very plain. But, owing to 
 the fact that the latter Statute appears to have been touched 
 by some hand friendly to the *' dk LtRY-Patcnt,^^ we decline 
 to enter here into the particulars of the bearing which those 
 Statutes have upon this case, lest in the next or some early 
 session of the Quebec Legislature, wc might bo treated to the 
 luxury of another " Gold Mining Amendment Act," meeting 
 all our reasoning on the existing Statutes. "We deem it safer 
 to vGiQYVQ our remarks on this head for the ear of the Court 
 in Banco. 
 
 OHAl^TER VII- 
 
 THE " DK LtEY-PATENT " VOIDED BY THE AllOLITH»N t'F 
 THE FEUDAL TENURE. 
 
 taiion, hell ^GC, iio\j, We have already seen, in the quotation 
 
 *i\*eg*'J'i°.*"from Merlin (P. 61 of this Factum), how the claim set up by 
 
 .daliburthen! certain ex-Seigniors of Hainault in France to an annual 
 
 rent called entre-^ena was repudiated by the Cour de Cassa- 
 
and silver, 
 
 Sayment of a 
 William and 
 the royalty, 
 copper, lead, 
 [lisn Law is 
 Deition of tho 
 ,1 Permission 
 has been 
 ninety-nine 
 Ity to pay, 
 copper, le:\d, 
 sin a royalty 
 '■alty is only 
 b. 
 
 itute, " The 
 itoria, ch : 9, 
 70W mining 
 tute, 31 Vic- 
 )f 1868), has, 
 'Ut, owing to 
 Bon touched 
 ' we decline 
 which those 
 some early 
 eated to the 
 3t," meeting 
 cem it safer 
 f tho Court 
 
 tTIoN t«F 
 
 he quotation 
 
 im set up by 
 
 an annual 
 
 r de CoBsa- 
 
 — 221 — 
 
 tion. The better to spiVp ♦!,« 1, • 
 
 whicJi had formerly been TZ.ll ^^^^ *''® ^"^ts. Ilainault °' »»•»«. 
 came under the DomiS of Frr '-'f ^«"»a"io Enm"re ?"""'?!"" 
 
 titution, no mine could bo ondned fn tt • ,^-^ ^^'^^ Cons-MMtm. 
 express permission of the .d / ^^''^l"«»lt witliout the°*"°'- 
 permission, while tlie FcMiXrt T '^"^'^^ ^<^" tS 
 
 had sometime.* exaetPfl nnl ^'"'"'® '"sted, the Sei/rnin^'"' "^o. 
 
 ^^rde f'«*va<Am,^wrXtft^^^^ before Jo 
 
 Seigniors in mines in Hainn„ff 1! V ' '^^*« l^fsessed by the 
 property, or me.ely^fSrrShte '"' ''"'' '''''' "s'^ts of 
 
 ^^roduced at Krof tt'tZr^'. f'^'f "^ ^- i 
 ^ej>. de Ugu. et de Juris, vho MiZ;C ^^ ^^''°'' 
 
 Sec. 25 J, — What ^;ff 
 
 rights claimed under the « nl lIp? "p '" '^'''' ^''"^'^^ ^^o 
 for which the seignio^^' of La^Sault f '?; ""^ "^« rights 
 There cannot be t^o eonflictW '"3" L^^^^^^ ^^^ entro.ce7^s i 
 at the same moment of time I m IrT ^0^'^ '^'"'^ ^^Jng 
 Plaintiffs cannot, at the samo iJtt / ^^^y-^<iientee8 and the 
 he other the mines, tb both rlo"'^ Possess the one the sdh 
 
 t'l ^"? ^"* ^"« «»bstance ; the on. ^"^''.'T ^'^"^^^ tha 
 without destroying the other A K^f "^-n"^' ^e taken away 
 finrdity of the pretensions of the n^/"?" ^""stration of the ab^ 
 cannot be foun^delsereretfan?^^^^^^^ this particular 
 
 Shakespeare, when Portia awards to '-^'^"''^ conception of 
 a^ut adds that he ^^"t^^'tT^Z^^ 
 
 ^eC. 252. The whole soirit nf r» r 
 
 the supposition of a joint ownershm T^ ^'V^'^'Law repels There can be 
 
OwHiuaip 
 or UiNM. 
 KiiioiiiaBUii 
 CODKT And 
 their 
 Judgment. 
 
 Seigniorial 
 'Goart,Jadg- 
 ineot nad 
 CadiWre hare 
 annihilated 
 Patent, eren 
 wereitava'i'i 
 grant. 
 
 The same, 
 
 — 223 — 
 
 bit such joint possesBion, and PonriER, propria, Part 2, ch : 1 
 No 16, eetabhshoa, what hardly needed yrooi, namely, that 
 there can be no two adverse poaeo aiona of the same thing. 
 
 feeC. aOO, Apart from the great authority of the 
 
 deciaion of the Cour d« Cassation above-referred to let us 
 see if we cannot find, in tlio " Seigniorial Act of 1864 " and 
 Its aincndcmcnts, and in the decisions of the Seigniorial Court 
 therenudor, sutHcient to convince the most sceptical, that, even 
 If the »DELEKY.Pa/c«r', were a valid instrument and had 
 conveyed tJio rights claimed under it, yet, on the day when 
 the cadastre of the Seigniory was deposited, those pretended 
 rights became a thing of the past and annihilated. Of th'j 
 men who made the solution of that grea* Feudal Problem a 
 lifelong study, yet lived to see tlieir labors crowned with 
 8ncces3, we shall say but litt'e, as they still live in our midst. 
 One figure, in that group of distinguished men, the 
 Attorney General of that day, stands out in bolder relief , 
 remarkable for the courage with which he grappled with, and 
 mastered, the difficulties of a position that, for half a century, 
 had embarrassed the minds of succeeding sta't-rmen hero, 
 biiffice It to say that the Seigniorial Court, the crowning act 
 in that grand and peaceful Canadian Eevolntion, deterged 
 trom our midst that blemish on the body politic;, which it re- 
 quired rivers of blood finally to blot out in France. 
 
 Sec, 2o4, ^The preamble of that act, 18 vict : ch ; 
 
 3 (0. S. for L. C. ch : 41), declares : « it is expedient to 
 " abolish alljFeudal rights and duties, whether bearing upon 
 " the Censitaire, or upon the Seignior " and that great advan- 
 tages must result from the *' substitution of a free tenure for 
 " that under which proi)erty hath heretofore been held. " 
 We have already shewn that the Roman Law, and its offshoot, 
 the Common Law of France, and the Laws, from time to 
 time, promulgated by the Sovereign, made no distinction 
 between mines of gold and silver, and mines of other metals; 
 and Mfrlin (cited at P. 61 et sea : of this Factum) conchisive- 
 ly established, and the Cour de Cassation held, that the 
 rights claimed by the Seigniors of Hainanlt for grants of 
 mining-privileges had been swept away by the abolition of 
 the feudal tenure in France. If, under the French Law, a 
 claim to mines on private lands were thus solemnly held to 
 be a feudal burthen in France, and extinguished in France 
 
art 2, ch : 1 
 
 amely, that 
 e thing. 
 
 jrity of the 
 1 to lot lis 
 1854 " and 
 iorial Court 
 1, that, ovon 
 nt and had 
 day when 
 J pretended 
 d. Of tba 
 Problem a 
 wnod with 
 onr midst, 
 men, tho 
 )lder relief, 
 d with, and 
 ' a century, 
 men hero, 
 owning act 
 , deterged 
 liich it re- 
 
 ! vict : ch ; 
 pedient to 
 aring upon 
 reat advan- 
 tenure for 
 en held. " 
 ts offslioot, 
 ti time to 
 distinction 
 cr metals; 
 Bonclnsive- 
 , that the 
 grants of 
 jolition of 
 ch Law, a 
 ly held to 
 in France 
 
 — 228 — 
 
 stsgtll^^S'tf ^f'^ro there, how can ft I , m ' 
 tenure her?, KUt et-fiJasl^ ^^"^^^ 
 
 iuroms the supposition. ^'^SmKroRui, 
 
 Spc 9^^? T^ Act. Fiosio. 
 
 ether « Se,^„, Z.»«-4,1,r<mfit'«"''''-. "" ""'*' 
 
 ^^•' •«''«•. &C., &c. 
 why, it is asked, wei-h th^ n 
 
 value the nghts of the Crown i^^ft^^^^ enjoined toThea.mo 
 
 & 19 of the Act sJmll tollmTUa'^, '"'g"'0'*'e8 ? Sections 18 
 among other sources ciKJL - ^Y^ sections approoriafprl 
 value^oftheCrowrrightra^^^^^^ oj the ceZTe^i 
 
 It 18 therefore clear that the inC L L .^ ^^'S'^o^'s riglits. 
 Act has been carried out aJd tln.^v^ preamble ot^the 
 land free from all feudal nS ZLT''^?'''' Possesses his 
 c«w«teerfioruD>n flifi«5o "^ • whether l.earinff unnn tul 
 
 rights whethe?claim:| bf til; ^Lf "• "°^'^^' ^'•" - Kudd 
 So much so indeed that sL^i^ Seignior or by the Crown 
 the soil shall thenceforlfS /Z^*' T ?''''''^«« *«••'"«> decK 
 and feudal duties a^SXr^mt ^'"''^^^ -S^'W^S 
 c<>n*^i^«^., substitutea SierefoT '^''' ^^^^^^ a S ' 
 
 the b^aiS cr:m&,-/,r:^^^^ ^"?-- - among 
 removed ; let us again Quotr. tL ^?' ^^<^ intended to he 
 to the Crown-rigSrUTtlS .r'^.'?^*^^« 6th section as 
 to value : " and^all o^i vall7T'?'r°""'« ^^^e ordered 
 
 '''''''''''''''' theGrantee ^Vv^^ J^ZfZ''£d;'':^ 
 
or MiMH. 
 SaioHiuRuii 
 Act. Sbionio 
 bial godbt 
 And Hi Judg< 
 meat. 
 
 The f amt 
 
 — 224 — 
 
 mines, contained in tho Original Grant to d« la Ooraendiera 
 and quoted bv tho Plaintiff, at P. 27 of thi« Factmn L li 
 ix'aervation of tU mine, ok it is not ; if it ia a reservation of 
 tijomnic8,it ,8 a nght that el.onld have been vahied under 
 eection 5 of the «ct and was abob-shed, and should have been 
 deducted as abolished, under sections 17 and 18 of tho act. 
 from the Soigiuorsnghts, in order to ascertain tho exact 
 amount of the capital ot i\xo rente conatituie due by tho cemi- 
 ^*rd for the perfect redemption of his soil from ill burthens 
 whatever ; but, ,f on the other hand, that injunction to give 
 notice contams no reservation of the mines, tlion, as we assert 
 under the decision ot the Seigniorial Court, did the mines pass 
 to the cenaitane with the sub grant made to him by the 
 sei-nior long before the issue ot tlie de Lf:Kv Pat<ne. " Indeed 
 such 13 the decision of the Seigniorial Court, in answer to tho 
 39th Question submitted to that T.ibunal l.y tho LawOfflccil 
 of the Crown under tlvat fct, as found reported at P. 79 (a) 
 ot the lower- Canada Reports of 185G, vol : A. 
 
 Sec. 256. The 
 
 39 h Question runs thus 
 
 .. r " h T'°"^ deeds of concession of lands held en roture, coTenants arc 
 found tending to establish, in favor of the Seigniors, reservations similar 
 or analogous to the following, viz : 
 
 " y I A reservation of timber for the building of tho manor-house, mills 
 " und churches without indemnity. ' 
 
 !! ^ « 4 '■eservation of firewood for the use of the Seignior 
 
 "3=' A reservation of all marketable timber. 
 
 terialstf'th^.r„r£." ''^'" """' ^"""^«' ""'^' '''''' «"^ ^^»>- "- 
 
 &c 
 
 &c., &c. 
 
 &c. 
 
 .. aJI^""- '*t1f '■*««r''«'''"'».or any and which of them, legally made, and 
 
 do they give tho Seigniors a right to be indemnified fo^ the suppressMof 
 
 " them TO BE EFFECTED by the aaifl Seigniorial Act." fproKsu n ij 
 
 It will thus be seen tliat tho questionwas fairly and square- 
 ly put to the Seigniorial Court, as to whether A rem-vation 
 Cr mines could legally be made by the soignior, or in other 
 words, wheherm making the sub grant the eeignior could 
 legally withold from the tenant tho mines contained in the 
 land. Moreover the question acknowledges in tho most posi- 
 tive terms thit al! reservations, even those legally made; are 
 Bnpprcpsed by the Seigniorial Act. 
 
 Tlie legal Proposition submitted by tho Crown, in rcfe- 
 
lior, or in other 
 
 Crown, in rcfe- 
 
 rouoe to that 
 
 — 325 — 
 
 :: 'I." w*"™?rz:.;?HJs sir;' ,"» r"?*- »' ''""«' ">' ?r "'" 
 
 moreover, such re.sorvatinnlTnV T"i '='""'<=''ch without indemnity • '»>«'' J"dg. 
 
 " -l^t'^Vr P--'^^« StE„;^^^^^^^ «ood. and rre- '"-• 
 
 "not rocaV^od^hrZ^" „1 "'•"^r. •■""• »''-'«« of the SoiRnior haa 
 :; the feudal cr/rj 'whiXS'rL'V"''^''""'. '« ^•'° P^Sle S 
 
 " ^^^^ -'I -nnotU rr, ::;;7nier r.^.- «« -^ --«^^i^;< 
 
 " 40: T^rsAME Iff /rw'" *'■!!'' "'' '"-•^"t^We timber. " 
 :;sand. HtoneandXr/nateSK'o'f t'^lirr"!'"" "f"" ''^-«. quarries, 
 nimes in favor of the KinVS W«/n ^^^^^ '"°P' '''^^ reservation of 
 forth in the Original «r„„tLf sl^SS /V^i."'' ''" •="'^'^'"°«« ««* 
 
 "JVe>«<,„/-/**°"' *.*'•' *°-' *°-. Ac., 
 -HKSsroN ./^;i.,«, in „rtue oTthe^'iiSill IVt^nS? ''" '"" «'''- 
 
 •If^tinc-ly^slaf *^tha7aM^^^ ^T^ Proposition of the Crown Th. ean,.. 
 
 i>^in, ifcoS:Lur wit nr^^ as 
 
 unlosi thoro is a rescrva^bn to hat iff' . -""'l*' compact, 
 g-H'.t. a..d that all fouJal Hr^s^ ^v " w^," "• '^" ^''^''^^ 
 i-08orvafioii of tho nii ,n« hi l L n ^^^ ''xiaung under a 
 
 uve beor. 8u,,pr "sed h/t ' ^r^' '" /^'' ^'•'"S' "«» ^^rant, 
 Proposition ..aii etill ftnlT ^'^^.ijn'T al Act of 1854. The 
 
 ^mam, Ju, of his ll A 1 'T'T'^h '« ^"^''led to all the 
 can be clearer ^' ^^ '^'"^' **^ ^^»^' ■P^^i'^tiff'^ tl^at nothing 
 
 the e'^oWn ^.t^nTt^r,!'' S'-'"' ''^'^^ '''' ^^'^ answer, Th. «„«. 
 Proposition c^ tlfe CroV^ Ihaf df' •"'^- ^^"'•^' ">-" tha 
 
 ::£f A SS -^[=-S the^J-the Selgnio." 
 " materials ohhe7a~S"^ "" '"'"''• '^"'"•"es, sand, stone and other 
 
 29 
 
 «^^c,, &c., &c. 
 
 (&0. 
 
OvrNIBSBIP 
 
 or Minis. 
 
 Siiamoitui. 
 Court and 
 their Jadg- 
 ment. 
 Oadiitbi. 
 
 The BSkrae, 
 
 Such also, ia 
 elfeot of 
 Oadiutre. 
 
 — 226 — 
 
 Sec. 2 59,— ^That decision of the Seigniorial Court' 
 bears upon this case in more respects than one ; not only does 
 the Court, by its Judgment, declare that the reservation of 
 Mines was illegal, except when made in obedience to the 
 Ori<^inal Grant, and gives rise to no inderan ty ; but the 
 decision goes still further and holds that all claims of that 
 description have beoM suppressed by the Seigniorial Act. Sec 
 on this head, the able judg nents delivered by the Judt^es of 
 the Seigniorial Court, as reported in the L. C. Eeports for 
 
 Sec. 260. A part from all this the Plaintiffs 
 
 contend that the Judgment of Commissioner Tarcofte^ deter- 
 min ng Seigniorial rights in that Seigniory, but making no 
 mention of min-s, as evilenced by an autlientie copy of the 
 Judgment filed in this case has coinpletoly settled the'uuestion 
 ag;iiiist the Defendants' preteubions. 
 
 JoDOHwi" .^^^' ^^ ^ • -^^^ "^ "°^ ^®° of what importince that 
 
 • rw Vurffcaia, decision becomes in this ease. The Plaintiffs maintain that 
 and is so the Judgment of the Seigniorial Court has all the autho- 
 rity of a res judicata as between them, as Cansitaii'M and the 
 Defendants either as iSeigmors, or even as representatives of 
 the Crown. The pretensions of the Plaintiffs in that respect 
 are borne out by paragraf)hs 8 and 9 of section 16 of the 
 Seigniorial Act ; those two paragraphs, in speaking of the 
 decisions to be arrived at by the Seigniorial Court, uuder that 
 Act, state : 
 
 •• 8 ® . The decision and opinions of the said Judges shall be motiviet, 
 " and delivered as in a judgment on a case in appeal in which all the ques- 
 " tions had arisen and were put in issue, but without any further sentence 
 " in favor of the Crown, the Seigniors or the Cenaitaires, whether as to costs 
 " or otherwise ; 
 
 " 9 ® . The decision so to be pronounced on each of the said Questions 
 " and Propositions shall guide the Coramissionners and the Attorney-Gene- 
 " pal, and shall, in any actual case thereafter to arise, be held to have been 
 "a judgment in appeal, e» dernier rmort, on the point raised by such 
 " Question, in a like case, though between other' parties. " 
 
 The 9th pnrflgraph then gives the right of appeal to any one 
 of the parties withm a limited time ; it is well to mention, that 
 
 pleaded. 
 
s 
 
 piiorial Court' 
 not only does 
 •eservation of 
 lieiice to the 
 1 ty ; but the 
 laiina of that 
 •rial Act. Sec, 
 le Judges of 
 Ueports for 
 
 the Plaintiffs 
 'itrcofti>, deter- 
 it making no 
 copy ot the 
 1 the (question 
 
 >- 227 -- 
 
 --»>oj ani tiiat section ffavr to VJ^-, embody nff hie 
 the privilege of enbrnittinacSmt' f ^ ^"^ .^'^'^^'^^^vAlike 
 mission was availed of fer„ T t^ Propositions. That nm- 
 sparingly by the cZuL'::f%X^\ ^f^^'^^^' -<^ ^.t" 
 no eiiect has been prodeced nn H?- "^^^^''''^ to affir,,, rhat 
 
 solemn Judgment, ttre the L^ '*"'• ^^ ^^«' ^re. and 
 case,„amei|: the CvS the V / P*- "''"' interested in ?h^ 
 were alike represented ^ndVlofT T'^- *''« <^'^nX^e 
 suppression of all claim f!^. ■ • '^ /he decision as to fS 
 
 tion, It will be, for the "m /I /^'^"^ ^^^i.c ita o,er/. 
 Crow, as well, a' rather diffic^uut^k^^'''':f'-'*; " ^^^ fo thj 
 this " DE Lmr-Patent » has n f ' ^^^'^'^k, to .hew that 
 the Seigniorial Act. ^' ""^^ '^^^'^^d its quie.us from 
 
 OwNBBIljip 
 OF MlKBt. 
 
 Sntaatoaitu 
 Oouar and 
 tiieir Jndg. 
 meat. 
 Conelution. 
 
 portmce that 
 laintain that 
 1 the antho- 
 ait'efi and the 
 I'sentatives of 
 that respect 
 •n 16 of the 
 sakiiig of the 
 rt, uuderthat 
 
 lall be motiviet, 
 :h all the ques- 
 irther sentence 
 ether as to costs 
 
 ! snid Questions 
 (Attorney-Gene- 
 Id to have been 
 aised by such 
 
 al to any one 
 Qcntiou, that 
 
 CONCLUSION : 
 
 'hey ar:e„Stt::7' „l 'f'- ""^'-"^ •i-n that 
 When i began ,h« fI^ „l'i"C 17^ '"T"'' »' ""'> CMe. 
 filled morospace than a oolletl °f ' """ " """^^ i"™ 
 howeve,-, with ,he workjfofnd that t^T ' '".^ '™««^«1. 
 tat I entered on, opened np net vto;^ tT^ "^ *» ■=««'. 
 pelled me to write «/„,»/, bo. k a thiwT"^J T'^ ""■'- 
 ".ore from n,y reoo.leetion of B^onwlh tt-l •'' "" *' 
 ehonld " write a book ". Havin/™„ i j j ''" ^"''^T 
 
 to -7 own satirfacion, it onZVZ'ttj '°^' '"'"'^ 
 »«™eet thanks to Mr /,.«,? t k '" ^'=P"='" -ny 
 for .he loan of rare and Jll? , "='""'"*"' »<• Miei 
 
 200 years- old, Ld now o'^o"' ^ rVald'/ 'p' "»* 
 ^un,. n^u,.. lie „,„e to' :V 'f t'll"^™",^ 
 
— 228 — 
 
 gathered from the fact that it contains a copy of Letters- 
 Patent, referring to a statute of Edward III, which seem to 
 liave escaped the attention of every English Law writer. 
 
 The whole respectfully submitted. 
 
 Quebec, 24th December, 1868. 
 
 J. OTARRELL, 
 
 Atty. for Plaintiffs. 
 
 4.. 
 
 -.^Matt,«)ifetiaut 
 
 ^^^dC 03370Z /r^7/€«?5ert>^