.V^, 
 
 V^. - .0. 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 /. 
 
 
 #/- 
 
 f/. 
 
 #3^ 
 % 
 
 & 
 ^ 
 
 !.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 
 2.5 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 — s 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 6" — 
 
 
 ► 
 
 P>J 
 
 ■VQ 
 
 ^>. 
 
 C^J 
 
 ^ 
 
 '^ >' 
 
 /A 
 
 '>>v^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (7)6) 872-4503 
 
^o 
 
 l/j 
 
 ^ 
 
 iV 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques 
 
T«chnical ana Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiquas 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain tne best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographicaily unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvarture de couleur 
 
 r~~| Covers damaged/ 
 
 D 
 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^ et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre do couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiquas en coulaur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de coulaur (i.e. autre que bloue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Rsli* avec d'autres documents 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou da la 
 distorsion l« long da la marge int^rieurs 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes 
 lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texts, 
 mais, lorsque cela 4tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas M filmtos. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commenfaires supplimentaires: 
 
 L'lnstitut a microfilm* le meilleur axt>mplaire 
 qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-itre uniques du 
 point de vue bibllographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessous. 
 
 r~n Coloured pages/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pages de coulaur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicuiies 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxei 
 Pages ddcoior^es, techetdes ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tach^es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality inAgale de I'impressinn 
 
 Includes supplementary materia 
 Comprend du materiel supplamentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 r~n Pages damaged/ 
 
 I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 r~n Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 FT] Pag«» detached/ 
 
 rj] Showthrough/ 
 
 r~;| Quality of print varies/ 
 
 r~l Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 rn Only edition available/ 
 
 Pagan wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissu««s, etc.. have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible imaga/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'srrata. une pelure, 
 etc., ont iti filmt&es i nouveau de facon ^ 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below ' 
 
 Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-desaous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
re 
 
 Idtails 
 IS du 
 modifier 
 >r une 
 ilmage 
 
 >s 
 
 srrata 
 to 
 
 pelure, 
 in i 
 
 32X 
 
 Th« copy filmed hare hae been reproduced thenks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Legislature du Quebec 
 Quebec 
 
 The imagea appearing hi re are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in Iceeping with the 
 filming contract specificationa. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 tho last page with a printed or illuatrated impres- 
 sion, or the bacic cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illuatrated imprea- 
 sion. and ending on the laat page with a printed 
 or illuatiated innpression. 
 
 The laat recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —»•( meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever appiiea. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratioa. Thoae too large to be 
 entirely included In one expoaure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left tc 
 right and Dp to bottom, aa many frames aa 
 required. The following diagrama illuatrate the 
 method: 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 L'exempiaire film* fut reproduit grice A la 
 g^nirositi de: 
 
 L^itlature du Quebec 
 Quebec 
 
 Les imagea suivantes ont 4ti reproduites avec le 
 plue grand soin, compte tenu de Ic condition et 
 de la nettet* de l'exempiaire filmd, et en 
 conformiti avec lea conditiona du contrat de 
 fllmage. 
 
 Lea exemplairea originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier eat imprim^e sont filmte en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant sclt par la 
 dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impreaaion ou d'illuatration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le caa. Toue lea autree exemplairea 
 originaux sont filmte en commenpant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'Impression ou d'iliustration et en terminant par 
 la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un dea symboles suivanta apparaftra sur la 
 demiAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 caa: le symbole — »> signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartsa, olanchea, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre 
 filmia A dea taux de rMuction diffirents. 
 Lorsque <e document eet trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul clich*. 11 eet filmA i partir 
 do Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche h droite. 
 et de haut en baa. en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nteessaire. Lea dia^frammes suivanta 
 illuatrent la m^thode. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
^. 
 
 "^t- 
 
 f^Z( C^Z.-: 
 
 SDPERIOR GOURl. 
 
 Jfa, 
 
 •»,««a^»»««»N»niMt.<i*.»l*"««#«W»Mn«'».»H.«t*H<« 
 
 JOWH O'FAEBEIil^ Ji «I., 
 
 m. 
 
 PxJKlJfTIi>V8, 
 
 
 OK 
 
 OF THE 
 
 I.AW OF MIMM0 
 
 im 
 
 ijOHliK CAHJJUA. 
 
 ' 1 . • >.>««".«««««»#«M«.*^»»'>«'H«**M»»t»»»»*«i«*»*«»,#ilM»l 
 
 , ^ 1868. : 
 
 % 
 
 -A 
 
 
 .««*>#»«»«t»»»»f«j 
 
 :Hw«w«if»i*«»i»'l»»*j|in||r»ii»«j^(i^»i^»i^) 
 
SUPERIOR CO 
 
 I3Ei?LUOE. 
 
 JOHN O'PARRELL & AL., 
 
 Plaintiffs, 
 
 V8, 
 
 ALEXANDRE R. C. DE LERY & AL, 
 
 Defendants. 
 
 kglemeitteri Jfadunt flf % ^ImMs, 
 
 QUEBEC: 
 
 LEGER BROUSSEAU, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, 
 7, liuade Street, Upper- Totvn. 
 
 1867. 
 
I 
 
 - >■ 
 
 r 
 
4. 
 
 - n^ 
 
 T 
 
 t 
 
 SUPPLES) ENT^iRY FACTUM 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PLAINTIFFS 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 t]n'« olZ ??P-'^"?.°«^^ ^!?^ ^'"tcrests involved in the decision of 
 this case fully justifies the publication, by the Plaintiffs of a 
 second or snpplemonlaiy ractiim. i^-muus, oi a 
 
 romPl/'^'''1'"^1 submitted for the consideration of the 
 Cnjit, IS on bo:h issues, a J)yense au fonds en dvoiL or 
 General Demurrer, and involves, at the same time the 
 
 h^rX\T %^^ ^^^^^^^^ The Plaintiffs purpose considering '''I?'!^^ ^^^ 
 of tlTn^l ^^^^.^^^"^2 ^" I^,^y •' Istly : of the Demurrer, ^.ndlyl^jf Th7Df 
 
 is to tlie ' Declaration is sufficient in Law ; and, The D^clara- 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 INSUFFICIENCY OF THE DEMUEEEK. 
 
 ^eC. I .-— Tlie Plaintiffs submit, as they have already 
 
 rZUV I- ^^'*""'' *^l"* *^^^ ^'•^""^is of tlie Demurrer have 
 raised questions, purporting to meet : 
 
 ^r^ l!w?f ^/7?i!^n ^'^®' ^,^"^^ ^^*^' ^^^ numbered, 1st, 2nd 
 and fist ' ' ^^' ^^*^' ^^'^^' ^^*^' 1^*^' 1^^^> 18th;2ath 
 
 ■eth ISf 'T^H ''?«S!'''T^''f *^'^. Plaintiffs' case, and numbered, 
 bth, 8th, 12th, 16th, 17th and 19th. ' 
 
 bPPoi'io'''''^^'" *^^ ^^"^'' *^ "°<ierstand the points at issue, it 
 cl^nSyT ^^^^P-^-<^ -t- tlie Vstions of botii 
 
 Demurrer 
 raises ques- 
 tions touch- 
 ing 
 
 Isteatirecase 
 
 2nd part only 
 of case. 
 
 ^CC. df Question : 
 
 1 ® To _. 
 
 whereof are not 
 
 support their present action (the conclusions 
 
 lOt restrictfid tn tViA AamaryA ^^»^„^^„*: — _i» i.i..q 
 
 Statement of 
 questions rai. 
 sed by Demur- 
 rer. 
 
— 4 — 
 
 Of which Ist, 
 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 
 5th, 7th, 9th, 
 loth, 11th, 
 13th, 14th, 
 15th, 18th, 
 20th & 21st, 
 affect entire 
 case. 
 
 And 6tb, 8th, 
 12th, 16th, 
 17th & 19th 
 affect part on- 
 ly of case. 
 
 Patont^ must the Plaintiffs shew authority or termission 
 from the Government to bring this snit ? 
 
 2 ® & 3 ® Must such a suit as the present one necessarily 
 be bronght in the name of Her Majesty, on the fiat of Her 
 Law-officer, and b^ declaration signed by such Law-officer ? 
 
 4 ® Is the Scire Facias the only proceeding by which the 
 Instrument known as the " de Ix&x-Patent " may bo 
 attacked ? '' 
 
 6 ® Must the Crown necessarily be made a party to a 
 suit such as the present one ? 
 
 6 ® Do the Seigniorial Act and its amendments, and the 
 two Judgments above referred to, and the Schedule of the 
 Seigniory as confirmed, affect the rights claimed by the 
 Defendants under the " de IsE&x-Patent " f 
 
 7® Is it necessary that the Plaintiffs should have 
 discovered the existence of gold on their lands, and notified 
 tlie Government of such discovery, before the issue of the 
 Patent ? 
 
 ^ 8 ® Were the proprietors of the FUf bound, within any 
 given, and what, time, to notify the Government of the 
 existence of gold in their Seigniory ? 
 
 9® Did any necessity exist for a formal notice to the 
 owner of the soil, with a requisition on him to work the mine, 
 followed by a judicial sentence, consequent on his neglect or 
 refusal so to do, before the Eoyal Permission could be given 
 to mine on private property \ 
 
 10 ® Do the Plaintiffs'* titles as owners of the soil convey 
 to them the ownership of the gold thereon ? 
 
 11 ® Do the mines belong to the owners oi the soil under 
 the circumstances claimed by the Plaintiffs as accompanyino- 
 their ownership ? i j ■o 
 
 12 ® Does it appear on the face of the Plaintiffs' Decla- 
 ration that the proprietors of the Fief complied with the 
 condition annexed to their original Grant, namely : of 
 notifying the Crown ? 
 
 13® Is the revocation of an Instrument, such as the 
 " DE ls?;Ks:-Patent^ an act which may not be decreed in a 
 proceeding to vvhich the Crown is not a party ? 
 
 14 ® Does the de iM&Y-Patent vest the Defendants with 
 the right of entry on the Plaintiffs' lands ? 
 
 15 ® Does the " de ImiY- Patent " vest the Defendants 
 with the ownership of the gold mines to be found on the 
 Plaintiffs' lands ? 
 
 16 ■= Have the Plaintiffs the right to urge in this case the 
 non-fufilment of the conditions of the Original Grant and of 
 
 t 
 
 1(1' 
 
 C 
 
T' 
 
 — 5 — 
 
 fl.n n!r Fr"" ^^'"^ ^y^^^^\ a riVlit to recover, by reason of 
 the acts of tro8])a88 alleged hy tVicii,, from tlie defendants, 
 other dfunages than tlie mere agn'cultural 1u«h ? 
 
 18 ® Id tlie operation of the Patent divisible with respect 
 SdmiorT ""^ ^°'^ separate lots of land con posing the 
 
 T^ f ^r .■^''/^'' I'la'^tiffs, in their Declaration, deny the 
 thosTot' g^^^^ '^"^ ' """""'' """''^^' ^"^ "^^^^^^ ^^«id^« 
 
 illec^flV ^'^ ^^'"^ Plaintiffs' action unfounded, informal and 
 
 r,Vhfl^V/'^''^^•''' ^l^'^t^ff^' ^P^ainst the Defendants, the 
 light ot action claimed in this cause ? 
 
 Title I. 
 Questions (f the First Class. 
 
 3rd, '.8t of -E'w^y- 
 , <ion« d la form e 
 
 - ^y2ndofDemur- 
 )^^6r. 
 
 N*C, O. "With regard to Questions: ^ 
 
 4th 5th and 13th, the i'laintiffs contend, that tl 
 grovinds of Special Demurrer, or Exception a 
 ^ which Pleading the Defendants have had, l. 
 
 their day in Court, the Defendants' several Fxcepi,. 
 forme having been already dismissed in this case. 
 
 To-rniKR Procedure civile, ch : 2, sect : 2, art : 1, p. 17, « . 
 th\i& dehuQ^ Exceptions a la forme : » z' •» Questions 
 
 ii n -c ■ ^'**' 2°'^> 3rd, 
 
 " ^. ;. r *^^=fP*l«"s sont celles qui tcndent k fairo renwyer le B'efendeur'^^^^ ^^^ ^^^\ 
 de la demand, &ov^^(s^^^r,U^ lui, 4 ca««. de quelques ^mZZtv/qui "e"* ^'°"°''» 
 trouvent jZan« Za>m. de V exploit de demande : pa? e^cemX mm VS"''^"'''?'''''"*^ 
 ^Va;^Z(?i« de demande 7i's«« pas UlelU. e^empie, ;?a? c6 que ^^ j.^^^^ 
 
 broadl^^-^'"'"'^ ^''*^''''' ^'''''' '^^''^' *^^° ^^^^ ^^^'^ *^® doctrine 
 
 " 1p rliffn/"''^^^ d'Exceptiufls doivent se proposer d Umint litis. Lorsq 
 
 » Wn t ^"^ f ^®^'"'^" *" ^'^"•^«' '1 ^'est plus recevable 4 proposer c 
 Exceptions et toutes les nuUit^s sont couvertes. " Proposer c 
 
 " nnl pVL«?! ^''^'"''^ """I^^'^^ ^^'^ '"^y*^"« ^e nullite, il declare I'exploit 
 
 " pLiZoi'res oL dr W ''" ^n'''^'' *^"' '^« exceptions ne sont 
 
 " duXCX? %75i'"'*^r? 5 f"^^ "'^ !«"* pas peremptoires aa Droit 
 
 au iJcmandeur , elUa ne doivent pas operer la decueancb du fonds de 
 
 ue 
 ces 
 
.-♦— 
 
 *' SON DHOIT. + + =!•*** H« * * * r^„ , „. , 
 
 •• (Utmim latl^mn.,n. ./ ' moytm de nnllife ne tentUnt qu'd 
 
 •' ctc'retc, ot?X'- °'' '' '^""'^ "" """'^ ^" />.«u*«^..r, il s'enJult, 
 
 notd^s'ro7H?o'iV-'rff-''^'''*^'i''°" ^'«' tluit whatever does 
 not acs roy the 1 laintifts' ri-lit of action but ir.orcl v objects 
 
 ODefa^of. ?.?w '^^"^"^y S"^^*^'''^^^ v/luitever iinllity (loos not 
 
 would onfv lfji''''V '^■' ^T^' ^'' ^''^^'^ ^^'* DcmanJeur, or 
 
 Avoulcl only lustity a dismissal *a,//,^ ,., pourvoir, is a o-ronnd of 
 
 And must be ^-^ocptjon a lafonne. Now tlio Questions undo 'conskloXn 
 
 overuled, aa as to 1 10 want of antliorlfv f.-n^vV fi,,. n ""'-*^- ^'^"'^"'^''^tion, 
 
 havinjr beeat]icCrownfmn/l.;ao -1 17 the Crown, the absence of 
 
 to flu I w ; • I •'''^^''' )''^'''^''' it i-'-^^olved in a sense favorable 
 i.d^ c^t H on l^r^^'"^ T«- ^;'>"^'^^ "ot destroy the PlaintiftV 
 d^l^ ' I '• '"'r^;'' ^'^'^''^^' '^'''^^y a dismissal .«u/ 
 L C C 4,i?^h"'' /^i^'Y"'"' '^'''' ^^'^^ '^'^ Questions : 
 -rouTds of A>t^- ' J^y^^'^th are nia .rs which are strictly 
 
 Wi jA//i?.n^ and before Plea to the nier ts,— have come too iato 
 and must be overruled by the Court ? ' 
 
 And iVom ^^„ y| 
 
 want of inter. ^^i^C. ^, Moreover, the Questions : 1st 2nd 3rd 4tb 
 
 J. in I>eren5tli and 13th are so many attemp;:, on the pa^t ^f Hie": 
 dants to urge in this case matters affcctini? the Crown onlv and 
 m which the Defendants liave not the slighlest ii^c41 t&ht 
 
 exist at all, by tlie Judgment in this case, which beiu-athin^ 
 
 znUrahos acta never can have force of c-Lv.y.^.'; as^ eg^^^^^^^ 
 
 he Grown, and may, at most, shift the burthen ot the Royahy 
 
 trom one subject to another. Those grounds interest the C?own 
 
 • the liildife:??-^/"' " ''IF^ ^y the'Defendants, who liaveTot 
 
 ' i a mw V ? ?t"^'"' V" *^^1 ^"^'^^^^^ '^''^^t^^^»- «r "^^ the Crown 
 ^ a party to this suit : such Avant of interest, which (Nodveati 
 rENizAKT ^,J^. action, § 5, M. 1.) is the great criterion as wd 
 11.' f ^\*-*^ "'^^ t°y ^^^^" "^^^t^^- m defence, as k is of the 
 
 pSs nl'ofT^ r^'"'^"^-"' \^^' Defendants from'requirng he 
 piesence ot the Crown in this suit. 
 
 »eC, 5. Ag::In what is this carping on the absence 
 
 ot the Crown from this suit, but .. pleading of the rio-hts of 
 
 Therfroft^au-^^e^/o^^'a^'esort, in fine, to the prohibited Plea of th? droit 
 
 ^ 
 
 
• ' V 
 
 Pin- r« ~" """^ ^"'^' ^^»6 vrcmm^^ urged by tlic^-'i l^*- 'u.. 
 
 Plaint.fts amunst IIiode \Mix-Patent form Mhar in on- T P"'^»t'«'« ob- 
 are krincd ww^/eV^6 aUolues as M'H ill ' ^" ^V' -f-^^^^'J^^^iionstoPa- 
 authuritics to be cited wfVf , 1^ }^ '^''^ ^^ th.' tent are «u«,. 
 ,.,.r, .r X xi . "c^cuit».r. JNow, by our Law mwl '^'^ "^'o^w". 
 ccord.ng to the maxiru : ' - Quod v ullum ..^ nXm ^W^"// 
 ef,ciuvC\ in al. cases of absolute nullitv • nf r^nl-/^ *^ 
 
 ti.o .iofcot ^ SX£:.;^X^:Tj:Tf^' 'r '""■•^'. 
 
 J^eC, 7. Tlie Crown cannot be said to be absent from * ^ « 
 
 " Victoria, by the Grace of God. &c., &c. t. certain Bailiffs, Greeting? " 
 
 tbe Def'ndl"nl''"^/i^''''^'' com^nand those Bailiffs to summon 
 " f/«n;^.r/l i ^-^^^^^^/^^^ H«K, in BcT Superior Court, 
 th cause^"^ ''""^ '""^"^"'^ ^" *^^ Declaration in 
 
 
— s — 
 
 /ndSovo- Sec. 8. How, the Plaintiffs ask, conld the Crown 
 
 be sued!"""" ^^^'''^ ^^^^ compelled to intervene herein ? How conld the 
 Crown have been made a jiarty hereto ? How, otherwise than 
 as Defendant ? Bnt is it doubted that the Crown cannot be made 
 Defendant in our Courts, that the Sovereif^n cannot be sued 
 (i Blaokstone, p. 242, J?. 1, ch : 7, § : lU And, ae a 
 corollary of tlie maxim: ^' nemo tenetur ad im.pomhile,^' the 
 Plaintiffs cannot be called on to bring the Sovereign into tliis 
 suit. 
 
 And existence 
 of the Tierce- 
 oppontion 
 shows it not 
 to be necessa- 
 ry ta bring 
 Sovr e:ga in- 
 to suit. 
 
 i\nd So ve- 
 rt iirn has 
 Lten notified. 
 
 Sec. 9. " But," say the Defendants, « you might 
 
 " have notified the Sovereign of the institution of this suit." 
 The Plaintiffs, answer, as before, that, the issue of the writ, the 
 entry uf the declaration, every step, in fine, taken in the case, 
 is a notice to the Sovereign Herself, in Her own Court. More- 
 over are not the proceedings of our Courts public matters, 
 whereof the subject, much more the Sovereign, who holds the 
 Court, is bound to take notice ? Does not tlie existence of the 
 Tierce-opposition, by the relief that remedy affords against 
 judgments aftecting third parties, necessarily imply that the 
 Judgments of our Courts shall be bindir)gon third persons, not 
 parties to those Judgments, until such time as those third 
 persons shall have olitained relief by the Tierce-opposition ? 
 What then precb^des the Court from adjudicating on the 
 DE lj¥.BY-Pate7it ? If the rights of the Crown be involved, let 
 the Crown intervene now, or come in hereafter by Tierce- 
 oppos-ition. But, as a Liatter of precaution, the Plaintifts have 
 notified the Crown of those proceedings, by a formal, w "tten 
 notice, duly served on Her Majesty's Attorney General for 
 Lower Canada ; not that the Plaintiffs attach much value to 
 the step ; because no default can be recorded against the 
 Crown, which may, or may not, at discretion, intervene 
 herein ; but because the Plaintifts are <is ready to litigate their 
 claim herein with Her Majesty, Hei'self, as they are to do so 
 with the Defendants. 
 
 And non-in- 
 tervention of 
 Crown is a 
 presumption 
 that Crown 
 acquiesces in 
 advance in 
 decision to be 
 given in this 
 case. 
 
 Sec. lU. If, tlien, the Crown has not thought 
 
 proper to interfere between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 
 in this cause, may it not reasonably be supposed, i3 it not 
 even a presiimption juris et de jure, that the Sovereign 
 acquiesces, in advance, in whatever decision may l)e arrived 
 at, in Her Court, upon tlie points at issue between the pa^-ties 
 hereto ? May we not likcu the inaction of the Crown to the 
 
 T" 
 
PT.T^^Sf.H'iSi-^i 
 
 ,-ii)»'Mi<ii^mi:S:^liMii^, 
 
 r 
 
 -— 9 — 
 
 siloiice of tlio Notary, ulien one of the parties to a deed 
 executed beh^re that Notary declares free from mortsaee a 
 property on which tlie Notary has a hypothec ; in such a case 
 
 i 1^' ^:'I^'' ''' ''o •' ^ ^ • ^^^' ^^ • ^''^ ^^C'rto, and Lacombe, 
 wo. hypotheque^ P. 353). ' 
 
 ^CC. u I , " Tlie Scire-FaGias^'' we are gravely told 5«r«.F«7di» 
 "is the only remedy, by which Letters-Patent mav becrof^Re! 
 attacked. liow true it is, as Bacon has said, that " a7e«ZeCordofa 
 knowledge is dangerous ! " It is not against Letters-Patent ^o"'"^" ^aN' 
 eo nomine, that the Scire-Facias is the appropriate remedy -tice" °^ *^"'" 
 It IS because of the Eecord in Chancery formed by their ' 
 enrolment there, that the Scire-Facias lies. So high is the 
 respect due, under British Law, to the sanctity of 2i Eecord 
 that It requires the special permission of the Sovereimi to 
 enable our Courts to alter it, or cancel it, except it be the 
 iiieie act of the Court, not of the party, and in the breast of 
 the Court, but not beyond the Term wherein the Record was 
 made {lurner vs Barnahy, Trin : 2 Ann. B. E. per Loed 
 Holt, 2 ^alkelt^ vbo Eecordo, No, 6, F. 566.) And it is not 
 every thing which the Legislature has thought fit to call a 
 Kecord, that may not thus be interfered with except on 
 i^oire-Facias /it must be a Record of a Court of Justice 
 {hegma vs Hughes de ol: , Peivy Council Cases, Law®°^'I^J°. 
 Repoets, 1 Vol : P. 81 ; Judgment rendered, 1 Fehuary\l%m:) Tm^Z 
 In that case it was held that Privy! Uoua- 
 
 cil. 
 Leases granted by the Governor of South Australia, under powers 
 conferred on him by the Colonial Act, 21 Vict : eh : 5 § 13, for rJaThS 
 the sale and other disposal of ^yaste lands belonging to the bZy^butnot 
 
 SS.'7"''''w'''T;?"""^; "^^"^* '" themselves S.X and 
 " ^r^A ^^'\T.'^'? ?"" ^^ ^^'™' ^'^'"S ^«'' ^ 'a^gei- quantity of land than 
 •* iSiI« "^ ' '"''''''''''' ^^ ^^'^"^^^° «^ <i"AS"ED by a Writ o^ Scire- 
 
 - a nfrnrl' ^A '' "" prerogative judicial Writ, which must h^ founded on 
 a Aecord, and cannot under the constitution of the Supreme Court in 
 South Australia issue out of that Court" 
 
 " Crmv^inTi'n remedy for an unauthorized possession of lands of the 
 brown in the Colony is by an information in Chancery, Writof Intrusion." 
 
 . ^^f"o ■''^* "^" *^'^* '^^''^ ^^a>€-7^«aW had been suedp,,., „, . . 
 oiit of the Supreme Court, in South Australia, to vacate a cat! '' ''"'' 
 
 c 1; ""i "^V- ^'"''^'' ""^^^^' *^^^ ^^'eat Seal of the Province of 
 ^oui/L Australia, 8ip;ned and executed by the Governor, in the 
 name and on behalf of Her Majesty, but noi filed or 
 
 1 
 
Arprnmetit of 
 
 Attorney 
 
 Genbbai.. 
 
 — 10 — 
 
 EECORDED in the Supreme Court. A Rule nisi was obtained 
 to quash the Writ of Soire-Facias, on the following, amono- 
 other, grounds ; 2n(l, tliat there was no record in the Supreme 
 Court of Soutli Australia wliereon to ground such Writ. 
 5th, That tlie Writ did not set forth any Record for annulling 
 of which it had been issued. On the 29th August, 1864, the 
 Supreme Court made the Eule absolute, and quashed the 
 Writ. On Appeal to Her Maje^^ty in Pri^y Council, the case 
 was argued for the Eespondent's by the Attorney-Gknekal, Sir 
 RouNDELL Palmer ; and it is but fitting to reproduce his 
 argument, since it was endorsed throughout by the Judgment 
 of the Privy Council, and since it bears on otiier points^f the 
 present case, that shall be more fully noticed hereinafter. 
 
 " The Writ of Scire-Facias,'' ( said Sir Roundcll Palmer, in that case,) 
 " is wholly inapplicable to the Laws and Constitution of the Colonv. There is 
 " no Officer or Court in the Colony having jurisdiction to issue such a AVrit. 
 " It is a judicial and high prerogative Writ, and cannot be gkantbd but upon 
 «' A KEcoRD ( Bag. Abk. Scire-Facias A ; 2 Inst. 470 : 2 Wm's Saund., 71, 
 " note i ; Foksteu on Scire-Facias, 2 ). Grants of Crown lamh in the Colonies 
 * are not rerords, they are not patents, nor are they proceedings of a Court 
 " of Record, or enrolled, which is necessary to constitute them Records. (Com : 
 " Dig, Record A, Patent, F. 7; IIindmarsii on Patents, 37—9 ; a. Inst. 71). 
 " Crown grants of land can only be made by Letters-Patent under the Great 
 
 He***************** 
 
 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 vs Kyte, 3 Knapp's P. C. oases, 332.). 
 
 " In our Colonies, 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 Ilcr Majesty in Council : {Attorney General vs. Stewart, 
 " 2 Mkr : 143). This must he done in the ordinary mode of procedure ; there 
 " is no instance of such a proceeding as this in the Colonies. " 
 
 *************^;(.:K^ ^ 
 
 '* There were other remedies to which resort might have been had : 
 " the parties might have proceeded by Bill in equity, to set aside the grants 
 " as unduly ol)tuined: Sawyer rs. Vernon, 1 Veiinon, 370 ; Attorney General 
 " vs. Charnhers, 4 D. M. & G. 206 ; Alcock vs. Cooke, 5 Bingham, 340 : or as 
 " in the case of a grant under the Duchy Seal of Lancaster, of a manor w'th 
 " certain rights, where the question ioas raised in an action of trover ; or by 
 " information of intuision, (Chalmers' Opinions, vol. 1, P. 160.). where the 
 " very case is put, of error on the face of the grant ; or by writ of intrusion. 
 " (CuiTTY on Prerogative, 332-3)." 
 
 «' 
 << 
 
 ***********:)t^;)(^^,^^ 
 
— 11 — 
 
 ^eC, Jo.- — In rendering Judgment on the Appeal, ^f^'LoR?"*'"' 
 Lord Chelmsfokd observed : CHr-MSFOBD 
 
 This IS an appeal against a rule of the Supreme Court of the Province 
 ot boutk Australia, making absolute a rule of the same Court obtained bv 
 the Respondents for quashing the Writ of SHre-Facias issued for the 
 purpose of levokmg certain leases of Crown lands granted by the Governor 
 of the Provmce to the Resi)ondents." 
 
 ^ " The question raised by the rule, and to be decided upon the Appeal. 
 js whether the Supreme Court of So^'tJi Avstralia had jurisdiction to 
 proceed by writ of Scire- Facias to annul grants or leases of Crown lands 
 within the Province." 
 
 " The Writ of Scire- Facias to repeal or revoke grants or charters of the 
 Crown is a prerogative judicial Writ, which according to all the authorities 
 mvsthe lonmh'd ujwn a Record. Time Crown grams and charters under 
 the Great Seal are always sealed in the Petty-Ba<r-Officc, which is on the 
 !^omn.o,i Law side of the Couii oj- Chancery, and become Recokds there. 
 U hether grants would bo Records by the mere act of Sealing, without 
 cnro.nient m the Court, it is unnecessary to consider, because in point of 
 hict, such grants are invariably enrolled. They are then, at all events 
 brought within the definition of a Record given in Comvn's Digest, title. 
 Accord, A. upon the authority of Coke on Littleton 260 A viz • ' a 
 ^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 mav be revoked or repealed 
 when they are contrary to Law, or uncertain; or injurious to the rights 
 and interestsof third persons, and the appropriate process for the purpose 
 IS by writ of Scire- Facias.'" 
 
 ******* ^- ********** 
 
 ^^ " This being the long-settled and M-e11 known rule of proceeding with 
 
 ^ respect to Crown grants in this country, the question to be determined is 
 
 •^ whether grants and leases of Crown lands in South Australia are of such 
 
 an analogous character and description as to be necessarily subject to the 
 
 same remedial process of Scire- Facias for their repeal." 
 
 u /. " T^^' ^!'"«t t^'»g to be considered is the Constitution of the Supreme 
 Court in the Province." 
 
 ^eC. 14. His Lordship, having stated that a^. 
 Colonial Act had conferred on the Supreme Court all such continuTd. 
 powers as the Lord High Cliancellor of England could or 
 lawtully might exercise within the realm of En^^land, 
 proceeded to observe of the Supreme Court :— 
 
 i K r ^'^'f/ ^l^^"" P'-ornulgated a rule as io iha teste of^VrM^ of Scire- Facias ; 
 ^- but as that process IS applicable to other objects besides the grants of 
 
 Croun Lands (such as Recognizances and Judgme its), the right to use it 
 ^ in Older to annul the leases in question n^ust depc nd upon whether the 
 " k,?, 1 r c !» recuhar nature and character to rvudei them a proper 
 
 fouiidalion lor this particular remedy." 
 
 (( 
 
 u 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 (i 
 
 (I 
 it 
 
 II 
 l( 
 l( 
 
— 12 
 
 * * -X- * ■)(• 4(. * ^t * * 
 
 * * * * 
 
 » Ro JL %)? wu'^'';^' '" *^° ^''^ P^*'^^' ^^-''t ^''^^'^ I^^««^« ^cre virtually 
 •« nf n?,H- I i* "*• ^?To''''r '^''^ entrusted with all the ministerial duties 
 .• o*P"tt'"g the Provincial Seal (the Queen's Seal of the Province) to grants 
 
 » f/.^rrn ''"'I'- 7t?^*>^'' S"P''^"^° C«"''t' besides being a Court of Record, 
 " ^hZo ^7''Vf,^^"'*y' '^"^ ^^" P^'-f'^™ ' a" such Acts, matters and 
 •««Sn'^K f^fi?' ?'"]"'*y be done by the Lord High Chancellor 
 •••belon in '^^^^ ^^ ' '" ^^"^ exercise of the jurisdiction to him 
 
 «« ^v?=fL^^ "?r"i"^ •''^ *^j^ argument seems to be, that all the machinery 
 "Inl -il '''''^'"^i^''P^''""S grants of Crown lands on the same 
 « ?nn=Sf ,r .i"'''' 'V^'' f "^*'5:, both in their Original creation, and for 
 » nH i^ T^^*^.T ^ ^f °'''^- ^"*.'* ^■•^^ "«t pretended that any enrolment 
 " AnnZnf f • "-^^ Vwu' f"^ '*' therefore, became necessary for the 
 „ Appellant to msist that the leases were in themselves Records With this 
 
 " plT 'i '^*''^?w*l^ ?^*, '^^^'y g''''^"* ""^<^'' ^^be Great deal is '«;«« farto a 
 ^Record, and that the Seal of the Province, which was cntn.stc.l to the 
 «> Jjovernor by the Queen's Commission for the purpose of making grants in 
 ^^ Her Majesty s name, is equivalent to the Great Seal. Assuming this to be 
 the ca^e, it would advance the argument a very sh-rt way unless it 
 ;; could be establ shed that the mere affixing the Seal to an instrumenTl.y 
 .*be Governor at once made It a Record. But a Record (to recur to the 
 u ?f "»tion of It given in Uomvn's Digest) must he ' a memorial of an Act 
 u f^. g'°7'^?A"^n^'' ?''"'.* of Record,' and, when it is asserted that. x,hen 
 ^^ tne beat of the Prmnnce is affixed to a lease ly the Governor, it Iccomes a 
 
 "Coura'/" "'''' '''''' "^"^^^^^^^^^^^ »^ ask^d: 'a Record op what 
 
 Sec. 15. 
 
 j,jj jjjg — ~-A.ftcr stating the argil rnents of opposing 
 
 pivySncil^^^g"^^^^^,^ *^ *^® existence of other remedies, Ilis Lordsliip 
 
 a .'V'^J^''^ can be no douU, however, that the other modes of proceeding 
 pointed out by the Respondents are appUcalle to the Grant of the leases 
 in question. 
 
 *****«•** *^ * ^ ^ .jj 
 
 ^ " Their Lordships, being of opinion thf-t the Eulc granted by the 
 
 ^^ hupremc Court for quashing the writ of Scire-Facius was rightlv made 
 
 nbsohite v;x\\ recommend to Her Majesty that the Appeal against it be 
 
 " <ZwOTme<Z with costs. " ff h at ii uu 
 
 Rulings in 
 that case. 
 
 ^OC, J Do From that case in the Privy Council it 
 
 results, that 
 
 IstJy^The Writ of Scire-Facias, cannot he used to attack a 
 Crown-grant, that has not been enrolled in a Court of 
 Justice and of Rilcokd. 
 
 2nd]y.---T}ic ordinary remodics must l)e resorted to, in tlie 
 ordinary course of ])rocednre of the Colonial Courts, in 
 
 J 
 
 t 
 
•V , 
 
 ..J 
 
 1 
 
 — 13 — 
 
 oi(kr to attack Giants not so recorded in a Court of 
 
 Justice and of Eecord. 
 Brdly.— The validity of Gm7it.<i, not under the Great Seal of 
 
 England, and not enrolled in Chancery, may he teHed by 
 
 PKivATE SUIT between subject and subject, and ^vas even so 
 
 tested in a suit in trover. 
 4thly.— The introduction, into the Colony, of a form of 
 
 procedure on Scire-Facias (which is applicable to other 
 
 matters besides Crown-grants) leaves the Law oti Scire- 
 
 Facias precisely where it stood before, as to the peculiar 
 
 nature of the cases, where it lies. 
 h\\\\y.— Crown grants in the Colonies are not, and cannot be, 
 
 LE-rrKKS-PATENT ; for T-ottcrs Patent can only issue under 
 
 the Great Seal of England. 
 Cthly — Tlie powers of the Governor are strictly limited by his 
 
 Commission ; and such Grants in the Colony are void as 
 
 are not _ authorized by Statute or by the Governor's 
 
 Commission. 
 
 N'C. 17. In order to apply, to the "de Leky- 
 
 PaUnV\ tlio principles involved in the decision of the case of 
 Tii_E_ (^UKKN vs. Ilvghes, it becomes necessary to examine 
 critically tlie nature of the Instrument commonly called 
 the " DE Leijy-/ atent. " By Leitees Open or Patent, the 
 Governor ot Canada, under the Public Seal of Canada, 
 granted to Madame de Lory and her sons, not the 
 waste lands of the Crown (which our Provincial Statute 
 authorized him to grant) but the Eoyal Pepmission to 
 loor/c mines ot gold and other precious metals, a Permission 
 hQ \t ohQQYWQii, en passant, which nothing in the Governor's 
 Commission, still less in tho Imperial or Colonial legislation, 
 authorized him to grant. That grant commonly called the 
 
 T)'e.Lyai-y-P atent "" has not been cnregistLred', enrolled or 
 recorded in any Coukt of Justice. It is, therefore, not a Record 
 ot a Court of Justice, and consequently, in the language of 
 LoKD CiiELMSFOED, as quoted above in the case of Hughes, 
 u e '^ " JJ aproper foundation for the particular remedy of 
 
 i^cire-I^acias,'' which does not lie in such a case as that of 
 the " DE JjEiiY-Patent.''^ 
 
 Application of 
 that decisioa 
 to this case. 
 
 " DB Lbry- 
 Patent " not 
 recorded in a 
 Court of Jus- 
 tice. 
 
 T 
 
 feeC. lo. But we shall perhaps be told that "thete*red °by 
 
 Case not al- 
 _^„„ ,. ^ ^^ivii |jv>Aiitij^7D uKi Luiu uuiiL " LiiO tered by en- 
 
 ^^ IbeLery- Patent ' ]ms been recorded in the Offico of tii,.ro'ment by so 
 
 " Kegistrar of Records." We answer with Lord Chelmsford : ^^m^lZ 
 
" Assuming this to be the case, it wnukl advance the argument a very 
 " short way, unless it could be established that the recording of it there at 
 •' once made it a Record, that is to say, according to Comyn, following Coke 
 •' on Littleton ; ' a memorial of an Act or proceeding of a Court of Record, 
 ♦' ' proceeding according to the course of the Common Law ; ' 
 
 " And if it is asserted that the " de Lm\'-Patent " has become a 
 ♦' Record, in the language, again, of Lord Ciielmsfohd," it may not 
 ^ unreasonably be asked : " A Record of what Court ? " 
 
 Sec. 19. That is not all. This Instrument is not 
 
 Enrolment of a Grant of lands of any kind; and the Office of Eegistrar 
 
 Patent by Re- of Enrolments (not of Records) has been created bj the 
 
 gistrar of En- pj,^^,.^g.g^l ^^.^^ 33 Qqq •, HI, ch. 3, an Act appUjing to 
 
 "loZolm.\.. Grants of Crown lands o^ly hut not^o Grants of the Ii<yyal 
 
 it a Record Fermisnon to work amine (see the Preamble ot tlie Acij. 
 
 for -Swe-i^a- j^ni-oiiiients made by that Officer are by § 2 declared to be 
 
 cias. u Eecords rou the ruiirosEs herein contained.^^ _ But not 
 
 one word is there in that statute of Scire-Facias, or of 
 
 affiliating that officer with any Court of Justice. It is 
 
 therefore clear that, even supposing the 36 Geo: III, 
 
 ch : 2, to apply to such Grants as the " de LBRY-Patent, 
 
 (which it does not), nevertheless, for the purpose of suemg 
 
 out a Scire-Faoias the " de L^UY-Patent " constitutes no 
 
 Record ; and Scire-Fadas, therefore, does not apply. 
 
 Privateaction SeC. l20. Moreover LcRD Chelmsfokd has declared 
 
 tTto'in'orlthat the remedies pointed out by Attorney General Prdmer 
 dertotestva-are the appropriate remedies to repeal improper Grants 
 lidity of in the Colonies ; and Sir lionndell Palmer in his argument 
 Crown Grants .^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^ ^^^^ .vherein the validity of the Grant had 
 mColomea. t^^^^^ ^^^^^^ .^^ ^^ ^^^.^^ ^^ TlvoYQv, in other words in a 
 
 suit betwet-n subject and subject, and this without the 
 intervention of the Crown in any way. 
 
 Sec. 21. In addition to the authorities cited in the 
 
 erne 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 Yernon, 283. ^ 
 
 Norman on J'atents, 165, 166, 168, 101: in Jine, cfc 209, 
 
 English Ed : , . ^ .i 
 
 2ndly.— That a bad grant is void, not merely against the 
 
 Crown, but also 'in a suit between the Patentee and a 
 third person. 
 
: a very 
 there at 
 ng Coko 
 Record, 
 
 3Come a 
 nay not 
 
 ; is not 
 jgistrar 
 by the 
 ling to 
 Royal 
 3 Act). 
 I to be 
 
 lilt liOt 
 
 , or of 
 
 It is 
 
 o: III, 
 
 ' sueiiig 
 ites no 
 
 leclared 
 Palmer^ 
 Grants 
 'gunient 
 ant had 
 ■ds in a 
 ont the 
 
 cd in the 
 allowing 
 
 a Court 
 
 , & 209, 
 
 linst the 
 20 and a 
 
 — 15 — 
 
 2 Yernon, ^)^^^ noto^ 
 
 NouMAN on Patents, SEnplisli Ed • 
 
 2 RoL. 191, pi, 20. 
 
 3rdlj.-Tliat the ordinary Tribunals, on t-ktvatf mH anr? 
 without the formal'lh nf ^c^,^^^ \?l ■ '^'vatk mn, and 
 trv fhf^ yjH\\A\Z Tt^ •* ^cire-Facias, are oornpotent to 
 o/ju8ticf ^ Crown-grants not enrolled in a Court 
 
 » 
 
 Chad vs TUsed, \ ? ?• '^^ I^-. 403, ) 
 ' I 5 MooKE, 185, J 
 
 Gray vs Bond, \ ? p; '^ ^>-^ ^67, ) 
 I o MooKE, 527, ( 
 Alcockys Coohe, 5 Bingham, 3^0. 
 tonmang vs Forrester, 2. J. & W §42 
 Parmeter vs Oibbs, 10 Pejoe, 412. ' 
 
 whorP^W^' •^?'~?\^^'*' ^''^ ""''' ^'"^^^■>^ ^^<^^'^ ci'ed,AndtheRoy- 
 c SX ro^ lln"''' '^'' ''''^'^'% ^^' Crown-grants has beo,>'*^-t-rea^. 
 9./1 i" • ^^^'^'^'T «oui'^^e, and without the fornialitv of '°- •'^°"' ''■ 
 ocire-jpaoias, very aro-e sum « nf ,1.^.,,^,. i ,, ^"^ .',"•/ ,^^q»'ring pre- 
 Crown for tlie Yi3t ^""l^°* money had been paid to thesence of the 
 conXLnKL 1 •/. ^'' T^'^^ "^ others the Crown had ^rown in pri- 
 
 What tLn%±:it^^ ^'''^''^ ^^'^''''^^ the time -^--*- 
 
 for the p^^^^^^^ }l'^ ^^^S^P^^^^t that a necessity exists 
 
 c^^-tenti; K."^^^^^^^^ "^^""^ "^^^^^^ -^^' byreaso^fofthe 
 
 /9^... ^'/.^^^' ^^"^^^^^' ^'° t^ie case of 7%. /^nnczW^ 
 ffc£ f f l^^n.. .. rayZ.., (1 Lower Canada Reports 
 
 fhat ; ^ f '\ ^^. '^'"l ^^"^"^ '^^ Q^^^^^'s ^^°«b. in Appeal- ^- -««- m 
 that a DefeiKlant, by Exception, mio-ht invoke X^PP^^'^^«^^ 
 
 ha^^SeTthet^"^ ^^"^ witiiout ^dng^^;:;;^^^^ 
 
 nnl ,v.t • • .1 "" ^c^r^-i'.^c'?.?^. And assuredly if there igPi^a.and ^ 
 any ineamng m tlie maxim : " Q„w 2^erpetna ad eiciJeZum '''''^'''' ^y 
 
 ne c-rthZ I'-^.i ^''^' '"^^r. ''^^^^^ ^e tirged by Acfon, subject 
 iJt\c,inieefeh to the question of t mo, as affp^Vprl h^r 
 
 Q..o,4io„s, 1st, 2nd, 8,-d, 4U;, 5tl. & ]3tl, °""- ^^ """''' ^'' 
 
 ircncr; 
 
 !i'^fnH^^'~T'' ^f Questions 20th ^^21st, tliey are too Questions 
 al, and are not to bo noticed bv the Court, since thev^O'-^. siattoo 
 
 •■ general, and 
 faulty. 
 
— IG — 
 
 do not convey particnlavs of the objootions soii£^ht to be 
 nr^ed ; and they violate, in that respect, the XXXVth Rule 
 of Practice of this Court, wliich states " that no party shall 
 *' be permitted to urge any ground, in support of a Uefarv 
 '''' aufondx en Divit^ not 80 set forth and particularized ii 
 " such notice. " 
 
 ^CC, 2)D% The only Questions of the first class, 
 
 5'fh^Q*K.''^mth pni'P*^^^^"g ^" '"^^^ *^^^ Plaintiffs' entire case, and remaining 
 iith 14th! t« ^^'- considered, are the 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 1-lth, 15th, 
 I6th'& 18th. & 18th. 
 
 Remaining 
 Questions of 
 
 As to 7th, 
 Plaintiffs 
 could not be 
 expected to 
 notify Crown, 
 before issue of 
 Patent, of dis- 
 covery, since 
 gold had not 
 then been dis- 
 covered on 
 their lands. 
 
 !SeC. ,2b, The 7th Question is, whether, " in order 
 
 " to be able to maintain their present action, the Plaintiffs 
 " should have discovered gold on their lands, and notified the 
 " Government of such discovery before the issue of the Patent." 
 The absurdity of the reasoning wliich prompted the raising of 
 such a question is apparent on reflection, that, although gold had 
 been discovered long ago in other parts of the Seigniory, yet, 
 at the date of the "de Lvaiy- Patent,^' gold had not been 
 discovered on the particular lands referred to in this cause. 
 The " DE 1,¥^Y-Patent " issued in 18J:6 ; and the Plaintiffs' 
 Declaration alleges gold to have been a very ancient 
 discovery in some parts of the Seigniory, but not to have been 
 found oii the Plaintiffs' lands until 1860, when the Declaration 
 alleges the Plaintiff, O'Farrell, to have been the first to have 
 discovered quartz; and other gangues 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 1860 ? 
 
 Misrepresen- SgC, 27, And here it is fitting that the Plaintiffs 
 
 Defendants of should notice a glaring misrepresentation of the Plaintiffs' 
 the Plaintiffs' allegations, perpetrated, unintentionally no doubt, by the 
 allegations on j)^3fy„f}f^nts in their Factum. The Defendants, at Page 36 of 
 Sd.'^^' '"their Factum, say: 
 
 " II est bion allegue quo Tun dcs Dem?.ii(leurs, John 'Farrell, Ecuier, 
 ♦' a fait, siiii LES tehuains qu'ils deckivent, la decouverte de mines, que 
 ** DANS UNE AUTRE PAUTiE DE l' ACTION, Hs alUqiieiit avoif fcto counues ct 
 *' decouvertes depuis itii deml-siecle, et qu'il a eto le premier a en denoncer 
 " rexidtcncc. Or, M. O'Fun-cll n'lx aotiuiti cos terrains qii'on 13G0, etc., etc. 
 
— 17 — 
 
 Sec. 28. In the above quotation the Plaintiffs Refutation of 
 
 are accused of having said, in one part of their Declaration, preseatation 
 that " the gold on the Plaintiftsj' lands was discovered half a by 
 " century ago," and, in another part of their Declaration, that 
 " Fiich discovery was made quite 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, concerning the 
 discovery of the precious metals. At Page 3, injine, oi their 
 Declaration, the Plaintiffs say : 
 
 " That the discovery of the existence of alluvial and diluvial gold in the Quotation 
 Scip;niory now called Kignud-Vaudreuil was not made by said Grantees, frf"" Plain- 
 cither individually or collectively ; that such discovery had been made forty ^j^^' Declara- 
 years at least before the issue of said Letters-Patent, as evidenced by old ^*®°i 
 maps whereon the River now called the Gilbert-River in said Seigniory, now 
 called Rigaud-Vaudreuil, is set down and marked indifferently as " Riviere 
 doiee," '' Riviere de mine d'or," an authentic copy of one of which maps is 
 herewith tiled." 
 
 " That, thirteen years at least before the issue of said Letters-Patent, 
 a nugget of alluvial gold, of several onnccs in weight, had been found in said 
 River G-'bert by a person nanu'd Gilbert ; and that, although the said Dame 
 Marie Josephte Frasur, Charles Joseph Chausscgros de Lery, Esquire, and 
 Alexandre Rene Chaussegros de Lery, Esquire, immediately after such 
 discoveiy, hiul knowledge thereof and of like discoveries elsewhere in said 
 Seigniory now called Rigaud-Vaudrcuil, and although, during said period 
 of thirteen years, the said Marie Josephte Eraser and Charles Joseph 
 Chaussegros de Lery, Esquire, and Alexandre Rene Chaus egros de Lery, 
 Esquire, had been exclusive proprietors in possession of said Seigniory now 
 called Rigaud-Vaudreuil, yet the said Marie Josephte Eraser and Charles 
 Joseph Chaussegros de Lery, Esquire, and Alexandre Rene Chaussegros de 
 Lory, Esquire, utterly failed and neglected to disclose, or to cause to be 
 diclosed, to Our siiid Lady, The Queen, or to the Governor of this Province, 
 or to the Civil Government of this Province, as representing Her said 
 Majesty, th'i lact of such discovery of gold, or in any manner to comply 
 with the said clause of the Original Grant of said Seigniory now called 
 Rigaud-Vaudreil respecting the disclosure of mines, until application was 
 made by the Grantees aforesaid for the said Letters-Patent in the month of 
 May preceding the issue of the same." 
 
 l^eC. /-^y, And at Page 8, in Jine^ of 
 
 Declaration, the Plaintiffs further say : 
 
 And by other 
 their quotation 
 
 from same 
 Declaration. 
 
 " That, on the pieces of land so bought by the said John O'Farrell 
 Esquire, from the said {names of the Plaintiffs^ 'vendors), there exist deposits 
 of alluvial and diluvial gold, tin, platina and other metals, and veins and 
 courses of quartz and other gangues, carrying gold, silver and platina, 
 uncombined with any other, metal, and also chemically combined with 
 copper, leitu, tiQ, 2iuc, arsenic, rtiitiiuoriy anu iron. 
 
— 18 — 
 ^S^t^o^rS ^S oriU "il-aia ,Jia and sUver-beann,-.uavtz 
 
 means to ^v>>'■\^ '^"" ^'^ ?;'^:, ," « u r »"i^ ^^ ^^^^^ "'"'^ Tnetal-bearing 
 
 alluvial and diluvial ^oW an I ^^^^^^^ 
 quartz and otlicr gangues ; whcicot tut 
 
 ^or 30 —In the face of sucli, the language of the 
 
 The mildest oxi-lanutioi. « t >. ^'^'■-'.. ^^^^^ they are 8,> 
 particMku-, is to bo found " ''- ^"l\l^j" '^'k,,„,v tl,at there ...ay 
 little verged in ™'>'"'g '"''"" ^J.'.t ,.3 many independent 
 l,e as m ny nniios, ■""'.,'=""°'-' '' :',,2.,.eots,--ayc, even aa 
 diseoverio. or ^-'^^^^ "f^.^HZ^ZSZ^Zuir^ ^deVosits in 
 
 ipnorame 
 nature of m 
 nes. 
 
 many discovencs, 
 
 rU>rrrei;; riant rnineral deposits in 
 as tiiciL .ui. i i_ , independent 
 
 •the -^sanm reef. And the F"-V;' ,;/ jo ' r and reclogni.ed 
 diseoveries. even on the same cef, g \ ^ *,,, J^^^ ^f 1864," 
 
 rj,r^v"iSTTo:i;n),^^dehstatesT 
 
 •1 A ihc^ rlioroverer of a ^vyf quartz-mine, 
 
 a 2^0 person shall be considered ^^^^ ^TZAxsLnL if 07i a known 
 
 u ^.nim tlfe^Zac^ of the alleged ^ --J^^^^ffi,^^^ the same lead, 
 
 ;: 2 J^iSln^n;:^^ S: S iS ::^^ne at nght angles .0. the 
 
 " course of the lead." 
 
 .,.c,™» of S.'C. 3 1 .—Upon n>at -f^'^'^^:;^^ have 
 
 Err-ariaintiiiv p«>-;^•■;;;;':^,:.^.l;':^^rrb^c.' - " be a 
 
 tion. .j-i^e D.;f end ants say : ^ , 
 
 u Alors de deux choses Vuno : on d (J^^ - ^^,^ ^^^ t,^.,..^. 
 
 u _,S'/; r« cZo^na- AVANT, il se •^''^%^;, ' V" '^' J.^,,^ ],, nropriete d'a.itvui ; 
 . aemande unc concession de nimes ^^^^^'"'^J ,jUent aupnravant 
 
 u Jettre les proprieiuues <U solca '^^"^ Xt^^i,, droits, ce quMl n'a 
 
 :^tl^il V.;tar.i, p'^^^;;;^- J--,, ^^£::^S^icry:^ 
 
 ,l„ tfviilc; ros llunCS a«/u(//tt' it<-< 
 
 " concession de tQua.^ etn lumva 
 
19 — 
 
 )ccn t^^J 
 !cn, the 
 5-quavtz 
 
 inPlicient 
 tho said 
 l-boaring 
 ade." 
 
 c of the 
 
 it is a 
 lisrepre- 
 
 ititfri of 
 
 (jf gold. 
 
 in this 
 r are so 
 ere may 
 jpendeut 
 
 even as 
 posits in 
 epeudent 
 •cognized 
 
 of 1864,'' 
 
 uartz-mine, 
 n a KNOWN 
 
 SAME LEAD, 
 
 les from the 
 
 n of thx 
 tnni, have 
 ve to be a 
 Li- Factum, 
 
 -ell,) f' <l''>nve 
 :is iteuleinettt. 
 etraiiticr qui 
 ieto d'autvui ; 
 t aiiparavaut 
 ux-nien\es, et 
 ts, CO qu'il "'a 
 lites, et alors, 
 etc faito ct. Icb 
 rs de Ury'' 
 
 ^OCv 0^» Now all that the above attempt at^jj^,} j^^f 
 
 reasoning requires, in order to be a dilemma^ is that it should tlmt Bpecimen 
 
 be *^^*>-* a dilkmma!! It is, in fact, the very reverse °f ^"e'<'' 
 
 of a dilemma, since neithei- horn Mill bear being handled. 
 
 For instance, as to the iirst sdternativo the Defendants 
 
 ofl'er,^ that of having failed to place the owners of the 
 
 soil in mora,, and to obtain a judgmeiit of subrogat'on 
 
 to the owners' rights, the iJeftiuhiilts seom to have forgotten 
 
 WvAithe Plahitijf's, v,y ruucnAsi;, liave become snhrogaUd to 
 
 tho (>W7}crs' riy/its^ and do not therefore need any judgment of 
 
 sulmHjation. And, as to the secoiul alternative, "tliat of having 
 
 g;iven notice too late, since a piHivions grant of tlic mines had 
 
 been made to the Messieurs de Lcry, the Defendants' afgument 
 
 \%^ l\i\t'W 2>^'inrip'd \ they assume as admitted, the very 
 
 proposition denied In the ]'hiin(ills, the validity of tiic " Do 
 
 Lery-grant "; and the Defendants conceive tiiat, by urging the 
 
 existence of a void grant, they can debar the riaintitfs from 
 
 questioning its validity. It is of such specimens of 'ogie as 
 
 the foregoing, of such misrepresentations of authority and of 
 
 garbled (juotations that the l)efendants' Factum is n'lade up. 
 
 For instance, the Defendants, throughout, confound the Droit 
 
 Heyalien with the right of ownei ^hij) ; and from the existence 
 
 of a Royalty, which no one den; 'd, prior to the Seigniorial 
 
 Act, the riefeudants conclude, throughout, that the right of 
 
 Royalty is synonimous with the right of ownership. But of 
 
 those errors, into wliich the Defendants have thus fallen, more 
 
 will be said hereafter. 
 
 feOC. OO. The difference between the position of unlike Defen- 
 
 the Deft ndants and tluit of the Plaintiffs is this, that the^""^^, are 
 Plaintiffs are lirst (and, as may almost be said, exclusive) ^^°|'^'^'(|'jg(,Qyg. 
 discoverers of the mines, as they are exclusive owners of thcrers, alike, of 
 soil, of their lands; in that respect, they possess two qualities, their mines, 
 no one of Avhich ever was held by the Defendants or by the 
 Grantees of the Patent, and which, by the Laws of all Nations, 
 constitute an invincible chiim to the mines, when combined, 
 as tho Plaintiffs' Declaration alleges they are, with the will 
 and the means of working such mines. 
 
 ^(*C o4. Admitting, for the sake of argument, Defendants' 
 
 that, at some given point, or points, in the Seigniory, the J^^J^^^j^y* 
 Messieurs de Leiy bad made a discovery of gold, their admission, 
 position is not bettered. In view of the present argument .4r5f«m'nft" 
 
— 20 — 
 
 eamn, that being on tlio Demurrer, wliicli, ad hoe. admits the 
 they are di3. truth of the PhiintifiV aUo^'jitinn tliat they are tlie first 
 colddse- discoverers of the mincH on tlicir lands, it is clear that 
 where in theft prior discovery of gold elhowhure hy sotnebody else, 
 ■eigaiory. never could justify the grant to that 80inel)ody else of the 
 miiif^n so discovered by the Plaintiffs on their own lands. For 
 instance, within what area e^luill yon cireninscribe the 
 inordinate desires of that soinehody else, 'non-owner of the 
 8oiU in his demand for a gold-mining grant ? If you do not 
 limit him to territory an distinguislied by a dinerenoe of 
 proprietary, or, in other words, if you give Iiim a gold mining 
 grant extending over other hinds than the ])articnlar lot, upon 
 which lie may have made his discovery, th^re is no reas(m 
 why you should not make to him a gi-ant of unlimited extent. 
 If you do not limit his grant to a ])articular lot, there is no 
 reas(»n why you should limit the Grant to a Parish, a County, 
 a District, aye, even to a Province. Thus is evidenced the 
 absurdity of the claim set up by the Mo^siaurs de Lery to a 
 Grant of mining rights over one ncxDUKu and fight square 
 MILES of territory, founded on a discovery, not by them, but 
 by one Gilbert, of a nugget, that did not pei-haps cover one 
 square inch of that territory. That the intention of the 
 Governor of this Province, in issning the " de LEKY-/'(f7^(!'7?^," 
 could not have been to grant any other mines than those to bo 
 thereafter discovered by the Grantees, is clear from the very 
 "wording of the Instrument itself; and ceitainly, it was not 
 the intention to grant to the Patentees snch mines as other 
 persons (for instance, the Plaintiffs) should tlicre after discover 
 on their own lands ; but of this more hereafter. So much for 
 Question 7ih, raised by the Tth Eeason assigned in the 
 Demurrer. 
 
 Qaeations geC. 35, Quepti<.nB : 9th, 10th, llth, 14th & 
 
 11th, 14th and 15th, (which, with the 18th, form the only rrriiilning Questions 
 
 15th, treated of the first class) involvo iiie x.hoh question as to the 
 
 of hereafter. Q-^ynership of gold and silver mines and of Royal rights 
 
 therein, and will be treated of, in a more appropriate place, 
 
 in the next chaiDter, under the heading of the Yth, Vlth, and 
 
 Vllth reasons assigned by the Plaintilis in their Declaration 
 
 against the validity of the " de Lery- Patent " (see Section 
 
 of this Factum). 
 
 vSlniTs du Sec. 36. As to Question : 18th, whether the 
 
 visibia ; aod operation of thQ Patent is divisible, it is hardly necessary 
 
 V 
 
— 21 — 
 
 & 
 
 V 
 
 to discnsB the mfittcr, Rincc the divisibility of its operation 
 goems, tf> the Plaintiffs, to be a 8(>lf-evident y)ropo8ition. 
 Now, (and \\ itlioiit waiver of the objection that this 
 Question shouhl have been raised by Exception d la formed 
 JHKt suppose the case of a Crown f^rant to A of several lots 
 of hind previously and separately patented to 13, C, D ' 
 Will any one ])retend that B may not attack A's Patent, 
 merely ln'causo C & D are eitlier unwilling or unable to move 
 in the matter^ Could B, C, & D even join in the same suit 
 to com] (lain of that Patent ? Clearlr not. What ri^ht, then, 
 "wonld B have to urge C's rights as against A's Patent ? By 
 claiming in B's suit to have A's Patent declared inoperative 
 as against C, would not B lay himself open to the imi>utation 
 of urging the droit crautrui f In the case, then, of the " dk 
 Lkky-/^c/^^7>/," is it not clear that the Plaintiffs had no right 
 to askthis Court to declare the Grant inoperative as against 
 any other person than themselves ? Moreover the right of entry 
 ^vh ch the Defendants claim, under that Instrument, to 
 exercise npon and over the Plaintiffs' lands is nothing more 
 nor less than a servitude ; as respects the soil itself, not even 
 the Defendants claim it.to be a right of ownership ; and if it 
 is not owncrshij), it can be nothing else than servitude. Who, 
 then, ever (piestioned tiic divisibility of a servitude, as respects 
 the object of that servitude ? Guyot, vho. servitude^ P. 236, 
 Jid : in act : (& F. 249, Ed : in quarto^ in an article, which 
 acquires importance mainly from the vast research and great 
 learning it exhibits, has said : 
 
 riprht of action 
 tlii»r<ifore di- 
 visiole. 
 
 Patent riptitB 
 not a right of 
 property ; 
 thf refore only 
 a ierx ; 
 
 iini ferviluJe 
 divisible. 
 
 "On d't communemcnt qne tontcs Ics s^rviturlcs Fort rliviflurF, h 
 *' rexception de I'usufruil. Mais quoique cctte regie snit assiz generaloniciit 
 " vraie, les raisons qu'en donhent bicn des auteurs, nc sont pueres 
 *' satisfaisantcs. Cajiolla dit, par exemple, au Chapitro 10, d'apr^s 
 *'• beauooup d'autres doctciirs, que toutes les autres servitudes, tant reellcs 
 " que personnelics, se jnesurent sur les besoins de la pcrsonne, ou de 
 " I'heritage a qui ellcs sont dues, et que ces besoins ne sont pas susceptibles 
 " de division ; tandisque chaque portion de I'usufruit, prise separement, 
 " apporte une utilite relative a la proportion qu'elle a avec le tout." 
 
 " II n'est pas toujours vrai, d'abord, que les autres servitudes se 
 ** mesurcnt sur les besoins de la personne ou de I'heritage k qui elles 
 " sont dues." ■ 
 
 *********** 
 
 " Cette difference derive done de la nature meme des servitudes qui est 
 " telle qu'' on ne pent pkesque jamais Zff divisor. Mais toutes les fois que 
 *' l'objet de la servitude peiit etre divise, la regle n'a plus lieu. Le droit 
 " de puisage, par exemple, qui appartient a une maison pour cinquante 
 " sceaux par jour, peut fort bien etre divise, si la maison elle-meme est 
 *' divisible ; et rien n'empeehcra que, si celtc inaison ct'" pnrtagee en deus, 
 " chacune de ces maisons n'ait un droit egal ou inegal dans ce puisage, 
 " selon les conventions de I'acte de partage. 
 
 I 
 
— 22 — 
 
 - De mtme encore, lorsque je .uis greve de la ^cr^iinde ^. n. ^fls cZ.^^r 
 •' moT. muT de cloture de plus de six pieds ^o tu.u pour .e pa^ m ro, a vos 
 "vues, Tienn^cmfkU que je ne me h .ere de cette ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 " seulement, et par consequent qiCcUc ,e pumc '''^ .^^" ^ Jre e' 
 ^^duisiile. C'estsur ce fondement que Duxod '"'^PP'^ ^^, ^^'{,.^^iX^^^ de 
 "nartie 3 de son Traite des Prescriptions, un arret i\n i^'^^^'^^^"? T 
 "Kn,on qui a juge qu'on pouvait prescrire contre ^^^^^ 
 «' semblable pour partie seulement. lu sekait facile de MtLTiPUEU ces 
 
 " EXCEPTIONS." 
 
 The same doctrine is laid down by Le Camus in Ms 
 observations on Fkkrierk, Gravd Coviurmer ^^'^'J^\^ 
 P 1491 -and by Lange, in liis Nouvelle Frahque, voL . 1, 
 ch : 3. Tit : 3, F. 225. 
 
 It is therefore clear that the rights claimed by the 
 Defendants, nnder the - de Lm^-Patentr ai-e djv|sibe since 
 the lands they are supposed to affect were held m difteie -t 
 hands, at the' time of the issue of the Patent, and are stdl 
 divided among various proprietors. 
 
 The Questions of tlie first class having been thus disposed 
 of, the Plaintiffs proceed to treat of the 
 
 Title II. 
 
 Questions of the Second Class. 
 Sec, 37. As to all the Questions of the second class, 
 
 •oven did they cover an mu i^iuvn-v. ....vv,., -i- ., - . , 
 
 tire case : Declaration, t!.e unsoundness o any one ot he ^f^^^^ 
 raided bv those Questions would ])rcclude the Oouit Hum 
 CO "dc;.il,g the others ; because, in tl;e ^^^^ter ca.e s,.v^ P J 
 of the Pfiintitfs' Declaration would reuuun um^ns^va.a. 
 And the F uintiirs contend, tlud, on General Denmrrer 
 rn^essin- to answer tlie whole case,_ nnd tiot praying lor 
 C d rs=al of en.h one of the Plaint.tls' conclusions, the 
 Defen^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ debarred from nrging grounds that profess 
 io ee part ^only of the PlaintifiV case. In order to 
 
 Tt 
 
— 23 — 
 
 )as clever 
 iro. a vos 
 Lir partie 
 '•e comme 
 apitre 6, 
 imcnt de 
 servitude 
 
 rUEU CES 
 
 in liis 
 
 t: 187, 
 
 vol : 1, 
 
 by the 
 )le. since 
 clifferei.t 
 are still 
 
 disposed 
 
 iond class, 
 
 tions, they 
 clavation ; 
 aso ; hnt, 
 riaintifts' 
 jaw-points 
 oiu't iVom 
 some ])ai-t 
 ianswer':;d. 
 Deiunn-er, 
 rayin«5 for 
 iisions, the 
 hat profess 
 L order to 
 
 show that Questions : 6th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 17th & 
 19th do not meet the Plaintiffs' entire case, either sinidy, or 
 collectively, it is well to remind the reader that*' those 
 Questions are :— 6th, as to the effect of the Seigniorial Act on 
 the Patent,— 8th, whether the Grantees were bound to notify 
 
 the Crown, within a reasonable time, of the existence of gold, 
 
 12th, whether the Plaintiffs' Declaration shows the Defendants 
 to have notified the Crown in time,— 16th, whether the Plaintiffs 
 can r.rge the non-fnllilment of the conditions of the two Grants, 
 — 17th, whether the Plaintiffs can recover for other cause of 
 damage than the mere agricultural loss,— and 19th, whether the 
 Plaintiffs' Declaration denies the Defendants' right to other 
 mines besides those of gold. It is also well to bear in mind, 
 that the Plaintiffs, in their Declaration, besides the matters 
 referred to in the 6th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 17th, & 19th Questions, 
 do also urge, against the " de Lery- Patetit,'' a variety 
 of other grounds, such as fraud, deceit, burprise, misrepresen- 
 tation, misrecital, uncertainty, the absence of the Great Seal 
 of England, &c., &c., &c. Now the Plaintiffs' claim for 
 damages forms part only of the Plaintiffs' demande. The 
 conclusions of each Demurrer (for there are two of them. iSee 
 Faye 18 of the Defendants^ Factum) are in these words : 
 
 " Pourquoi, en vertu des raisons ci-dessus alleguecs, le dit Defendeur 
 •' demande le renvoi de Taction des Demandeurs avec depens. " 
 
 ^GC, »jO. Those conclusions therefore pray the And cannot 
 
 dismissal of the Plaintiffs' entire action, for rontons that profess g' nrrU "^ 0*7 
 to meet part only of the Plaintilfs' case. :N(nv the Plainliffs mur,er. 
 contend that the Defendants' Pleading, being a Gen ral 
 Demurrer to part only of the Plaintiffs' caser is therefore 
 bad and must be overruled in toto ; in any case, it must be 
 overruled, so far as it urges grounds ])rofessino: to meet part 
 only of the Plaintiffs' actioiK In support of'their views, on 
 +hat point, the Plaintiffs beg leave to submit the foUowin*'' 
 authorities : . " 
 
 TiDPs' 7\i?^ Practice, c/i;39 in initio^ P. 431 of the 10th 
 Eddlon^ states : 
 
 "When there arc several Counts in a Dedarntwn, some of which are 
 I' [lood 111 [loiiit of hnv, and the rest bad, the J)cfeii(l!int mu ou\y demur 
 •' to the latter ; lor, if he were to demur to the whole declaration, the Court 
 would gwcjud'jmetU against him.''^ 
 
— 24 — 
 
 Sec. 39, In support of his opinion, Tidd, loco 
 
 citato, quotes the following decided cases and reports ; 
 
 1 Wm's Saund :^Ed: 286 (9). 
 
 2 Wm's Saund : 5 Ed : 380 (14). 
 
 J)uhe of Bedford vs. Alcock.—l Wils : 248. 
 Judin vs. Samuel— 1 Kew Rep : C. P. 43. 
 Spi/er vs. Thelwell.—^ Ckomp : M- & E. 693. 
 1 Tyk. & G. 191. 
 
 1 Gale, 348, ^. a „ .-.o 
 Ferguson vs. Mitchel,—4: Dowl. Kep. 513. 
 
 2 Cromp : M. & R. 687. 
 
 1 Tyk. & G. 179. 
 
 1 Gale, 346. S. G. o ^rr n 
 
 Price vs. Williams —1 Meeson & W. 6. 
 
 ityr. &G. 107. ^. a 
 
 Wainwright vs. Johnson.—^ Dowl : Kep : 317. 
 
 Sec. 40. CnrTTY on Pleading P. 304 & 576, also 
 
 states 
 
 " Where the matter goes only to defeat a fart o/the Plaintiffs cause 
 » o^acUon the Plea in abatement should be confined to thatpart; and 
 - if thlwcndant were to ;.Z.acZ to the whole, his pZ.a would be dejective.^^ 
 
 * * * 
 
 ******-5«-*-» 
 
 «' A Z)mwr^r is either to the whole or part of a Declaration ; and, if 
 
 - there be SKVE.IAL Coa,U., or, in covcant, s^vi^nxL breaches some o{ svlnch 
 
 - ; s./iSn and the others] not, or o>,e Count which may be bad in pakt, 
 '> Z&^iTLdd onlyd.,nur to the latter ; for (/ he ^..v<. to demur 
 " t \l . w 1 15 Doolarat on, tlie Court would ^r,^^ jiuhiment against hini; 
 
 " r"jr] IS NOT, when the matters are divisible in their nature. 
 
 -X- * * * -;<• * * ***** * 
 
 " So where the Plaintiff declared in &ire-^cici«s, upon a judgment in K. B^^ 
 •' wUh a IroL vatet per recordum, and also an alhrmance of that judgment 
 .. ^ Vr.J.r in the Exchequer Chamber, without a prout patet, So., 
 " "nd Uie DcSiu t tarrld to the whole, the Court hdd iho Demurrer 
 - Joo I aL« I l.e Plaintiir.s demand was divisible, and.y udgment was given 
 " flVlTkudiir. 8o if part of a breach be good, it is no cause of Demurrer 
 ^^^'S:iiZLr.J..u UAMAUK is laid, which IS NOT H.^o_^KAmj 
 " In the case of a Plea of Sett-oif (two pails oi which are cou..idcied as 
 " Shi i two Counts in a Deciaration) if one part be good, a General 
 " Demurrer to the whole will be bad. 
 
— 2:; — 
 
 ^CC. 41. In support of liis opinion, ChittY 
 
 cites the following decided cases and reports, not referred to 
 by TiDD, namely : 
 
 5 B. & A. 712, & 715. 
 
 Comyn's Digest, vho. Pleader Q. 3. 5., & C. 82. 
 
 1 Saunders' Hev : 27. 
 
 2 Saunders' Eep : 378, 379 & 380, note 14. 
 
 10 East's Hep: 359. 
 
 11 East's Eep : 5H5. 
 3 Term Ri:p : 371:. 
 5 Term Rep : 557. 
 5B. & A. 175, 712. 
 1 WiLs : 281. 
 
 1 D. & R. 361, S. C. 
 
 2 Ela : Rep : 910. 
 
 1 Salkeld, 171 a, note 1. 
 
 ^OC. 4^, On tlio merits of the Questions of the Propositions, 
 
 secopd clasp, the Plaintiffs submit (as at Page 7 of their First ^7^^"^^° 
 Factum they have already done) the following Propositions, siStted by 
 namely : PiaintiflFa. 
 
 Sixthly. — Tlie Seigniorial A>.^, and the two 
 Judgments referred to, and the Schedule of the 
 Seigniory, very materially affect the ^' de Lery- 
 Fatent:' 
 
 EiGiiTLY. — The proprietors of the Fief were 
 bound, within a reasonable time, to notify the 
 Government of the existence of gold on their 
 Seigniory. 
 
 TwELFTLY. — The Plaintiffs have not, by their 
 Declaration, shown the proprietors of the Fief to 
 have complied with the condition of their Grant. 
 
 SiXTEENTiiLY. — The Plaintiffs have a right, in this 
 cause, to urge the non-fultihnout of the conditions of 
 tlie Original Grant, and of the Patent. 
 
 Seveententhly. — The Plaintiffs have a right to 
 receiver other damages than those arising from mere 
 agricultural loss. 
 
-- 2G 
 
 NiNETOENTiiLY.— The rifuiitiffs do, in their 
 Declaration, deny the Defendants' rif^ht to other 
 metals besides gold, namely, to all the mines, 
 minerals and metals referred to in the Patent. 
 
 „. , „ Sec. 43, As to the Sixth Proposition, after they 
 
 Sixth PrOpO- , , r 1' r f^ 1 , „^ ;^ 
 
 Bition invol- shall have pliown what the Law ot Lower Canada was,, in 
 
 ving owner- j,ggp(3(.j. „f J, lilies, at the date of the issue of the Patent, the 
 
 t?eTted ofhe'Plaiiitifis purposc establishin- that the abolition of the Fendal 
 
 reafter Tenure involves the annihilation of all pretensions, either of 
 
 the Crown, or of the Patentees, to mines in the Sei<i;niury in 
 
 question. For evidence of the Plaintiffs' views on that point, 
 
 th« reader is referred to Section of this Factum, where,_ as 
 
 the Xth Reasoti assigned by the Plaintitl's' Declaration against 
 
 the validity of the ''jm LvMx-l'<dmty the matter wi.l be 
 
 treated of, in its most appropriate place. 
 
 Eight Propc- SeC. 44. The ^?V//^A PROPOSITION to the effect that 
 
 Bition, as to ,, ^i^g Patentees (as being in possession oii\\Q Fief) were hound, 
 ^fSSs'Io'' within a reasonable time, to notify the Government of tlie 
 diado?e rui." existence -f gold in the Seigniory " is suscei)tible ot tacile 
 nee, proved ^^.^..^f^ The Plaintilfs' Declaration "(admitted to be true, f-r 
 all the purposes of this argument) alleges the discovery ot 
 gold to have been made, to the knowledge of the Patentees, 
 on a part of the Seiumiorv 1-3 years before the issue of the 
 Patent, and not to have been notilicd to the Government by 
 the Patentees until the Mav preceding the date of the Patent. 
 Now it will be B(3en hereafter (Section of this Factum) 
 that the Law itself, the Ordinance of l.om^ XI, dated from 
 2lontiU-Je.^ To'irN in Septe^iuku, 1471, Section 4, pronounces 
 a^'-ain^t all those failing, within the space of forty days, to 
 notify the Crown of such discoveries, thopmalt^ of forfeiture 
 of all claim to a GrxVnt of the Poyal PinniissioN to work the, 
 mine, llo^v many ])eri.»ds of forty days there are m the 
 thirteen years,silence of the possessors of the Fief, ho\v many 
 times over the Messieurs de Leiy had earned the forfeiture of 
 all claim to a Royal Permission^ before tlie issue of the Patent, 
 is, therefore, no ditlicult matter to determine. 
 
 Effect, in Law. 
 of f.iilure by 
 
 ^^ j^^__^^.^ ,, Ser. 45, Independently of the penalty pronounced 
 
 Defendants 10 [)y the Ordinance, the Plaintilfs' Declaration recites one 
 
 ^'l^' '^^''^ clause of the Original Grant of the Fief, the only one on the 
 oblicatiou. . . .. . " . 1 ,. 1.1 . !.. T.. : .ui;,...,f I.^.-. 
 
 subject of mines' to be found tht-rein. It is an obligation 
 imposed on the Grantee, his heirs ^and assigns in these words : 
 
'>7 
 
 I. 
 
 " De donncr avis k Sa Majeste ou k nous et k nos succespeurs, des 
 " minep, miuieres etmineraux si' aucuns se trouventdans la dite etendue.' 
 
 Now tlie non-fulfilment of that obligation being an act of 
 ingnititude, sliould have been (had it been known to the 
 Cn)\vn) not only a bar to any further liberality of the 
 Sovereign ; but' it would, according to PoTniKR, following 
 DuMO.LiN, have even entailed Cofrnnise or forfeitui-e of the 
 Fi<f n])on the Seignior. Note the L.nguage of PoTniEii, 
 Trlilie dcs F'ufs, Part. 1 ch : 3, Sect : 2, Art. 1, § 1 1\ 97 : 
 
 " De ce raiiport ertre la commise pour felonie et ^a revocation dcs 
 " donations pour c"use d'in?:ratitude, qu donnent lieu ji la revocation des 
 " donations, et qui sont rapportoes en la loi da Cod ; de reroc. donation, 
 " i)euvont etre adoptees a la commise pour folonie ; c'est I'avis daJJumouiw, 
 " qui decide sur Vart. 33, ghm. 1, qncuxt. 37, que pour savoir les cau^-cs qui 
 " doivcnt donncr lieu a la con.misc, il ne faut avoir rccours ni a eel cs 
 " expriinees dans les livres de Fcudis, ni aux causes d exhercdation dcs 
 "eidants ou des peres, inais aux causes de revocation des donations 
 " expriiueesen la loi du Con. de revocand. donation.'^ 
 
 " Ceb causes rapportees .^ont au nombre de ciiif^ 
 
 -X- * 
 
 * * % -:<- * -x- -X- 
 
 " La cinquieme raison est : ' Si comentiones donationi appositas 
 " ' minime implere voluerit ; ' cette raison a rapport au desaveu dont il a eto 
 " parlo en la section precedent.'." 
 
 Sec. 46. xVccording, then, to those authorities, the The same. 
 
 Grant of a Fi^f, or of ti Eoyal Permission,— of anything, m 
 iine, which 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 
 sti7):ilati(>n annexed ^to the Grant {convent! onejn donatiom 
 aj>jwsita}n). AVhat greater act of ingratitude could the 
 Messieurs de Lery have been guilty 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 failure of the 
 Granfecs to fulfil the condition annexed to their Grant of the 
 Flff,—&.nd their failure to comply with the conditions of the 
 Patent. The non-fulfilment of the conditions annexed to the 
 Grant of the Fuf, and to the Patent, must therefore be 
 considered as having revoked the Grants. 
 
 Sec. 47. The TwcJfthVKOvosrrK>i^onhiiT\^inim Twelfth Pra 
 
 «/ , ^^ f . . position, as t( 
 
 is to the effect that "they have not, by their Declaration, ^^^,,^1 ^y 
 " shown the Defendants to have complied with the condition plaintiffs of 
 
 to 
 
 I 
 
— 28 — 
 
 Defendant's " of the Grant." It is true, the " deJjEry- Patent " recites that 
 
 right to anytiie Patentees had notiiied the Crown of the discovery ; but it 
 
 ^igo g^g™.'°^^'does not assign any date to such notilication. Now the 
 
 blished. Plaintiffs' Declaration sii])plics the omission ; it is there 
 
 averred that the notification to the Crown was made oidy in 
 
 May precoeding the issue of tlie Patent. If the Di-fendanta 
 
 conceive that, by alleging them to have knowingly and 
 
 imlawfully refrained, during thirteen years and u})wards, 
 
 from notifying the Crown, the Plaintiiik have shown a 
 
 compliance, on the part of the Defendants, with the condition 
 
 of the Grant, then the Defendants are heartilv welcome to the 
 
 harmless delusion ! 
 
 f 
 
 Sec, 48. The Sixtee7i th Proposition of the PI ai ntiffs 
 
 manifest. 
 
 Sixteenth Pro- 
 position, as to 
 
 nonfulfile-'^^^ ^^^*^^^^ their "right to nrge the non-fulfilment of the 
 ment of con-" conditions of the Original Grant and of the Patent." A few 
 ditions, made quotations, with comments shoAving their application, will 
 —• ' suffice to make manifest that Proposition. 
 
 In Harrison's Digest, vbo. Grant, P. 3154, we find the 
 following: 
 
 '* Grants from the Crown, for the lencft of the King, ly angmenting 
 *' the revenue, founded on inquisition ad quod bonnm,, must be confonnublo 
 *' with the finding, — ?nunt be for the advantage of the Orotcn, — must be acted 
 " vpon PROjii'TLY, — must be uplield by possession and enjoyment, — and the 
 •* Grantees must fulfil all continuing con.siderations, ou the right of 
 *^ possession will not pass thereby from the Crown.^' (Attohnev Geneual 
 " vsFarmeter^ 10 Price, 378.) " 
 
 The same. 
 
 l^eC. 4y. From that authority it appears that, in 
 
 the case of a Grant, intended for the benefit of the Crown, the 
 Grant must be acted upon promptly, and all continuing 
 considerations must be fulfilled by the Grantee ; else the 
 Grant is absolutely void, and i'roduces no effect, since the 
 right of possesion has not passed from the Crown. Now who 
 will deny that the Original Grant of the Fief was intended 
 for the benefit of the Sovereign, — that the Sovereign had in 
 view the rapid settlement of his now 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 wliich the settlement of the country woidd naturally 
 bring to light 'i Who, also, can doubt tliat the Sovereign 
 intended the " de LERY-P«fcn^ " to enure to Her benefit, by 
 
 4r. 
 
— 29 
 
 t 
 
 4r. 
 
 reason of the teiitli-Koy alty, and the expected rapid development 
 of 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 
 considei-ations or conditions of the Grants have been fulfilled, 
 the Plaititift's' Declaration has clearly pointed out. And the 
 two Giants, in the words of the authority, have passed nothing 
 to the Grantees ; they have produced no effect as regards the 
 Grantees ; as respects the Grantees, and as a converse of the 
 maxim : " Qtiod nullum est^ nullum, prod no it ^ffedimi" they 
 are absolutely void, and are polluted with the taint of absolute 
 nullity. In reference to the nullite absolue, mark the language 
 of DuNOD, as quoted by Guyot, vlo. nullite, P. 422, Ed : in 
 oct : (& P. 250, Ed : in quarto : 
 
 " Cetts nullite pent etre oljeetee, non seulcment par la partie publique, 
 " mais encore par toutes sortes depersonnes, sans qu'on puisse leub opposer 
 " qiCellcs se pvemlent du droit d'un tiers ; et le iuge peut y prendre egard 
 " d'otiioe." 
 
 Sec, 50 — w 
 
 Answer to 
 
 by 
 
 ISeC , OlJ We shall perhaps be told that the nullity ^^Ye^ ioa 
 
 of the Original Grant affects the Plaintiffs' present claim to 
 the mines," as cenKitaires of that Seigniory. The answer is 
 obvious. The only person affected by it is the Seignior ; the 
 Commise of the Ei'f does not affect the cemitaire ; according 
 to the maxim : " Nulle ierre sans seigneur^ the censiiaire 
 merely exchanged one Seignior for another ; when the rights 
 of the Grantee of the Fief stand in al)eyance, or have reverted 
 back, the censiiaire holds from the Sovereign, by whom the 
 fcub grants are supposed to have been made. 
 
 Sec. 51. \Vc shall perhaps be also told that Other 
 
 1.1 Oil 
 
 IIaekison's Digest, 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 
 Lower-Canada, when it has provided for the case, should 
 govern in tliis matter, with the single exception, perhaps of 
 the formalities required to validate Letters-Patent, the Plaintiffs 
 nevertheless claim, that, when our own Law is silent, a resort 
 to English Law is sanctioned by the very highest authority, 
 that ot' Parliament itself, which, In the " Promissory Note Act," 
 0. S. for L. C, ch : 64, § 30, P. 525, has decUii ed that, in such a 
 case, as to Bills, recourse shall be had to the Laws of England ; 
 and the Plaintiffs, moreover, in the researches they have 
 
 objec- 
 
— 30 
 
 made on tin's subject, liave been drawn to tlie conclusion, that 
 there is a closer deforce of assimilation between En<>!;lisli Law and 
 ours, in matters affecting tlie Crown, than most persons Avould, 
 at first blush, be inclined to admit. Much light is thrown 
 upon this subject by tlie fact that the Norman conquerors of 
 England broufjht over with them their Coataviede Normandie^ 
 whi(!h, althoii<^-h tempered for the better, in Eiiichmd, bjsome 
 good old customs of the sturdy Saxon, is yet observed in its 
 purity in Jersey, and other Channel Islands,— that most of 
 tlie old Law — books, and not the least valuable among them, 
 are wntten in Norman French, that the language long spoken 
 in British Courts, as well as the Law administered there was 
 F.ench,— that, to this day, the technical Law-terms, in 
 England, nearly all betray their French Origin. In any case, 
 English authority will liave with us, the same weight, as 
 writers on French Law have always given to Roman Law, in 
 Provinces governed by dmtnmes / it must, assuredly, be 
 regarded as sound written reason. 
 
 t 
 
 And to other 
 objectioa. 
 
 ^CC, O^, We may again be told that, in urging 
 
 the non-fulfulment of the conditions of the Grants, the 
 Plaintiffs are making iisi; of tho rights of third persons, and 
 pleadiiig the droit ^d'autrui. Such an objection to the 
 Plaintiffs' argument can only proceed from a fast and firm 
 believer in the exploded doctrine of the " riglit divine of 
 Kings," At this day, in all civilized countries, but more 
 especially under consiitutional forms of government, such as 
 ours, the Sovereign is su])])osed to represent the nggregate wil 
 of the peo])le ; Wlieii the Sovereiu-n is decived,' so are his 
 subjects, (Norman oh hitenU. P. 20, En'j. h)l :), Even under 
 the absolute sway of the I'ouibons in France, the same idea 
 had dawned, though dimly, on the public mind, since we find 
 such a writer as Coquille, Tome 2, P. 506^ assert : 
 
 " Qui trompe le Roi, trompe Ic pciiplc." 
 
 ^ If, then, when the Sovereign is deceived, so are his 
 subjects, and whatever thus injuriously affects the Crown is 
 in like manner hurtfii^ to the people, it follows that the 
 Plaintiffs (two of whom are iter Maji^sty's subjects) may 
 comi^iain as of a matter interesting them, of any thing 
 injuriously affecting the Crown, witliout laying themselves 
 open to the imputation of pleading the droit cVautriii. 
 
— 31 — 
 
 , in 
 be 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 t 
 
 Sec. 53. Moreover does not every thing that tends The same. 
 
 to diminish the public revenue, even in the matter of a royalty 
 on mines, injuriously affect the subject, aye even the alien 
 indweller, of the Realm, and heighten the fiscal burthens of 
 those persons. 
 
 SoC. 54. Tlie Seventeenth PEorosrnoN of the 
 
 Plaintitls involves the Plaintiffs' " right to recover from the 
 " Defendants other damages than the mere ngriculturaUoss. " 
 Before entering on the discussion of the Plaintiffs' right to 
 recover snch special damage as they shall establish to have 
 been snfier>d by them, by reason of the Defendants' unfoiinded 
 assertion of right to the precious metals on the Plaintiffs' 
 lands, it is perhaps fitting to cite a few autliorities to show 
 that the mere assertion of an unfounded claim to a mans 
 proptn-ty, 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, vbo. Champart, P. 5-1:, Ed : of 
 ltd, cites two arrets, the one rendered on the 6th March 
 ITIS' and the "ther, on the 27th January, 1737, holding that 
 tlie bare denial of the droit de Ohamj)art, gives rise jo the 
 action en ComjMinte. One of those Arrets, that of 1718, is 
 reported by the Anoien Denizakt, vho : Comjplainte^ P. 108 & 
 100, in iLese words : 
 
 " Uii Arret reiulii Ic 5 mars 1718, on la Grand' Chambrc, sur les 
 " Conclusions de Mr. Chauvclin, Avociit General, a ju.ce qu'un Seigneur 
 " peu^, nitenter Ooniplainte pour I'aisoii de terra^i>, cliainpart, et autres 
 " droits sei,i;iu'uriaux, memo contre le debiteur qui^^denieles devoir, et reluse 
 
 " de les payer. " , . . .> 
 
 " La que.-^tion decidee par cet Arret ne s'etait pas encore presentee 
 " dans des termcs aussi precis : en voici respe>;e. 
 
 " Les Dues de Guise jouissaient depuis longtemps d'un droit dc terrage 
 " sur U'S terroirs de la Nouvilleet d'Etreux, meiiibres de leur Uuchc^et les 
 " habitants de cos deux Paroi.'.ses convinrent, au niois dc Juillot, 1717, dans 
 " des Actos d'Asscmblces de refuser le droit, jusqu'a ce qu'on leur eut 
 " jtroduit, on le titre primordial, ou des declarations ou reconnaissances de 
 " leurs predecossenrs." 
 
 " Les deux Actes d'Assemblees, ct Ic refus dc payer furent pris pout 
 "trouble. Madame la Princesse, et la Duthcsse de 15runs\vick, (a qui le 
 " Durlie de Guise ;ii)paitenait alors) fornierent leur demande en Ootnplainte 
 " aux Kequetes du Palais, contre les deux Communautcs en nom coUectif. 
 
 After reporting Maitre 6r/?i'.? argument lor the censitaircs, 
 Denizakt proceeds to say : 
 
 Seventeenth 
 Propositioa^ 
 as to right to 
 recover be- 
 yond mere 
 flgiicultural 
 lo33, based ou 
 authority. 
 
 I 
 
32 
 
 " Maitre Huart, avocat des Seigneurs, r^pondait que la Oomplninte 
 " n'est pas seuleinent un combat de possession entre deux persotmes qui 
 " pr6tendent, ou le m^rae horitage, ou le menic droit : c'est, dis;iit-il, une 
 •'action quelesLoix, les Coutumes ct Ics Ordonnr.nces accordent il toute 
 " personne qui est troublec dans la possession d'un heritage ou d'un droit 
 " reel : ' Or, le trouble se fait par la denegation ou cessation do paicincnt, 
 " de meme qu'il est excite par la pretention d'un tiers : ' re sont les termes 
 *' de Maitre Iluart ; il citait Faber, Guypape, Pontaiius, Papon Sc Loisel." 
 
 C'est sur coa principes qn'ost intorvenii I'arrct <Ui 5 mars, 1718, qui 
 maintient les Dues de Guise dans la possession, &c., &c." 
 
 Lange in liis yoitvelle Pratique^ vol. 1, livre 3, ch : 7, 
 P. 25'J, has the following : 
 
 " Par combien do nianieres pouvons-nous 6tre troublcz en notre 
 " possession ? " 
 
 " Par dexx tnanUres, par pakoles et par f aits.'''' 
 
 " Comment par parole V " 
 
 " Quand on nous deme un droit dont nous sommes en possession, ou 
 " quand par quelc^ue Acte ou exploit on se (jualifie posscsseur de ce dont 
 '■• nous jouissons ; alors 7ioiis prcnons V Acte ou V exploit jjour trouble, et 
 '■'■formons notre complainte." 
 
 -X- ******-»****** 
 
 " Comment conclure en Complainte ? " 
 
 *' A ce que nous soyons maintenus et gardez en la possession et 
 "jouissance d'un tel heritage, en laquelle nous avons ete troublcz : \apartie 
 " adverse condamxee a nous restitiier les//'(u7s qu'eile a per^us, ou qu'clle 
 '* nous a empeche de percevoir, et en tovs i^o& dommages, interels ct dayaniA.^^ 
 
 The same, SgC. OD. The doctrine tlius laid down and 
 
 confirmed by tlie Arret of 1718, to the effect, that : " le 
 '' TROUBLK se fait jxir la denc(/"tion ou cesmtion de paiemcnt 
 
 " 1)K MEMK QU'ir. KST EXCrFE V \M L.V IMiETKNlION d'uN TIEKS," 
 
 estsibiit^hi's' conchisively the I'liiintiffo' right ot action; and 
 the statement of LA^'0^: to the elfect, tliat ilie Defendant shall, 
 in such cases, be coiTdemned : " d vcMituer le.sf/'icits quelle 
 
 " nous A EMPECHE DE PEllCEVOIU, et EN TOU3 NOS DOMMAGES, 
 
 " iNTERETS, et deprns,^'' bears the Plaintiffs out triumphantly in 
 their claim for such loss as tliey may show themselves to have 
 sustained by the Defendants' conduct inlaying, to the precious 
 metals on the Plahitiffs' 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 
 Plaintiti's' quartz reefs, and removing thencefroni the rich 
 bunch of visible gold, so as to destroy the then promising 
 appearance of the veins. 
 
 Defendants ScC. 56. That both the Defendants, who are 
 
 Pnteat void, vendor and vendee in the Deed of Ssale of the 9th September 
 
— G3 — 
 
 18G4, Icnewllieir claim to llio f ociovia metals in ilie Sol r;;!! lory 
 to 1)0 utterly uiironmled, is evident from the fac!, that, in that 
 Deed of 5:^ ale, tlie Dk Lkrv Patent rights are sold avittiout 
 WAURANTY of any Vind^ and the Defendant, Dio Lkuy, sti])ulate3 
 that, m the evetif of the Patent being set aside, he shall not 
 M obliged to reimburse the p-Lrchase-mojiey ! I ! '- * 
 
 •The o^Mnion of Lange, to the effect, that {?^J'°*'f;;*'^ii 
 
 Sec. 57." 
 
 the Defendant shall he condemnea to pay to the Plaintiffs damtiges, un- 
 ALL the damages they mav have snlfered, has its source in tlie^^*" ^'^°'^'* 
 very fount of Christianity itself, as expomidcd by the ^^olden" 
 rule of doiuL;; unto others as we would wish that others 
 should do unto us ; that doctrine, moreover, underlies the 
 entire Law of Damage in the French system. The Nouvkau 
 Denizart, Edition of 1781, vbo. Dommages^ % 3, No. 1. 
 P. 002, hns the following, upon this point : 
 
 " 'J'out domniafi;e est en p,8n6ral une infraction h. la loi nntm elle qui 
 " deTond dc nuire a autrui, nefninem ui'dei'e ; c'est pourquoi U est dH une 
 " repuruLioiiy todtes les foig qu'll so ti'ouve un coupaVle." 
 
 55 
 
 The flame author, vbo. Pommages et interets, § J, JVo. 1. 
 P. 69-1, has the following : 
 
 " 11 est die des dommages et interets d celui q n^on emfteclie de'faire qiielqt/e 
 " gaiiiy comine h celui auquel on fait essuyer une pcrte. Cela est conforme 
 " a la decision de la loi 13.^, re7n rat. hah. : Si commissa est stipulatio, 
 " RATAM KEM DOMixuM iiABiTURCM, ill taiitum c.ompetit, in quantum rned 
 " inier/uit^ id eat, quantHm mild aiest, quantuvioae lucrari ^^fJi^wi. Pin 
 " ett'et, le dommago qui resulte du defaut de (jaiv, est souvcnt ausn reel 
 " dans ses effels, a raison des circonstanccs, que celui qui provient de la 
 "fjerie .• d'ailleurs, quand ce ne serait pas un dommagc aussi considerable, 
 " e'en est toujours un ; et, comme on I'a dit dans I'article precedeut, 
 
 *' TOUT DOMMAGE DOIT £tRE K]£pAE£." 
 
 Sec. Do, It will, no doubt, be said, that the Objeciion and 
 
 Defendants cannot be held responsible for having urged their 
 claims to the precious metals. The answer is plain: the 
 Defendants knew that their claims are unfounded. Else, what 
 is the object of that extraordinary clause in the sale by De 
 Lery to CoMAN of the Patent-rights, witholding the usual 
 warranty, and even stipulating that thei)urchase-money shall 
 not be refunded in the event of the Patent being set aside. 
 Evidently the Defendants have, by the assertion of an unfoun- 
 ded aiid uiijiiht clalu], damniiied the Piaiutiffs, and must repair 
 the wrong suffered by the Plaintiffs. The position of the 
 5 
 
 I 
 
— 34 — 
 
 Defendants in this respect h not to he distinnjuisliod from the 
 case of the man who hrin-s an unjust suit and ot whom 
 GuYOT, vho. Domniac/es et intcrots, P. 122, quarto M : 
 speaks thns : 
 
 " Suivant Ics lois rotnaincs, eenx qvl intentaient des prods hiJmment 
 ^^injustes, 'Ic^aient &tTO conda>nneH d den dmmaj/e* e« /'i/^rc^« octbe ,es 
 «' d£pen8. DVancois premier trouva ces dispositions si judicicuses, quo par 
 » 80.1 Ordonnunce del530, il voulut q^'^" toute Tr,U.oro on u. jugeat cle« 
 - domnia^^es et int6rfits proportionnos a la tom6rite do 1 action *!« ^f »» H/" 
 " succomberait : mais cettc loi est tomb6e en desu6tude, et le juffe 
 " ne prononce ordinairemev t de dommagen et tnlevdn que propornomeme.it 
 " m prejudice ou il lapertc quo soufTre celui h. qui il .'js adjuge. 
 
 Defendants ScC. 59. A like liability attaches, under English 
 
 unlr BngUsb Law, to all those who, hy an unfounded assertion of title 
 Law. to an immoveable have injured the owner thereot, either 
 
 by destroyini? the owner's chance of selling, or otherwise, 
 af the case may be. The action, to which, by English Law 
 resort is had in such cases, is called the action lor dander of 
 title. Upon an action for slander of title, the Plamtiff is 
 entitled to recover whatever actual special damage he may 
 have alleged and proved himself to have siitfered : as for 
 instance, the loss of a customer, to whom tlie Plaintiff would 
 have sold but for the Defendant's unfounded assertion ot title. 
 The doctrine laid down by English Law upon this siibject, 
 may be found stated, in any one of the lollowmg English 
 reported cases : 
 Lawe OS. Garwood,— Cro : Car : 140.— Jones' Rep : 196.— 
 
 Ley 82. 
 Howe vs. Hoachy—l Maule & Selwyn, 304. 
 
 Eliz : 197. 
 
 Crush vs. (7/'M«A,— Yelverton, 80. 
 Gre'\am vs. Gri7nshy, —YEi.YER'TOiHy 88. 
 Gerard vs. DicJcinson, — 4 Co : 18.— Cro 
 Smead vs. Badley,—CRO : Jao : 397. 
 Tashhurgh vs. Day— Cro : Jac : 484. 
 Eait of Northumberland vs. Byrt,—(JRO : Jao : Ibd. 
 Pennyman vs. Baybanks,— Cro : Eliz : 427. 
 Malaohy vs. Soper,—d Binguam. 371. 
 Bold vs. Bacon,— Crc : Eliz : 346. 
 Millmannvs. Pratt,— "l Bingham, 486. 
 Bargrave vs. Le Breton,—^ Burr : 2422. 
 Tl/jvf.hi '?).<?. Hurrina. — 8 T. R. 130. 
 Manning vs. Avery, — Keb : 153. 
 Cane vs. Gouldingy—f^TYhE's Rep : 169, 176. 
 
— 35 — 
 
 Waison vs. Reynolds,—! Moody tfe Malkin, 1. 
 Smith vs. Spooner,—'^ Taunton, 246. 
 J^itt vs. Dcmovan, — 1 Maule & Selwyn, 639. 
 Fairmmi vs. lues, — 5 B, & A., G42. 
 Bannider vs. Bannister, — 4 Co : 17. 
 Mildrnarfs case,l Co : 177. 
 
 Sec, GO.— The Plaintiffs flatter lliemselveB thatCi-^evide^v. 
 noWiiim- can be more satisfactory than the evidence in theirauftered by 
 p(,8se?sion, as to the price, at wliich, in the first fervor of thePiamtiiis. 
 c-old-exciteiuent, the Plaintillrt could have disposed of their 
 property at the Devil's Rapids, to parties with wlioin the 
 riaintifi', O'Farrell, had been in treaty, had it not been tor 
 the conduct of tlie Defendants, in causing the ne^^otiation to 
 bo broken off, by their unfounded assertion of title to the gold 
 on that property. 
 
 Sec. 61. Moreover the Defeadants' conduct in ^^'ff ""^q "^^ 
 
 onterino- on the Plaintiffs' lands, and in blasting, quarrying ms rf«/a.Y. 
 
 a])d removing the gold-bearing quartz, and thus destroying 
 
 tlie promising appearance of the reefs, is a voiede/ait, for all 
 
 the direct and immediate consequences of which, even t;) the 
 
 loss ot a cubtomer, the Defendants are indubitably liable. 
 
 So mi.ch for the Plaintifls' right to recover other damage 
 
 Ihaii the mere agricultural loss. 
 
 Sec. 62. In order to establish the nineteenth 
 
 PKoi>osn'ioN of the Pla'ntiffs, which is to the effect tlua the 
 Plainlitls have denied the Defendants' rig^it to all the mines,, 
 nm.e.al. and iiietals referred to in the Pateiit - ^^^^^fj^ 
 iieces-ary to reproduce a portion of the Plaint.fts Declarat on 
 «nll.at(3oint. At Pages and 10 of their Declaration, the 
 Plaintiffs slate : 
 
 - That under tl>o Letters-Patent aforesaid, the said DefendanU lay claim 
 ^Wo all fm\/old and all other precious metals, to be iound or exi.Uno ou 
 " tlie said jMeccs of land so owned by the said 
 
 {Plaintifs' vendors) 
 
 " and in and beneath the bed ot the said River so fronting the same ; and 
 " that, u.uLt the Letters-Patent aforesaid, the siud Detendants, as ell y 
 - thcn.sclvcs ..s bv their retainers, and representatives, have ;' 'J^" .V™ 
 ''soud.tlo exercise, and do still claim and seek to f^^^^^^^^'l^ llf^^^o 
 " passing and rejiassing, at will, ia and over the said pieces of laud, wittiout 
 " the consent of the said 
 
— 3G — 
 
 {Plaintijfs) 
 " for the purpose of working all mines of the precious mtals to be found 
 " on the said pieces of land. 
 
 -5f * :^ * 
 
 ■X- -V: -/^ * * 
 
 " And that, on the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and 
 " sixtv-two, and on divers days between that day and ttic tu'st day o 
 "November, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-tl:rce, the saici 
 " Defendants, as well by themselves as by their hired servants and retainer!-, 
 " unlawfully entered in and upon the said pieces of land, ami m and upon 
 " the river bed so fronting the same as aforesaid, and so then ant ti eru 
 » bein-, did work, mine, blast and quarry into the aforesaid S«l< «";^ j^^^^^ 
 " raetaV-bearing veins and courses, and thencefrom did unlawfully extract 
 " take and carry away, against the will of the Plaiutitl^, large q"|jn 'tics ot 
 - gold and silver, and other metals, and did further then and aere 
 " unlawfully extract, take and carry away thencefrom all ^ '« f ';/^;^[»^^^ 
 " beinc; visible in position in the said veins and courses, and did tiieieuy 
 " then and there so disfigure and destroy the appearance of the Si^id veins 
 " and courses as to destroy the Plaintiffs' chance of prohtably selling and 
 "disposing of the said several pieces of land, and c* the river bed so 
 "fronting the same; ami that the said Defeudauis, hj their natawful 
 " proceedings in thepremim, andlij their unjust ano uxFOUND-iD ^^««SE1!TI0N 
 
 "OF KTGHT ON THEIR PART TO THE GOLD AND OTHER METALS tO be iOUnd in aua 
 
 "beneath the said pieces of land, and in and beneath ^ '^ "^f'' J;^^.^^ 
 " fronting the same, lia.-e ddeired capitalists and miners /rom pii chasing 
 " or leaXurfrom the PUudHfs the said several pieces of land a^d the rivei 
 " bed so fronting the same, the whole thereby causing to the aint ., 
 " damage, amounting to the sum of two hundred and nfty thousand dolla s 
 " curreat money of this Provii.ee, which the De.endants have seveialij 
 " refused to pay to the Plaintiffs although thereunto requested. 
 
 It is iberefore clear, tliat tlie Plaintiffs, by their Declara- 
 tion deny, in tbe most eniphatic terms, the Dcieudants np-ht 
 lo, all tlie precious metals, the ouly metals rel erred to a\ the 
 '' Dii Lmvi'PatenV^ 
 
 llavin-^- thus established, as the PlaintitFs conceive, the 
 InsiilHcienc} of the Demurrer, they proceed to make out the 
 
 SUFFICIENCY OF TUE DECLARATION. 
 
 •f 
 
 Sjnop.i! of Sec. 63. lu ordoi-to attain liiuir oliiecl, IIjo Plaint- 
 
 r.gSnfof iff. deem ifight to ,-eproaucc,ri'om tlieir fiiv^t l^actmr,, a 
 
^■ 
 
 •f 
 
 07 
 
 synopsis of the allegations of their Declaration. Tliev ^^^^'^Sons to°'" 
 allege 
 
 10 The iss.o of the obnoxious Patent -^ Montreal on the 18th 
 September, 184G, and the enrolment thereof on the same aay y 
 
 Eegistrar of Eecords. Defendants, of that Patent, 
 
 2 => The possession and ownership, by the uetenaanib, 
 as well bv succession as by assignments thereo . Governor 
 
 30 Tl.. Orl^n.l Grant ioFlern-yde la G^^^^^ 
 
 «nd Intendant of Canada, at Q^"^^«,«; ^^^^^^FL^lSd^^^^^ 
 Sei-niory now constituting the P'^'^^V ^^t:/ "^^"^'f^^ '^^^^^ April 1737 ; the 
 Uoval Confirmation of that Grant ^V* ^ Tf^" that O^i/nTc^ra^^^^ and in the 
 onl> stipulation as to mines to be f«^"4 ^" J^f J^^'g^l the Grantee, his 
 Royal Confirmation thereof bemg an o^l'S^f?" ""E^^ ^v a nous et a vos 
 heirs &c., in these words : ;\de donner camd ^^ f%'^X\ moment dans la 
 ^^ saccesseurs,des mines, mimeres et imneraux si aucuns se 
 
 " dite etendue.^^ Kovincr fnvce of 
 
 40 The Judgment of the Seigniorial^ Je^^^^^^^^ 
 
 cJwse jvgee by statute as between the J^* «", ^^reservations of mines 
 which Judgment it was adjudged and declared that aU reserv ^^^^^ 
 
 by the Seignior were and are 'H^&j}' ,^" ,? .^^^J'.^ aMged and declared 
 contains no such reservations ; ^^'^^^^^ J^^^^^^L^^^^^^^^^^ and not floatable to be 
 the riparian proprietor of any stream not "fJ^S;^^^^^^^^ 
 proprietor of one half the stream fronting his prope ty. p^^^;g,,o„er 
 
 '5 o The Seigniorial Tenure Act, -^ the Jju^-nt of ^^^^^^^ 
 Turcotte, homologating the ^^^^^dule of he Seign oiy, oy^^ ^,^.^^^^ 
 
 ^.eignior's rights !uh vice were liquidated, and dtclarin^ 
 luid^no casual rights therein. p.„„w« but was a 
 
 60 The discovery ofgoldwasnot made by ^1- G-"^^ 
 discovery so ancient that the oldest maps of t^^^^^^^^ ^^^ 
 
 CTilbert River as the " Jiiviere doree\ the ^1^'^;;^' 'J^'^';;, fo^nd in the 
 a large nugget of gold, to the k"o;y^<^dge of tJieG ant.es ^v . ^^^^^^ 
 
 SeigiWby one Gilbert, «oine 1. years Icforete^^^^^^^^ 
 ancf that the Grantees, though cognizant ^ ..^X;3^^^ the Patent, 
 
 the Crown no notice of such d'scoveries untd thej ap^^m^ themselves 
 
 Avhen, by way of inducement for the Grant, tlity i-ustiy a „ 
 io be'tho discoverers of the gold there. .„„,„-<,fnr« under 
 
 7 o Possession by the Plaintiils and ^^^ "}^f:;2Z^^'^X^ 
 good and valid titles alleged, of certain ^^^'.'^'f'T^^^^'^^^^^.^ 
 ,%w called Ei,and-V<cudreuil, ^v\^n ^^;^l^^Z:^^,i extendit g 
 uescribed, during t^-^y yoru. and ^F--^^ 
 
 even to a period anterior to the Liit sh ^01 quu ^ " navigable 
 
 such lands and tenements front the River thaudici ., a lavcr 
 and not lloatable. r.i„. , impious! metals 
 
 8 = The existence, on tl,ose l;m* ami ^^'^T^^^^J'^HZ^^^Zl, 
 
 ouartz there by the 1 l^mtdl, <> l'ari<, , anu and that the 
 
 S^iovcry to theVown in cojnphanc. wi^ ^;;^;^^^,^X ^o^k all such 
 Pl-iintiifs are ready and willing, ai.d have an pic mt.i 
 
 :j£*Sthe precious meta^ ^ ^^-^'^-t^llo^ -^^-^ — ^^H> ^' 
 .) o The claim set up by ihe Defendants to t!^^^^;^*-'"^^ ^ j .^,^j teue- 
 .nll such mines of the precious metals as ai-e louud on mos. 
 ment , and this under the Paent above referred to. 
 
 f 
 
— 38 — 
 
 10 = Divers trespasses cor^tnilted by the Defendants on the Plaintiffs 
 landsandtencmcnts, 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 promis ng appearance 
 of the -old-bearing veins, and annihilated the Plaintiffs' chances ot prohtably 
 selling the said veins ; whereby the Plaintiffs have been, and are, daranihed 
 to the extent of $250,00(1. 
 
 11 o The illegality of the " De Lery Fatent;' resulting from the 
 following causes, namely : 
 
 I. The deceit, surprise, fraud and mis-representation practised by the 
 Grantees of the Patent on the Government of the day, as to the Grantees 
 being the discoverers of Gold there, and as to other material lacts. 
 
 n. The recital of the Patent that i^. is granted for a tract of territory 
 originally conceded e?ii'V to Pi«?v6 liigaud de Vaudreud ; that bemg a 
 misrecital; because the Grant to Iligaud de Vaudreuil lies to the N. hu ot 
 the parish of St. FranQois (originally conceded to Fleury de la Gorgendiere) 
 and constitutes the parish of St. Joseph de la Beauce (.originally granted to 
 de Vaudreuil). 
 
 III. 'Uhe uncertainty prevailing ^n the description of the thing granted ; 
 the weight of this reason will stri: c the eye on a perusal of the terms m 
 which the Grant is conveyed. 
 
 IV. The non-observance of certain formalities essential to the vahdity 
 of all such Grants, namely :-the Warrant for the Bill-ihe Bdl itscU- he 
 Warrant for the Privy Signet-the Privy Signet itself-the Warrant foi the 
 Great Seal — And the Great Seal itself. 
 
 V. The Crown had no interest to grant ; in as much as, by the Caws 
 then in force in Lower-Canada, the i-'ghts of the Crown, in private lands, 
 Avere, and are, restricted to one-tenth of the metals extracted. 
 
 Vr. The Mines belong to the Plaintiffs as owners of the soil in those 
 lands and tenements, no part of which ever belonged to the Defemlaiits as 
 owners of the soil; and thi,' the Patent issued without no ice to the 1 ain- 
 mfautevr., as owners of the soil, and without the Plaintiffs' autears 
 having been called on to work the mines. 
 
 VII. A Royal Permission to work a mine could only issue on the rer,isal 
 of the proprietor to work the Uiine, after regular and judicial notice to ne 
 proprietor, and a fovnua judgment to that eilect by the Iribunals of the 
 country. , . 
 
 VIII. Such Letters-Patent could not issue under the Great Seal ot this 
 Province, as thev have done, but only under the Greiit Seal of he United 
 Kin-dom ; lu.d such [.etters-Patent issued illegally and unadvised! 
 
 "iX. The non-;ullihucnt by the Grantees of the several conditions of the 
 
 Grant. ^ . . ■ i m \ * 
 
 X The Patent is, in any case, superseded by the Seigniorial 1 enure .\ ct, 
 and its amendments, and by the two Judg.nents above referred to, and by 
 the completion and confirmation of the schedule of the Seigniory. 
 
 The Plaintilis then proceed to co.u'lude against the DeftMidants' assume.^ 
 ri-htof entrv on Ih. Plnintilfs' lands, in assertion of the Derendants claim to 
 u V^dml; nietals therein, and that the Defendant, l-/^-'";': ' =;";^ 
 adju 1-.K1 to have no vi.^dit to such precious metals on those lands or m the 
 U3 of til. river lront.;g the -me ; Oiat the Patent .u,d^.tseni.lhn^.t^^ 
 declared null and void, and innp.Mative as ro-M.rds the Pl"> ^s • '^ th. , 
 lands, and be set asido, cancelled, revoked and annulled; and tlut tho 
 
 f 
 
 •/ 
 
f 
 
 *r 
 
 — 39 — 
 
 Defendants be adjudged and condemned to pay to the Plaintiffs their damages 
 amounting to $250,000, with interest and costs. 
 
 Sec. 64 In order tlie better to crrapple ^'itli the Te^t^of the 
 
 olMections taken by tbe Plaintiffs to tue " Dk LtjiY-Patent- 
 tbo Plaintiffs i^ive the text itself of tliat instrument, and Have 
 italicised such portions of it as bear on some of the points 
 made against it by the Plaintiffs. 
 
 "Whereas our loving subiecls Dame Mautk Josephte Fkaser, of Our 
 " Citv uf Quebec in Our Province of Canada, widow of the late Honorable 
 - Chlrles Etienne Chausscgros 1 )elery, in his lifetime also of the same p ace, 
 " Esmiire, Cuarles' Joseph Chaussegkos Delery of the same place, 
 "Esquire and Alexandre PJn15 Cjiaussegros Dklerv, also of the same 
 " Dkce Esqu re, have humbly represented unto ?/^'by the r Petition in that 
 " SfS? tMy are SeigJors and Proprietors ofthcFieJ and Seigmory 
 " o7 R GABD-VAL4<Eun,, situatc in our District of Quebec in our said Pio- 
 " vince and described lying and being, as follows, that is to say " an extent 
 " of ground three leagues in front by two leagues m depth on bo h sides 
 " of the River of the Ohaudiere Falls with the Lakes and Islands in the said 
 " River " and that there are supposed to exist loitUn the limits oj the said 
 
 " Fief and Seigniory certain ores, minerals <'^'d.^^^%ZTS'x\rTMX^^ 
 <^ other precious metals of wnicii supposed mines IHEY HA\E MADL 
 " THE DISCOVERY, and are now desirous of digging and working lor ttieir 
 " own profit and advantage should they oMain ^nv .f:^^^^ ^f.'^'T^'^J'''. 
 " tTat effect, and further that in obedience to the conditions oj^ the Original 
 " MoTvoncession of the said Fief and Seigniory to Sieur Pierre Rigacd 
 " DP Va?dreuil dated at Quebec the twenty-third day of September one 
 "thousand seven hundred and thirty-six and signed " Beauharnois and 
 " "iSniart,'' and confirmed at Versailles on the thirtieth day of Apri^ 
 " then following by His Most Christian Majesty, Louis the Fifteen A they 
 " d d dJ^iounce^nd declare to US for the expression of Our Royal Will and 
 " Pleasure the existence of the said mines within the limits of the said lief 
 " and Sei'niiry at several places therein, o/ .cAicA /A.^ will better vnform 
 " 7's amflrther researches under Ovr said Eoyal Permission, which 
 " thev humbly pray US to grant, in conformity with the laiosand usages tn 
 " to7cemdaLlying in that lehalf so that they may search, dig for and 
 "work the said mines by themselves, or by other experienced persons 
 " offering to P^y US the net one-tenth part of the whole produce of the said 
 " Ses, pi-aying also to be allowed a remission of the said one-tenth part for 
 " ™limite5 til, .%fter the melting of the said ores «lf ^e in opmtmn, to 
 " compensate ihem for the first outlay required therefor : N^w Know 1e 
 
 "tSn consideration of the premises, ^^^'«f ^^ ^r^t th^tCent 
 " hwioledge and mere motion, have given and granted and by t^iesc Presen 3 
 " do give and grant unto the said Dame Marie Josephte Fraser, Charks 
 " Joseph Chaussegros Delery, Alexandre R6n6 Chaussegros Delery, their 
 " heirTLd assigns for ever, oW ^^^^^^^^ and authority to maJce 
 
 "Sm'arcA J AS mav re required in oh^er fcrther to asce^^^^^^^^^ 
 " po-^iTioN AND EXTENT OF THE SAID MINES and to dig and work tlic Same by 
 " themselves or bv other experienced persons at any one or more pl.ce or 
 " places within the limits of' the said Fief and Seigniory, and for that purpose 
 " erect furnaces, buildings and other apparatus that may be required to 
 " "« lad render kvallable'^fbr the pr^^fitand advantage of themselves and of 
 
— 4-0 — 
 
 " their heirs and assigns all such ores and niinerals which they mav have 
 " foniKl, the whole in as ample a manner as mav be necessary for the due 
 "ed-ectof these Presents, the whole on condUmi that oar said grantees 
 " tleir heirs and assigns for ever mM strictly conform to all lam and 
 " f^gcTln force and Ipplying in that behalf, that they shall well and truly 
 »' rci.fv to other our loving subjects such damages and compensation's ma v 
 " from" time to time accrue in consequence ot the ground occupied, tlie 
 "oDenin- of Roads and other like causes resulting from tnc operations m 
 «' working the said mines. And also upon coadUion that iiefokr woiaaxo 
 ''THF svSf thcii do transmit and deposit with our Secretary of our said 
 " Province' a true and correct statement of the nature, situation and extent^ 
 ^^ of the said ores, minerals, and 7nines.-^x^A farther vponconddtoao/ 
 " irammitting in each and every year to our Receiver General for ou. said 
 ^^ Vvov\nc<i a true and correct account of the gross produce oj the same, m 
 «^ such form and manner as We, our Heirs and Successors may hemnfter bo 
 " pleased to direct, and also vpon condition of ,cell and truly pay nig and 
 " lel^kering in each and exery year from the time of melting the said 01 es 
 " for the first time in working furnaces, unto our Receiver General or sue. 
 " other person as may have authority from ^*S' our Heirs and Successors 
 «' one net tenth part If the x^hole gromproduce of the said ores nnnerals aad 
 " suUtances thereunto appertaining whatever, the said one tenth Part being 
 " melted cast and prepared in the same manner as the like may be foi tlic 
 " Soof of our said Gr.ntees, and relined according to tU Laws, f France 
 •^aTco%SnmU>ytheYAnc.ov His T.vrE Most CnP.STiAX MA.rESVV, of the 
 •'MONTH OF June one thousand six nuNOKEn and one. And it is urtliei 
 " our Will and Pleasure that our said Grantees have a remission of the said 
 " one-tenth part for live years from and after the date of these Presents. 
 
 First ohjcc- cjpp g5 ^xiie first objection, taken by the Plain- 
 
 tion to Patent kz'o^* v^-^» ,. . n t i ^.i 7 v 
 
 tiffs to the " De UiiiY- Patent,'' is founded on the decnt, 
 *' surwif^e, fraud, m.isinforviation and misreiyresentation, 
 " practised hv the Grantees on the Governinent of Canada, 
 " in relation to the person by whom the discovsry of gold 
 " in tlie Seio-niory was made, and in relation to other matenaO 
 " facts " tIic deceit, fraud and misrepresentation practised 
 bv tlie Grantees in this respect is made apparent_ by the 
 recital of the " De JAuY-Patetit ; " in one of the itahcised 
 portions tliereof, it states : 
 
 " WT7FREAS our loving subjects Dame Marie Josephte Fraser, 
 -&c L, dc, ham represented unto US, that they are Seigniors and 
 » proprietors . f the Fief and Seigniory of Rujaud- Varulrentl&c., <\:c^,&c 
 "and that there are supposed to exist, within the limits of the said Fief 
 " and Seitrniorv, certain ores, minerals and mines, containing gold and other 
 " precious metals, of which supposed mines they have made the disco- 
 
 Tims their " De LkvY-Faient " recites, as the first and 
 main cause or consideration of the Grant, the I'cpresontation 
 of the Grantees to the Government, that the Grantees had 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
i 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 t 
 
 •— 11 — 
 
 made the (liscuvei'v of tliose inliies. Now, as ;..;"'. ijst the 
 Dcfe!i<.l;iiits. wlir-iri tli.>- Plaintiiis allo,i^e to l>e the bwirois of 
 that Tnstrniuoiit. that recital of the Patent is eoiiclubivc ev!- 
 (h-iiee of ti'.o tnitli of the recital, Lecause tlie '• de Lini\-/'aif:r<t''^ 
 U the J)efon(lants' title, and establishes conclusively, as 
 aga'nst tlicni the truth of that recital. It only, now, remains 
 for the riaiiitiffs to shew that the (li'antees, in rcpj-esentiiig 
 b}' their Petition the f^old to have been discovered by them, 
 related a gros8 and Avilful falsehood. The Plaintitl's- .Declara- 
 tion, whereof the alJe^'ations of fact are by L&w held to l>e 
 trne for all the purposes of the Dcmnrrer, contains the follo^ving 
 allegations : 
 
 " That flie dimitern of the existence of alluvial and diluvial gold in the 
 " Seigniory now called Jvigaud-Vaudreuil loas not made ly said h'roiui'cfi, 
 " cither individually or collectively ; that such dmovevy had been 'made 
 '\/'ovty yean at least hrjove the mvc oj mid Letiers-Patent, as evidenced by 
 '^ old maps whereon the River now called tiie (lilhert- Hirer \\\ said Seigniory, 
 " now called Ilip;aad-Vaudreuil, is set down and marked indiflcrenily as 
 " lilriere dorce" '' Riviere de iiiine d^or,^^ an authentic copy of one of 
 " which maps is herewith filed. 
 
 " That, tJiirtecn years at least defore the issue of said LeUers-Pa/tui, a 
 " nngrjel r)/' alluvial gold, of several ounces in weight, had been /w?/;;;/ in said 
 " River Gilbert ly a person named O'liiert; and that, althovgh, the K;ud 
 " Dame Marie Josephte Fraser, Charles Joseph Ohaussegrosde Lery, Esqui -e, 
 "and Alexandre Rone Chaussegros de Lery, Esquire, imniedialcly alier 
 " such discovery, /ladJcnotdedge thereof and of like dlscoteries elsewliere in 
 " said Seigniory now called Rigaud-Vaudrcuil, and although, during sa^d 
 " period of thirteen years, the said Marie Josephte Fraser and Charles 
 *' Joseph Chaussegros do L6ry, Esquire, and Alexandre Rene Chaussej.'-os 
 " de Lery Ksquire, had been exclusive proprietors in possession of said 
 " Seigniorj aow called Rigaud-Yaudreuil, yet the said Marie Josephte Frasev 
 " and Charles .foseph Chaussegros de Lery, Esquire, and Alexandre Rene 
 " Chaussegros de Lery, Esquire, wttoxXy Jailed and neglected to disclose, o- 
 " to cause to bo disclosed, to Our said Lady, The Queen, or to the Governor 
 '' of this Province, or to the Civil Government of this Province, as represent- 
 " ing Her said Majesty, the fact of such discovery of gold, or in any manner 
 ^^ to comply imtJi the said clause of the Original 6'm«i of said Seigniory 
 " now called Rigaud-Vaudreuil respecting the disclosure of min€% until 
 '* application was made by the Grantees aforesaid for the said Leiters-Paieni 
 " in the month of May preceding the issue of the same." 
 
 It is, therefore, clear, for all the purposes of the DemurreJ', 
 that the Grantees were guilty of deceit, surprise, fraud and 
 misrepresentation in that respect. Let us now see, whether 
 there be any better foundation for that other statement of 
 theirs as to their ])ehig proprietor-^ of Iligaiid-Vandreuil. 
 Under the La^v which, })rior to the Seigniorial Act, governed 
 sSeigniories in this country, the Jseignior M'as a mere Tiustee 
 
 G 
 
A.-') . 
 
 tenement, andtl.e Ba.nd ■'»'' ™' ''?,, J^^' ■!■ " U;«<^i«, 1'" d"! 
 lands as he nuRht have ^"l"''^^;' '^'?"?_ ^f' one smu vc inch 
 not own, and was thoreim-p ""t F01'''«'»' ?\'^ ^^ Ji,^^ of the 
 ofthe -il witWn ''«.Se.gmo^. l-^^/^ftUe Sain iductiou 
 Tndc . - ot the Seisnional Court, snuiisini, 1 
 Sti;. clanso ofthe Seigmo^l Act (0^|_. C. ha K_^^^, 
 
 §85), which conToya, en roum *° '''V^Vrt.^t euactnicnt. 
 ;,„concedcd and ™»«'"P';f';,,f „t-^4 rf al that which the 
 The Seignior was no do,,M the o^>nc,_ %^niorial riglUs ;" 
 
 " t^""rt fete only wL To tornied VoP™'?'' <"„"'? 
 
 irdirrL^tteWPate^tinrEnshsh fonn would be a,t to 
 ''""TwaX thus carefully eoneoalhjg tom vi.v th^^ 
 
 the C.»»taires l>«".'Sr:rio male 1 e G^t £ qu'e^tion. 
 Govern.ncnt was "'d^^fj"",^ have been practiled tha,. 
 What worse species ot f , and couia "»•''„, J g Moreover, 
 
 that cxhil>i.ed in this eo-'f """i^Ji^ ^S In « ci; Declara'- 
 i„ the sixth reason ^^f.'f '^.-^^^ty j* " be LiRY-i'afe"* ", it is 
 tion against tl'«/-?\f*?, ;'''"; „e™r were the owuers of 
 expressly stated A^^'n^trrespce of which the Plaintiffs 
 
 S^r!:,ttS''f;;t!S^:n - ^^^>:ood,a deceit, a 
 niisroprcseutotion an-l a trand. 
 
 Wp„ (}6._Uaving thus brought home to the Grantees 
 .he stfrpHse, deceit, fraud, »d nris,.preser,tation char,^ 
 
 .pins, %r:''^j:;;'Z':^^^^l;S:^y the Plaintias 
 F„CBTH, n-iGiif" "p't,," in as much as the Law-autlu>ntics, 
 'V-T/bet'^nt'th 1.v*'ob"cJ!;m, arc applicable to the 
 
 Sec. 67.— The second objection to the " ok Lto- 
 Sr ^'"'-^^/^^.^ ^,,;tal of the Patent that it Is granted for a 
 
 ii 
 
 
or hii* 
 
 otliers 
 3e at\d 
 id Biich 
 
 he did 
 ,re inch 
 3 of the 
 iduetion, 
 
 ter 4:1, 
 11 lands 
 ictuient. 
 hicU the 
 ights ; " 
 • of the 
 )ry, that 
 
 I'.awyer 
 e apt to 
 
 10 fact of 
 iory, that 
 question, 
 ised than 
 Vioreover, 
 r Declava- 
 it ", it is 
 owners of 
 , Plaintiffs 
 must, for 
 it stamps, 
 a deceit, a 
 
 le Grantees 
 
 ,11 oh arged 
 )ond,Thirt> 
 e Plaintiffs 
 ■authorities, 
 able to tlic 
 
 " DE LilKY- 
 
 ranted for a 
 
 — 43 — 
 
 " tract of territory okiginallt conceded en Fief to Pierre 
 *' Riyand de Vaudrenil ; that being a misreoital / because 
 " the (irant to Rigaud de Vaudreuil lies to the N. E. of the 
 " Parish of St. Fkanqois (originally conceded to Fleury de la 
 " (Toryendiore) and constitutes the Parish of St. Josepu de la 
 *' Beauce (originally granted to Riyaud de Vaudreuil). 
 
 To phew that the " de JjVAiY-Palent " issued, as stated 
 
 above, the Plai .tiifs reproduce tlie description given in the 
 
 Patent of the territory affected by tlie Grant and place it i-ide 
 
 by side with, that contained in the Original Grant to d< 
 
 Vaudreuil, for the purpose of shewing that they aie identical : 
 
 Teeritoky, 
 
 described in " db LtRY-Patenty 
 
 " An extent of <riouncl three lea- 
 " gtics in front by two leagues in 
 
 Described iv C'meession to de 
 Vaudkeuh.. 
 
 A tract of land of three lea- 
 gues in fri.nt by two leagues m 
 
 " dci>th on both sides of the River of ^ depth on both sides of the lliver of 
 •' the Chaiidiere Falls with the lakes the Sault de la Chaudiere, to^:* thor 
 " and islands in the said River." with the Isl'es, islands and islets 
 
 lying and being in the said River. 
 
 The description of the territory granted to de Vaudreuil 
 is quoted toxtually from tlie English translation of tlie 
 Oiiginul Grant to de Vaudreuil, as "found on Page 245 of the 
 " Title a and documents relating to the Seiynioricd Tcnme'' 
 printed by E. K. Frechette as the Return to an Address ol 
 ihe Legislative Assembly of Canada of the 29th Angus', 1851 . 
 The Original Grant to de Vavdreuil is dated the 2ord 
 September, 1730, the very day assigned to it by the " de Lery- 
 Pident " ; and the Pla'intitis, wlio have had access to the 
 Reyidre de V Intvndant, No. 8, where the original Grant is 
 euntl led, can vouch for the accuracy of the translatiou In 
 order to shew that the '^"eigni-ry grunted to de Vaudreml 
 constitutes the present Parish of' St. Joseph, it is only neces- 
 sary to look at Page 243 c§ seq : of the satne Return ; Pages 
 243 et 244 contnin the Grant to Sieur Thomas JaequeK 
 Tasrhareau {\\< ., constituting the Parisli of St. Mary, Beauce) 
 —Pages 245 aiul 246 contain the Grant to de Vavdreuil 
 tocoDimence runniny (as stated in the Grant) " and ascending 
 "■ the said River, from the end of the concession which wj 
 " have this elay yranted to the Sieur Thomas jAct^uES Tasohe- 
 " REAU, and to end at aiujther concession ascending along the 
 " said River, .vliich we have also this day granted to the 
 
 I 
 
— 41 — 
 
 '' Sicar 
 
 o,uui Joseph Fleury de la Gougendieeh:. iho (:rrniit 
 to de Vaudrcuil eonstitntes tliii Parish of St. Juacpli cle )ji 
 l^>cauco ; and at V'a^q 2-iT of tlio same rvcturn is to he ior.nd 
 the Grant to de la 'Jovqendiere, which (.'Oiistitutes the 1 an.-^li 
 of St Francois de la Beauce. Now the Phaintifls' Declaration, 
 which must he taken to be true lor all the purposes ot tins 
 ar<niment, distinctly avers that the PlamtiltB lands and 
 tPiu^nientr; are situated in the Seigniory now called lu(ja<id- 
 Vaudreiiil, and that such Seigniory was origuially granted to 
 Fleury de la Gonjmdiere. Such being the case, it appear^ 
 inidoubted law to the Plaintitl^, that a Patent altectino- onlv 
 in the Sei<;-ni()rv oiiginallv granted t(. de I uudremL 
 
 Ijui'J 
 
 :in\ >tretcri of th'e iiunginatiiai, he licld to embrace 
 
 T'.iird otijec- 
 tion tu Patent 
 
 within its scope the Plaintilis' lauds, which arewitluu another 
 Sei'miory originally granted to de la Gonfendiere. in anv 
 case the varianc-e" must assuredly be held to he a tatal 
 misrccital. 
 
 Sec. 68.— The TniKD oljection to the •' de Lkrv- 
 J'atevt " is 
 
 " III. The uncertainty prevailing in the description of 
 '•' tlie thing granted." 
 
 What greater uncertainty can there be in the (U'scriptiou 
 <.f the thin-r intended to be granted, than is conveyecl m tho.se 
 V ords of the Patent " that there are supposed to exid ^ uutlim 
 
 - the limits of the said Fief and Seigniory certain ores, 
 'Muinerals and mines, containing gold and^ other precious 
 *' metals of which supposed mines, ifec, c*cc { And it any 
 ihincr- vcre needed to convince one how little the Urantor 
 and'(lranteel<neNV,atthe time, of what was being given by 
 the one, and received by the other, it would be tonnd in those 
 other words of the Patent : " they dhl denounce mx(\ declare 
 
 - to Us the existence of the said Mines loithmthe InmisoT the 
 •' .^aid Fiefund SeignioiT, at seyekal places therem, r:/- whwh 
 '• thru will BRTTKK INFORM US 'iftvv farlher researches .- 
 Wiji-lE are those i<everal flaces ? Winvr is thi.; extent ot those 
 .rounl places ? Is it gold in. position in the q-art^^-reef ? Oris 
 itoiiU' the loose jrold to be found in the gravrl «)i the ancient 
 .h.tritns''' or of the more modern alluvial ' i! it bij gold ?./t 
 ,s;in what is the course of the reefs ^ Can any thing convey a 
 Hioie mistv notion of the olvject of the gram than to say, a^, 
 does the 'Patent, ihat '' thoj will bdUr tnjorui Is, uiter 
 
 4^ 
 
 r? 
 
45 
 
 5? .? 
 
 4^ 
 
 " FURTiTKR uKSEAUoiiKs " ? Ai^aln wiiat IS tho scopo of the 
 Grant :' Sucli ns it is i<nind in the Patent, it appears to 
 amount to very lirtlc. The Patent hcates jhc Grant to be : 
 " Onr Eoyal " jv'.rmimon and and autliority to make such 
 " researches as may be required in order furtlier Xo af^certajn 
 " the position rik\ extent of tlie said inim^s * ■'■ * * * * * * * " 
 •' ui'ox CONDITION that r.EFOKE working tlie same they_ do 
 " transmit and deposit with onr Secretary of our said Province 
 " a trut. xnd, correct statement of the nature, situation and 
 •' extent of the said ores, minerals and viinei^y Could anv 
 hiiiguai!:e 1)0 framed iiinrc vaiiuc in descrihini,' tlie ohjec-t of 
 ihe'^Grunt, than the words al>ove quoted from tlie Patent ^ 
 The intention neems to luivi' been, Icf^s a ,<;raiit tlian^a mcrf 
 permission, not even 1';x.clusi\-rlv m favor of the Grantees, 
 to search tor mines, in order that any subsequent discovery 
 mi^ht be the subiect of further disposal by the Crown. 
 Evidently the Crown, before linally disposing of the mines, 
 desired further, and more precise, information on the subject, 
 and intended, after obtaining such information, to follow up 
 the '' DE L^-RY- Patent'' by^somc further action. In Pny case, 
 the utter ignorance of the Crown as to the nature, situation, 
 extent and vabie of the mines, is evidence tliattbe Crown .vas 
 not possessed of tluit rr/id scimiid. s<> essential to the validity 
 ofaCr^nvn Giant. Moi-eover, the want of further inforn)i- 
 tion, as expressed in the Patent, necessarily iaiplies that such 
 further information ^vas required for fnrther action, cither 
 executive or legislative, with regard to the mines, and that 
 the " DK Lkiix- Patent, " v.-as neither a final nor an absolute 
 grant. And yet such is the instrument, under \\V (i the 
 Defendants lay, to the precious metals on the Plaintiffs' 
 lands, a clahn which the Defendants well know to be ^unfoun- 
 ded, as is ex^ident from the absence of the usual Warranty 
 clause from the Deed of Sale from de Lery to Conuui, as is 
 hereinbefore noticed. 
 
 And herein mav be remarked en passant that the hetter 
 inforviation v(i(\\\\viJx\ (y^ the Piitciitco;. as xx condition oiiho: 
 Grant was nex'crfurnishc<l to the Government, and that such 
 a condition seems to the Plaimitis to be owq suspenMnw. of the 
 operation of the Patent, even if it does not void the Patent 
 alt(»<i'eLher ; Imi of this more hereafter. 
 
 The forejxoing observations may perhap«^_ servo as an 
 illustration ot'tlu- wisdom of the rules required for the validity 
 of Cruwn Grants, as developed in th • following sections. 
 
— .^c — 
 
 P„„,* o*.. Sec. r)9.-T!.e Fo..n> ^^ection to the " nK Li,n- 
 
 tion to Patent ^, .^ 
 
 " " IV. TlK, non-ol-servanco of certain fonndUjoB c^ent^al 
 .. ,0 tl,e valiUit.v /'f ')• ,/;-'\f^l?"''ito,';;,J to the 1'u.vv- 
 
 <,Ks...-And the «-'*;' ;;';„„.„ ,,^,,„^ .„ 
 
 The ?laintiflV Declaration J^' »=^,^„,. t,,e Deniur- 
 „ind,isadmitteclto be n,o fo-- - ^rt-„y;■•,l^?^„„ „f .^uite a 
 rcr ; and that Dec avation c ar es ' . ,,^,i presently 
 
 „„„\bev of forn.al.t.es « "^,.'' ",„ tu'e valWHy ol'all anch 
 ,l,cw by .n.thori^ to be e*enna o tue ditference 
 
 Gi-a..tB There is, it mV,. '''' /."'' ™t],i8 bead; and tlie 
 between French and English If "" J^„ En.Hs'h and 
 reason of the nile in f - '-n „ nirpo e of Vot-.ing the 
 Ir^cl^n-a'Sntitid'e'torittii, a^nd against hasty and 
 inconsiderate Grants. 
 
 Kiphth objoc- 
 tioa to Patent 
 
 gpC^ 70.— The Eioirrn ohjeciim to the " de Leky- 
 Patent " is that 
 " Great S.al of "'is l'.-ovnK^o «^ ha ^ ^^^^ '^„j ,„a, 
 
 l.ere the rio-ht ot ^^f^J^^^ t ^ servations of Attorney 
 rai.^nt^\ it i^ cl*-;'^f rie nsordin the ease of llngheB 
 
 General I'ahner .nd Lord Che nst i ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ .^ 
 
 aU-eady quoted at ^^f^^f^' ,ler the Great Seal ot 
 
 an Instrument ••'*"^i/^"':V/' Ur m without tear of cent. a- 
 En^land. Now '^hunt th, j^^h/n, wi .^ ,^ ^^^^^^^^ 
 
 dietion, that ther. ^'^T^^^;^ ,,^a another rehiting to 
 concerning Patents o ^ ; ^ -\^,,aer consideratior. doe. 
 Grants of ^^^^ ]^'::jiX certainly not a Patent ot 
 not profess to gi-'ni i'li'*^ 5 . i • + 
 
 Invention. , , T7,urHsh writers have claimed it to 
 
 Moreover, if, as some E"gl^^ ^ ^^. ^^^ ^i,^ princnde 
 
 i 
 
IT 
 
 pnrial 
 rrant 
 
 *KIVY- 
 
 r the 
 
 •nc in 
 )einur- 
 uite a 
 38ently 
 i\ anch 
 t'oreiice 
 ud tlio 
 isli and 
 ill or the 
 sty and 
 
 E 
 
 Leky- 
 
 lulor the 
 but only 
 and such 
 
 Law has 
 !seiitativc 
 DE Leky- 
 Attornoy 
 )t' llnohcs 
 that such 
 t Seal of 
 of coutia- 
 a statute 
 chiting to 
 •atiou doe>^ 
 I Patent of 
 
 aimed it to 
 le principle 
 jutial to liis 
 
 I 
 
 Jloval rrero<^ative of coiiia-o, how can one suppose tiiat the 
 GoVerninont of Canada, which did not, in 18^0, and one may 
 sav, does not even yet, possess the right of coinage, could he 
 Pii'pposed to own, and consequently grant away, those supposed 
 lloval Mines. The maxim : " acceasoria ram sajuitur, 
 forbids any auch supposition. 
 
 Sec. 71. 
 
 rafent " 
 
 -The Ninth objection to the •' de L£ey- N|jti;;bj>c- 
 
 IS 
 
 " IX. The non-fulfilment by the Grantees of the several 
 ♦' conditions of the Gl-ant." 
 
 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 ot the 
 owners of the 8oil,-to supply furtlier and exact inlormation 
 •is to the nature of the mines— to furnish a correct account ot 
 the worldng and produce ot the mines— and to paj the one- 
 tenth Royalty. Not one of those conditions, as the i amtitts^ 
 Declaration states, has ever been fulfilled ; and the 1 laintitts 
 alle<»-ation that such conditions have not been fulfilled, must, 
 for all the purposes of this argument, be taken to be true. 
 
 Having thus stated the First, Second, Third, 1 ourth, 
 Eighth amTNiNTii objections raised by the Plaintifts, 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 Cuitty ou I rero- 
 aativl P. 390, note 6, in speaking of Crown Grants, reters 
 back to his remarks on Patents for Inventions for a statement 
 of the formahties required in Letters Patent, conveying 
 Grants of the Crown. 
 
 Sec. 72— The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Ajj^thorit^ 
 Eighth and Ninth ohjections to the " de LERY-/*a^6wr' first second, 
 are fully borne out by the following authorities. '^'^;;^ ^^«^7^' 
 
 ninth objec- 
 
 Chitty 071 Prerogative, ch: X, sect. 2,^* 188, 189. tions. 
 
 Fourthly. How a Patent is obtained. 
 
 " To obtain a Patent, a Petition for it must be prepared, together with an 
 affidavit of the inventor iu support of the Petition. These are then taken to 
 
 I 
 
— 48 - 
 
 ..,'> iilflcc of the sccret.'iry of stnt.:i f'^i (Ik- ilonie DopJirti.ient, where Uiuy 
 nrc 1ik1;,'0(1. A lln- days alur. the nnswcr lo the f'fiition, may coinmuiily ho 
 hail, roiitaining a rcfwrr "-j of it to tho Attorney or Solieitur ( Jcneral, uliich 
 must hf lakfii u> cithor oftiu'ir Chaiiilicr.- t'oi' thf» ropert thereon ; iiiid in !i 
 few days nftorw.irdy, Ow Cli-rk Mill delivci' it out 'I'he r';jiort i-; tlieu tiikeii 
 to thf secretary of state's ctlicu for the K:iijj,'s Warrant, and the clerk will 
 then inform tho pL'rson leaviuj;!; it when it may bo called loi. Tho Wjirrant 
 \f directed to the Altorney or Solicitor (ionerid, and is t o taken tn their 
 Patent-Otlici! for the Hill. ^Vl)cn tlie liill is jircpared it is taken to the 
 Secretary of state's ottice for the King's siu;n manual to the iJill. As soon as 
 this is (ii)taiiu:d, it is carried to the si^inct ofiicc to be jiassed there, wheit 
 the Clerk prej)ares a AVarrant ibr the 1/ord Kee])er of the I'rivj' Seal, Mliere- 
 npon tlie clerk of thel'rivy ^eal pn-iiareshis Warrant to the Lon'. (>iinnce!lor 
 This Warrant is then taken to tho Lord t'hancellcr's Patent Jttice, wliere 
 the Patent itself i.: prepared, and will he delivered out as soon as it is sealed. 
 The specification should then ho ])rt[)ared, acknowledi^cd nivl lodged at the 
 enrollment ofti' , to have the usual certhicatc of the eiiroDinent endorsed on 
 it; this is comiionly done in about a week or a fortnight afterwards, and 
 then tho Patent is in e\'!ry respect complete." 
 
 CiiiTTV on Prerogative, ch : XVI, sect, 2, p. 3S9. 
 
 " Tt is a dear Itiile, that, as well for the protection of the King as tlic 
 security of the subject, and on account of the Idgh consideration enteitained 
 by theLaw towards Ills Maiesty, no freehold interest, franchise, or liberty, 
 &c., &c., can be triumfe'red from the Crown iu't hij matter of record (3 Co. 
 10^ b— 17 Vi>. An. 70. Freroq. C. ft.— Coy. Dk;. tit. Patent.— 2 Bla, 
 Com. 34(i.) This is effected by Letters Patent under the Great Se-.', which 
 is a Record and evidence per se, without further proof; and that such seal 
 may not bo alHxed without ilue caution and consideration, several prelimi- 
 nary steps are requisite. Grants or Letters-Patent must first pass by Bill 
 Csee ante P. 188, 18!) ; grants of Patents for Inventions), which is pre{)ared 
 by the Attoruey and solicitor General, in consequence of a "Warrant from 
 the Crown (no o-(firvr irJiic/i the iCinri ha.% nor altogether, v/aij, ex ajficio, 
 ditipofie of the King'x treasure, Ihowjh it he for the honor or projit of the 
 ICin/j Mmsetf, 11 Co. 01 , 1). " 'Ihcn can^not without the Kin(fs own Warrant.'^ 
 Ihideia 92. ), and is then signed, tiiat is, subscribed at the top, with the King's 
 own Hinn mniuial, and aeafed with his Frii-i/ Signet, which is always in th( 
 custody of the princi) d Secretary of State; and then sometimes it imme- 
 diately passes under the Great Seal, in Avhich case the Patent is subscribed 
 in these words per ipHitni refjem, by the " King himself," otherwise the 
 course is to carry an extract of the" Bill to the Friri/ Seal, who makes 
 out aAVrit or Warrant thereupon, to tho Chancery, so that the Sign Manual 
 is the "Warrant to the Privy Seal, and the Privy Seal is the Warrant to the 
 Great Seal ; and in this "last case, the Patent is subscribed per Ireve de 
 privato aigillo, " by Writ of Privy Seal " ^0 Rep. 18.— 2 Inst. 555.)" 
 
 Wlien (Jhitty here says, tlutt " the Le'! -ees-Patent xmder 
 " ^Ae Great Seal '/6' a Recokd j^er 5^'," le lias reference to 
 tliC enrollment thereof in Chancery which has just taken 
 
 
r 
 
 — 49 — 
 
 plane (sec Ihighcs' case P. D ct scq r of this Factum, and also 
 tlie authorities cited ia tlie following p' ^g.) 
 
 Ciirnv on Prerogative^ ch : VI J, sect ", iVb. 2, p. 90, 9L 
 " Where am/ lkoal uionT ok benefit is vested in a suhject, the Kino 
 
 CANNOT AFFECT IT." 
 
 CitiTTY on Prerogativey ch : XVI, s^ct. 1, p. 385. 
 
 " The Kiiufs (rrants arc void whenever they tend to prejudice the 
 course ami beiic/i't of i'uumc justice." 
 
 •x- ■«• -;<• -X- •};• -X- •!«■ * * * * -)«• -x- 
 
 " Nor can f Ae ^i/i^^ vempt any one /roffi ciwii respomihilities to a 
 fellow suhject." 
 
 CiiiTTY on Prerogatv'Cy ch: XVI, sect. l,p. 38G. 
 
 " Tt is scarcely necessary to mention that the King^a Grants arc invalid, 
 when they destroy and derogate from rights previously vested in another 
 subject by Grant." 
 
 Chitty on Prerogative, ch : XVI, sect. l,p. 3S6. 
 
 " A Grant from the Crown in derogation of the common Law is void» 
 for the King cannot make Law or Custom by his Grant." 
 
 Chitty on Prerogativo, ch : VII, p. 119. 
 
 " And it is a clear 2)rinciple that tlie King cannot by his mere prero- 
 gative diminish or destroy immunities once conferred anHvested in a subject 
 by Royal Grmt." 
 
 Chitty on Prerogative, ch : X VI, 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 speciali gratia, certd scientid et mero 
 moturegis (Finch, L. 100. — 1 Rep. 40. — 10 Rep. 112. — Com. Dig. Gi'ant, 
 G 12. — ViN. An. Frerog. E, c. 3.). Though these words do not of themsel- 
 ves /jro^gcf the grantee against false recitals. (10 Co. Rep. 112. — 3 Leon : 
 2492.— Salk: 561)." 
 
 Chitty on Prerogative j ch : XVI, sect. 2, p. 394 cfc395. 
 
 " In considering the cases in which a royal grant may bo ineffectual, on 
 account of mistakes, deceit, &c., &c., it may be proper to divide the subject 
 into the following branches : 1 Uncertainties, 2 Misrecitals ; and herein of 
 false suggestions and deceit." 
 
 " 1 A decided tmcertainty will avoid a grant from the Crown, not only 
 as against the Patentee, but also as against the King, because it raises a 
 
 7 
 
— 50 — 
 
 P^dS^waste &c., &c., without 'i-?-^';? ^Ss ^^0^1^ "^ 
 I a rent, in which there rnay be var,ou. " - f - -^hont W^^.^^^^ 
 
 specifying any V'^^'f^f^lj;^^^ Ab 845 -Dav 35, 45.-1 Bla. Rep. 118)." 
 takes NO INTEREST whatever (Rol. Ab. »40. i^a\ . oy, '±^. 
 
 CiiiTTY 071 Prerogative, ch : Vlll, p. 125. 
 
 •'The Kinn cannot tike away, alridge, or «Z^^;- any Udcrties or 
 prme^^\.^nZl>y Urn or his P-dcce.s.rs .™ioo; the consent of tke 
 individuals holding them (1 Kyd. 6T.-3 Buar. IGob.). 
 
 Chitty on Prerogative, ch : Vlll, y. 132. 
 
 " Tt is a nrinciple of law, that the King is bound by his own and his 
 ances- 's grSrand .«n«... therefore, by nis meke pkekogative, taU 
 away vested immunities and privileges.'''' 
 
 Chitty in a note adds : 
 " That this doctrine was admitted in the King & Amery (2, T. R. 515).' 
 
 CiiiTTY on Prerogative, ch : X VI, fsect. 3, p. 396. 
 
 respect to misrecitals and false suggestions or deceit, 
 in certain case?, invalidate a Grant from the Crown, (2 Bla. 
 
 " 2. W 
 these also wi' 
 
 °^'" And here it may be noticed, that to prevent deceits, it is in general 
 necessary that a grant by the Crown of any reversion should recite tfie^ 
 •particular previous term, estate or interest, still in esse and which is ot 
 record (lY Vin. Ab. 108, Prerog. Q. h. 2-Com. Dig. Grant G. 10), and %f 
 the King (by matter of record, as is necessary), hose land to B., and after- 
 wards grant h\m a neio lease, without reciting «^'« >■««, ^{'^ I'AST CnARTEK 
 IS VOID, without regard to the effect it may have on the farst (Cro. \^u ^6i-). 
 
 . Chitty on Prerogative, ch : XYl, sect. 3, p. 39Y. 
 
 "But it seem^ that Royal grants are always void where the King 
 evidently mistakes his title ia 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. 43, a.-DvER. 352, a.~ll Co 90.-2 Rol. Ab. 
 188,1,12.)" 
 
 " And if the false recital, ac, &c., arise i-rom the suggession of 
 THE PARTY APPLYING for the grant, sucii grant will le void." 
 
 *********** 
 
 " And if any thing mentioned as the consideration of the grar,t, or 
 '??hich sounds for the benGfit of the King, (be it executed or executory. 
 
 a.- 
 
- G Bac. 
 
 3 of land, 
 ■ant land 
 liting or 
 patentee 
 IP. 118)/' 
 
 lerties or 
 
 ;i\'T of the 
 
 and his 
 rivE, take 
 
 R. 515); 
 
 or BECEIT, 
 
 n, (2 Bla. 
 
 in general 
 RECITE the 
 rt^hich is of 
 .0), and if 
 and after- 
 
 r CnAKTEK 
 
 . El. 231)." 
 
 3 the King 
 : his tenure 
 
 the King's 
 Dint of Law 
 -2 RoL. Ab. 
 
 3GESSI0N OP 
 
 he grar,% or 
 eseontorr. 
 
 — 51 — 
 
 matter of record or in jmis,) be false, the King is deceived, and the grunt 
 will ie VOID (5 Co. 94, a.— 2 Rol. Ab. 188, 1, 25 ; 199, 1. 30, 50.— Lane, 
 75,109.)' 
 
 Ct'ttty on Prerogative, ch ; X VI, sect. 4, p. 
 
 399. 
 
 » In the case of lands, the grantee does not, by taking them from the 
 Crovn, acquire any particular privileges. He is not therehj protected 
 against the common law remedies and rights which others inay j^ossess in 
 respect of the property, however such remedies and rights might be impeded 
 whilst the King held it." 
 
 CiiriTY on Prerogative, ch : XII, sect. S,p. 330. 331. 
 
 " The King is, generally speaking, bound by his own grants ; but tJiis 
 is only ichen they are not contrary to law either in themselves ; or VOID 
 for UNCERTAINTY or DECEPTION ; OR UNJUST as INJURIOUS to the rights and 
 interests of third persons. In these cases the Kincx, jure regio, for the 
 advancement of justice and right, 7nay repeal his own grant (4 Inst ; 88), 
 as if the King grant what, by law, he is restrained from granting (3 Bla. 
 Com. 260. Though if the Patent be void it itself, non concessit may be 
 plead, d without a scire facias. 2 Rol. Ab. 191. S, pi. 2.) : or the gnmt 
 be obtained by fraud or a false suogestion (Bro. Patent 14 ; — Petition 
 11.— 11 Rep. 74, b.— 2 Rol. Ab. 191, T.- Dyer, 197): or Je uncertain 
 (5 Bac. Ab. Prerogative 602)." 
 
 " If a Crown grant prejudice and affect the rights of third persons, the 
 King is by Law bound, on proper petition tohiin^ to allow a subject to use his 
 royal name, to repeal it in a scire Facias, (Bro. Ab. Title, Scire F&chxs, 
 <)U,185.— 2 Ventr. 344.-3 Bla. Com. 260), and it is said that, in such 
 case, the j)arty prejudiced may, upon the enrollment of the grant in 
 Chancery rave a scire Facias to repeal it as well as the Jung (6 
 Modern 229.-2 Saunders, 72 q.) ; as 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., &c., whereby another ancient mart 
 or fair is prejudiced (Dyer 276, &.— 3 Lev, 220.— 2 Vextr. 344.). Where 
 the .tame thing Is cAixsrKD twice, the viust patentee \& entitled to a Scire 
 Facias to repeal the subsequent grant (4 Inst. 88.— Dyer, 137, b. 198, 
 a.— 2 Rol. Ah. 191, \J,pl\ 2)." 
 
 CiiiTTY 071 Prerogative, ch : XIII, sect. 1, p. 312 c£' 313. 
 
 Speaking, ill note a, or? Staundford, says of liim : 
 
 " Staundford was frequently cited by the Counsel and Court in the case 
 in 12 I^ast, 96." 
 
 Chitty then cites Staundford {Pmrog. liegis, ch : 22, fol. 
 71, a, to 7;), h) iis follows: 
 
 " To declare specially, says Staundford, whore a Petition [v)i Right) 
 lieth and wliere not, it were a long matter to intreat of." 
 * •«• r- •^ -X- * -X- * * -X- * * * 
 
 I 
 
oil — 
 
 " Also where the King doth enter upon me, having no tilie by matter of 
 record or otherwise, and put me out and detain the possession from me, that 
 I cannot have it again by entry without suit, T have then no remedy but 
 only by Petition, But if He suffered to enter, mine entry is lawful, and 
 no intrusion ; or if the King grant over the lands to a stranger, then is my 
 Petition determined, and I may now enter, or have my assize, ly order of 
 the Common Law, against the said stranger, being the King's Patentee. 
 (Vide— 4 Ed : IV, f. 22.-'24 Ed : III, f. 65.— 10 Ed : iii, f. 2.) " 
 * * * -x- ****** -X- -X- -X- * 
 
 " Lihe Law it is if I have a rent charge out of certain land, and the 
 tenant of the land enfeofifeth the King by Deed enrolled ; now during the 
 King's possession, I must sue by petition, hut if his Highness enfeof a 
 Stranger, I may distrain for my bent on the Stranger ; and so it is in all 
 the cases before, where a man may have his traverse en monstrans <le droit, 
 if the lands he once out of the King's hands, the party then may have uis 
 remedy that the common Law giveth Mm. 
 
 2 Sau^'deks, Pleading c& Evid : Cl'oil cases, vho : Letters 
 Patent. 
 
 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 et 271. 
 
 NouMAi^'s Law of Patents, j;?. 19 {a.) d3 p. 4 (6'.) 
 
 " At Common Law, the Letters- Patent must have been enrolled in 
 •' Chancery, otherwise they are void." 
 
 P. 19 {a.) p. 4 (e.) 
 
 " If they (L. P.) can be taken to enure to a double intent, tlicy shall 
 " be taken to the intent that shall enure most to the King's benefit." 
 
 P, 19 {a.) & p. 5 {ti.) 
 
 " A bad grant is void, not against the Crown merely, but in a suit 
 ♦' between the Patentee and a third person." 
 
 P. 20 [a.) & jp. 5 (6.) 
 
 •' The consideration of the grant failing, the Patent is void." 
 
 " Such Grants are intended for the public weal ; if the < onsiderjilion 
 " fail, the grant is void ; for the King was deceived. So it is vc id, if the King 
 *' grant a greater estate than be can lawfully do." 
 
 P. 131 (o). & ^. 168 (c). 
 " That no specification was enrolled in Chancery, is n good Plea." 
 
 P. 149 {a). i& p. 194 [a.) 
 ♦' Scire Facias is founded on the Record remaining in Chancery." 
 
 \ 
 
 ■^ 
 
m^''- 
 
 — 53 — 
 
 I 
 
 P. 159 {a.) cfc i?. 209 {e.) 
 
 " The Judgment of Q. B. on Scire Facias is that the Letters Patent bo 
 " restored into Chancery there to be cancelled." 
 
 It lias already been shewn moreover, at Pages 10 and 13 of 
 this Factum, that, imder English Law, Letters Patent must bo 
 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, i vork published by Houard in Paris, in 
 177G, under the the title " Ancienneslois frannaises recueillies 
 par LrriLETON " contains an elaborate collection of ^ the 
 French Laws engrafted on tlie English System and establishes 
 this point conclusively. But, as the Plaintiffs have not now 
 tliat work in their possession, they are compelled io resort to 
 other French Writers, 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. 
 
 GuYOT, vho. Leitres-Patciites. P. 4S2: Edition in quarto, 
 has the following : 
 
 " Lettres-Patentes. Ce sont des Lettres emanees du roi, scellees du 
 " grand sceau, et contresignees par un Secretaire d'etat. 
 
 " On les appello Patentes, parccqu'elles sont ouvertes, a la difference 
 " des Lettres closes ou de cachet, qu'on ne pcut lire suns les ouvrir." 
 
 " Les Lettres-Patentes ne produiseiit leur effet qn'npren qu'elles out ete 
 " ENiii5(;isTKKKS jHH' la Cour a laqublle elles sont adrcssees." 
 
 " Les Lettres-Patentes accordees a un corps on n, un particulicr, sont 
 " susceptiblt'.!^ d' oiiposition, lorsqu'clles pr6judicient a un tiers." 
 
 The opposition spoken of in Guyot is precisely the opj^o- 
 isition proferred before the Chaiicollor to the sealing of Letters- 
 Patent, as mo itioned by Norm an and CunTV ; and the 
 bus])ension of tiie effect of Lettres-Patentes as referred to by 
 Gdyot is equivalent to the axiom laid down by CiirriY : 
 " The King cannot grant except by record." 
 
 In speaking'of that peculiar form of Letters Patent, called 
 Ldtrcs Eoyaux^ the same author, at Pages 482 & 483, says : 
 
 " Lettres-Royaux. On appelle ainsi toutes sortes do Lettres eman6es 
 " du roi, et scellees du grand ou du petit sceau." 
 
 -X- t;- -x- tJ ti- 
 
 •X- •;<• ■>:• -"A 
 
— 54 — 
 
 '- ''- ■'rr/'f.,'!':,'!:^':,;! » la»tmi, y est toujoar. . 
 
 " Ces sortea do betires nv -"-■/•,.,„ ^^,,,8 • c'est pourquoi la clause, 
 
 u,a«/i. droit ^Z«m.«cei«.dm.tjuy 
 
 ********* ; Pontiei 
 
 caw/ (,e u/zw*---. .- «. jt ***** ^ i. 
 
 ^ ****** * i contiennent 
 
 ' Avoi IPS lettrcs de don, et aut.es 4 
 
 Can words more df^'y^xSrhoSn before sot oat that • 
 quotation, the statem^to^CHUrvh^ ejadice tire ngUts of 
 
 "Tlie King cannot by ma ^ r 
 
 .rticrfto'.: wU"-™.^ i"twSir .tatenrents ; 
 
 Blackstone, Forster and i>oriu 
 
 Guyot says : ^ 
 
 " Et par .. »tre 0-— t^-^^^^^ 
 
 " confiscations qu il n cut u 
 '' vALOiK de rente par an. 
 
 77 • T> no M'. in quarto. 
 G0V0r,rf0. C''-^''^'^"^'^-""' ,„rter lB.M,unre.,e™ont 
 
 .. general, of. -1 est ■ ' * f^, ^, „f,„em A^}"' «"* • ,f '^oyau.nk " q'."'' 
 
 TVMT.VUT vho. Ldtres-PatmUs, P. 1'^^ 
 The Nouvv:au-Di2NW\hi, oou. 
 
 Bl ' <f 1 * *^^' ^^•' ' • , ,,»,,, du roi, scell6cs dn grand 
 
 . ,..,,...P..s.. l^^Ce^ont e^^^ ,„,it de quei- 
 
 . ,ee.n : eU.s ont l>o- o^^^J- ^ J ,,,,,,, etc... etc." 
 u ,,u'6tublissenunit, privilege t, .^ ^ * * * * 
 
 ' :t. * * * * * '• '^ , ^ nii'ellet^ ont cto 
 
 u ^irimn duns ics ?'"' ^^'"''"■'' _,,_„^ „j„g^ j^qthk 
 
 i 
 
AC PK^JU- 
 
 i la clause, 
 
 IDUE." 
 
 contiennent 
 
 OT in that 
 
 out, that :^ 
 
 J rights of 
 
 rio, has an 
 lat Chitty, 
 itatements *, 
 
 e devaitappo; 
 ecret avait ete 
 jrcnce du peM 
 
 ne ferait pa» 
 rnees au moins 
 vait etrc sceUo 
 es forfeitures ou 
 ; donnee 'pouvait 
 
 uarto. 
 
 it, un roglement 
 • rire au dos des 
 ns k'S depecer. 
 voyaume, " q« 'I 
 
 entes, P- ^'^'' 
 
 seellecs dn ^'rfind 
 ^u'il b'asit de qucl- 
 
 -s (jirelUi^ '>nt eto 
 s oiiES ou ddment 
 
 Al-'TRK CHOSE KOTHE 
 
 — 55 — 
 
 Bosquet, Dict'onnaire raisonnS dea DomamiSy vlo. Lei- 
 tveS'jpatentes^ says : 
 
 " Cea differentcs lettres dont le detail va s'ensuivre dans I'ordre alpha- 
 
 decide au conseil, le 23 Juin 1741, par des lettres d'erection ; * * i= * * * ♦ 
 II y a des lettres patcntes et des lettres de chancelleries sujettes a I'insi- 
 nuation, quoiqu'elles ne soient pas expre">s6nient noniniees dans les regle- 
 monts : I'edit du inois do Decembre 1708, rapporte ci-devant, verb. 
 Insinuation, n. 4, page 547, porte que la formalite de I'inainuation sera 
 etendue aux actes, dont il imnorte au public d'avoir connaissance ; et 
 I'arret du Conseil rendu en reglement le 80 Septembre 1721, ordonne 
 I'insinuation des lettres qui y sont exprimdes, et autres serablables ; il est 
 rapporte a I'article des lettres d'annoblissement." 
 
 In reading the above extracts, one immediately notices 
 the derivation of all the formalities of the Great-Seal^ the 
 Privy-signet^ etc., etc., referred to in the English Law-writers 
 herein before quoted ; they contain, m fact, the counterpart 
 of tlie following statements of 
 
 2 Blackstone, Ooinmentaries, 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 he gicen to the King, nor derived j'rok him, but by matter of 
 "record. And to this end a variety of offices are erected, communicating 
 " in a regular subordination one with another, through, which all the Icings' 
 *^ graiits must pass, and be tranficnhed, and enrolled; that the same may 
 " ba narrowly inspected by his oflBcers, who wiU 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 differ 
 " from certain other letters of the ICing, sealed also with his great seal, but 
 *' directed to particular persons, and for particular purposes : which there- 
 " fore, not being proper for public inspection, are closed up and sealed on 
 " the outside, and are there upon called writs close, Uteram clausm ; and 
 " are recorded in the close-rolls, in the same manner as the others are in 
 " the patent-rolls. 
 
 " Grants or letters-patent mvst first pass by bill : which is prepared by 
 *• the attorney and solicitor general, in consequence of a warrant from the 
 " crown ; and is then signed, that is, superscribed at the top, with the 
 " King's own sign-manual, and sealed with h.mpri'vy -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 regem, by the King himself" Otherwise 
 " the course is to carry an extract of the bill to the keeper of the privif seal. 
 
— 56 — 
 
 who makes out a writ or warrant thereupon to the chancery ; so that the 
 SIGN MANUAL is the warviint to tlie great seal : and in this last case the 
 patent is subscribed ; per dreve de private sigillo, by 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 nig act, the great, or the privy seal : ******* 
 When it appears from the face of the grant, that the King is mistaken or 
 deceived, either in matter oi fact or matter of law, as m case oi^fahe sug- 
 gestion, misinformation, or misrecital of former grants ; or if his own 
 title to the thing granted be different from wlat he supposes, or if the 
 grant le informal ; or if he grants an estate contrary to the rules of 
 Im ; IN ANY OF THESE CASES THE GRANT IS ABSOLUTELY VOID. 
 ***** ^\^,icl^ to prevent deceits of the King, with regard to the value of 
 the estate granted, it is particularly provided hy the statute 1 lien. IV, 
 c. 6, that no grant of his shall be good, unless, in the grantee's petition 
 for them, express mention he made of the real value of the lands. 
 
 Enregistration 
 
 Here again, in the Statute 1 Hen : iv ch : 6, one finds 
 an exact counterpart of tiie very Ordinance of Charles Y of 
 1356, quoted by Gcyot, verba Chancelleries P. 100 and herein 
 before cited. 
 
 The Ordinance of 1667, Title 1, Art : 4 €^ 5, requires the 
 of Ordonnances, Edits, Declarations and 
 Lettres-Patentes in the Courts of Law ; and it is a fact that 
 every Grant of the French Kings in Canada, is enrolled in 
 the Begistre de VIntendant, who dispensed justice in the 
 name of the King in Canada, prior to the conquest. And to 
 this day, in the Siiperior Court is kept a Register for the 
 enrolhnent of such Letters-Patent as may be brought there to 
 be recorded. What prevented tlib Grantees in this instance 
 from seeking to have their Letters-Patent recorpcd in the 
 Superior Court,, and from thereby giving the Plaintiffs and 
 other interested parties an opportunity ol being 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 IjEry -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 raining rights. _ 
 
 HussoN, in a Memoire of the most profound research, to 
 be found in Yol : 2, (Fyuvres de Duj>le8sis^ P. 142^ has some 
 
 
r 
 
 - 57 - 
 
 I'emarks on the subject of alienation of the Crown Domain ; 
 and, if the pretensions of the Defendants be true, that mines 
 are a part of the Domain, the citation is conclusive against 
 the validity of the Patent. Hwson^ speaking of the alienation 
 of the Crown Domain, says : 
 
 " II est vrai, 
 *' Talienation, 
 
 " elle ne serait point prejudiciable 
 *' Rois se sont decharges sur les soins et sur la fid61ite des OfiBciers de leurs 
 *' Cours Souveraines, auxquels les Lettres Patentes de l'ali6nation sont 
 " adressees pour en faire la v6rifictition et I'enregistremetit ; car qu'oiqu'au 
 " sentiment d'un illustre politique ; " Regnantis aententia judicium de 
 *' aolis actibus mmat,^^ noa Roia neanmoins par une sage pr^voyance et par 
 " une prudente moderation ont trouve d propos que les dispoaitions qu'ils 
 *' feraient de leur Domaine, fussent examinlea par des Magiatrata, dont la 
 '• vigilance et Vaffection pussent les yarantir contre lea surprises des 
 
 " IMPETRANS. 
 
 " II y a quantite d' Arrets de verifications et d'enregistrements interve- 
 " nues sur de semblables Lettres-Patentes d'alienation." 
 
 
 kVv 
 
 Sec. 73. ^The grounds on which the Plaintiffs have Objections not 
 
 thus far urged the nullity of the " de lARY-Patent " may, at first tucai. 
 sight appear to be purely technical in their natai'e ; yet this is 
 far from being the case ; those objections have their source in 
 grounds of the highest public policy, and prove the necessity 
 which existed for guarding the Sovereign against inconsiderate 
 grants ; and if so much precaution were then taken to guard 
 the then absolute Sovereign from inconsiderately granting to a 
 stranger what was considered at least to be the Sovereign's own 
 property how much more jealously should the public domain 
 be now guarded, since the subject, under our system, has it in 
 his power to grant the Crown domain not to a stranger, but to 
 himself. In any case the grounds hitherto urged against the 
 " DE Li^RY-Patent" are grounds which, as the authors agree 
 in declaring, make the Patent absolutely void. 
 
 The four remaining objections to the " de LBUY-Patent ", 
 namely : the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Tenth objections, 
 are decisive of the real question at issue betwen the parties 
 hereto as to 
 
 8 
 
— 58 — 
 
 OHA.I^TEIl III 
 
 THE OWNERSHIP OF THE MINES. 
 
 Remaining SgC *74. Of the foor remaining objections to the 
 
 tti Patent. « DE L^BY-PatenU" the Tenth, which claims that the " de 
 LtKY' Patent has been superseded by the Seigniorial Act, will 
 be incidentally noticed with the otiier three, but will moreover 
 form more especially, the subject-matter of the next Chapter. 
 The Fifth, Sixth and Seventh objections to the " db L^by- 
 Patent " are thus stated : 
 
 " V. The Ciownhad 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 Plaintiffs as owners of 
 « the soilin 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 PlaintiF-' attteurSy 
 " as owners of the soil, and without the Plaintius' auteurs 
 " having been called on to work the mines. 
 
 « VIL A Royal Permission to work a mine could only 
 " issue on the refusal 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." 
 
 How Plaint- SgC. 75. The question involved in those objections 
 
 K'/fifth is so well treated by Merlin, that the Plaintiffs reproduce the 
 sixth and se- article almost entire. That author demonstrates, beyond the 
 Tenth object- g^^dow of a doubt, that the ownership of all mines, without 
 tions to P»- exception, was, by the Law of France, vested in the owner 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 Ordinances are almost literally 
 based. The Plaintiffs will further reproduce here in their 
 entirety the three great Ordinances promulgated b^ the 
 French Kings on the subject of Mines ; and if one did not 
 knnw that the existence of the Capitulaire de St. Louis, 
 
 tent. 
 
— 59 — 
 
 touching treasnre-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 
 176o, and that the Ordinances respecting Mines had not been 
 publislied 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 Plaintiffs, after having cited Merlin, and the 
 text of the Ordinances referred to, purpose first giving, at 
 length, the opinions enunciated ^ro and con by the various 
 French-Writers, and then critically examining those opinions. 
 
 8 Meelin, Rejpertoire, vbo. MineSy No. 7, P. 193. 
 
 •' Tout ce qu'on peut tirer des Mines appartient au Domaine du Roi, etc." 
 " lelk etait du moins avant la loi du 12 Juillet, 1791, la doctrine d'une 
 fflule d'auteurs ; mais j'ai d£montr£ dans mon Recueil de Questions de 
 Droit, Article Mines, § 1, qu'elk n'avait pour lose qu^une interpretation 
 errome des lois Eomaines et des Aneiennes Ordonnances, et une confusion 
 d.n Droit de propriete avee le droit dHnspection et la faculte de disjioser m 
 indemnisant." 
 
 Merlin. Questions de Droit, P. 304. 
 
 Mines. M. 1. '♦ QoELLEetei*, avant les lois du 4 AoAt 1789, Zanaf«re<Zf8 
 droits qu'avaient sun les Mines, les Seigneurs \i&uts-']ustlckTsf^ Etaient-ils 
 proprietaires fanciers des mines non encore decouvertes ? L'etaient-ils au 
 moins de mines qui, en 1789, etaient decouvertes et en pleine exploitation ? 
 
 No. 2. " Les droits d'entre-cens que les Seigneurs hauts-Justiciers du 
 Hainaut, s'etaient reserves sur les mines dont ils avaient permis I'ouverture 
 et I'exploitation A des entrepreneurs, etaient-ils sbigneuriaux, et sont-ils 
 sui'PRiM(5s/jar les lois relatives a \afeodalite. 
 
 No. 3. " S'ils sont supprim6sen these g^nerale, 80we-i?s du moini^ conserves 
 enfaveurdes ci-devants seigneurs qui, postfirieurement a la stipulation 
 primitive de ces droits, mais avant I'abolition du regime feodal, les avaient 
 modijih par des transactions passees avec les entrepreneurs ? ^ 
 
 N0..4. " La question de savoir si une redevance promise a Mn ci-devant 
 seigneur haut-justicicr, pour prix de la permission qu'il a donnee d'ouvrir 
 des mines de charbon dans sa haute-justice, est purement fonciere et main- 
 tenuc comrao telle, ou si elle est feodale et comme telle abolie ; a-t-clle pu, 
 avant la loi du 21 Avril 181 0, faire la mati^re d'une transaction t 
 
 No. 5. " La loi du 21 Avril 1810 a-t-elle rendu sans effet les transactions 
 qui anterieurement, et depuis I'abolition du regime feodal, avaient ete pas- 
 sees sur des contestations de cette nature ? 
 
 No 0. " Qu'entendp.it I'art. 13 du chap. 122 des chartes-gen^ralcs do 
 
 Authorities. 
 Merlin, 
 
OWNIRSHiP 
 
 or M1NB8. 
 
 Authorities. 
 
 Merlin. 
 
 — 00 — 
 
 Ilainayt, par le droit de charbonnage qu'elles reputaient heritage ou 
 
 imineuble V « , ^. ., , ^ 1 
 
 No. 7. " Quelle 6tait on Hainaut avant lo Code Civil, la nature dcs 
 •.tions des societes charbonni^res ? 6taient-elles meubles ou immeubles? 
 
 lo. " Lea TROis premUrea queationa ae aont presentees dans Fesjjece 
 mlvantc. 
 
 "Le 12 Janvier 1757, Contrat par lequel Jean Louis Derarondelet, 
 Seionhuu, iiaut-Justicieb des teiritoirea do la Hestro et de Ilainc Saint 
 Pierre, situ/is dans le Hainaut Autrichien (aujourd'hui departemcnt de 
 Jeminappes), «6mce,;perp6tuelleraent et k toujours, d Arnmilt Dcsclmytemr 
 ct a ses associes, de tirer cliarlona, tels et tant qu'ils en trouveront sur les 
 
 dits territoires. .. , ... ,,.. 
 
 "Parle mdme acte, la societ6 s'oblige de continuer le conduit cl6ja 
 commence, en vertu de la permission qu'ello en avait obtcnue d un fonde de 
 pouvoir du Seigneur. Dans le cas oii elle cesserait, pendant un an, de tra- 
 vailler k ce conduit et d'extraire du charbon, elle sera reputeo avoir aban- 
 donne I'entreprise pour toujours, sans pouvoir rien reclnraer de ce qui aiirait 
 6te fait ; ni retirer ce qu'elle aurait mis ; et le tout detneurera au protlt du 
 seigneur, sans prejudice des domraages-interdts qui lui seront dfls pour 
 l'inex6cution de I'entreprise.— Enfin, il est comenu que le Seigneur aura^ 
 son profit le onzi^me denier de tout ce qui sera vendu ou h vendre, Iranc de 
 tons frais, pour droit de cens et d'entrecens, k quoi les associes s obligeut 
 solidaireraent Tun pour I'autre. ^ ^ 
 
 " Le 16 Mars 1776 transactions sur quelques difficuUes survenues dans 
 I'execution de ce contrat. " Les maitres charbonnicrs (y est-il dit), cor.ti- 
 nueront le conduit jusqu'i la premiere veine travaillable, et poursuivront 
 jusqu'aux vcines de charbon docouvertes sur la Ilestre, lequel ouvragc so 
 "rcprendra sous quinze jours, aux frais des charbonnicrs qui travaillcront 
 doronavant, de bonne foi et avec continuite, a faire valoir le charbonnage, 
 de la memo maniere que le Seigneur le pouriait faire pour son plus grand 
 
 profit, consentant k tout dedoramagement au cas contraire ;.,<^t pour 
 
 qu'il ne soit porte aucun prejudice au Seigneur do la Hestre, ct qu'ii puisse 
 jouir en tout temps de I'extraction qui so fera sur sa Sfigncurie, les chai- 
 bons ne pourront s'extraire k I'avenir sur la dite terre, que par des ouver- 
 tures placees sur son domaine ; et les galeries et ouvrages do ces ouverturos 
 seront pratiquees sur les trefonds de sa Seigneurie, sans les pouvoir detour- 
 ncr sur des terrains etrangers." 
 
 " En 1785, PROcfes entre Francois Louis Rector Decarondelet, fils de 
 Jean Louis, et la Society Desc7iuytener,—Le premier so plaint de cc> que la 
 Societe etend ses extractions de charbon jusqucs dans la terre do Rcdeinont, 
 dont il n'est pas seigneur ; de ce qu'elle se livre de preference a I'exploita- 
 tion des veines qui s'y trouvent, et que, par \h, elle nef!;ligc rexploitatioa 
 des veines de la Hestre et de Haine-Saint-Pierrc, cc qui nuit a ses interets ; 
 de ce qu'elle a perce des communications k Taidc dosqudles los eaiix du 
 Ptcdemont s'6coulent dans le territoire de la Hestre etdc Hainc-Saint-Picrrc ; 
 enfin, de ce qu'elle extrait, par une seule et moine fosse, le chnrbon de co 
 territoire et de cclui de Redemont. II prcnd, en consequence, differens 
 chefs de conclusions, et il demande notammcnt que la Kociete soit con- 
 damnee a lui payer, dans la proportion reglee par I'acte du 12 janvior 1757, 
 le droit d'entre-eeiis de 'out le charbon qu'elle cxtraira ailleurs que sur la 
 Hestre et Haine-Saint-Pierre, si mieux elle n'aime consentir quHl accorde 
 A d'autues le droit d'cq^loiter les veines de charbon do son territoire. 
 
 «■ •;<• •» -^ -x- * -;<• 
 
 i, 
 
 
 
 * 
 
4- 
 
 I' 
 
 — 61 — 
 
 (Paee 806.) " Le ler ventose an 5, le Siour Decarondelet faitciter cette Owiburip 
 compagnie dcvant le tribunal civil du dopnrtement do Jcmmappcs, pour la of Mwm 
 laire condamner au payement des Arrerages de sa redevance. Mn-Un 
 
 " Lo 15 floroal, an Q,Jugement de co tribunal, qui deelnre ]ii demande 
 NON admissible, " attbndu que le droit d'entke cens r6clam6 par Ic dcman- 
 deur, ne lui comp6tait k autre titrc quo celui exprim6en 1 art. ler du chap. 
 130 des chartes du Hainaut ; qu'ainsi, ce droit fixAiT FfiooAL, et que, par la 
 loi du 9 bruraairo an 2, il est d6fendu aux juges, a peine de forfaiture, do 
 connaitro des droits f6odaux." 
 
 •}«■ * -5^ * * •» * 
 
 (Page 308.) •' Le sieur Deachuyler.cr et un grand nombre de ses cons- 
 ents so pourvoient en cassation. 
 
 " Les questions que vous prfisente cette affaire (ai-je dit k I'audience de 
 la section civile, le 16 vent6se an 12,) sont aussi importantes qu epmeuses ; 
 M\k elles ont 6t6 agit6es dansplusieurs tribunaux qui les ont lugees tantot 
 dans un sens, tantdt dans I'autre. C'est au tribunal supreme qu il appartient 
 de leur donner une solution qui parson grand caract^re et par la justesse do 
 ses motifs, mettra fin aux contestations qu'elles font naitro journellement, 
 rfiglerdefinitivementles interets majeurs auxquels elles tiennent, et asseoir 
 sur une base immuable la fortune de plusieurs railliers de families. 
 
 " La discussion qu'elles exigent de notre part, ne serait ni longue, m 
 difficile, si nous ne devions nous arr6ter aux motifs du jugement attaque 
 par les demandeurs. 
 
 * -jt * * * » 
 
 (Page 314). ** Enfin, il faut tov jours en revenir d cette idee simple et 
 lumineuse : le seigneur hautjustider n'£tait pas, avant sa concession, 
 PROPRi^TAiRE FONCiER DE LA MIKE ; H iC a donc pas pu, par sa concession, 
 transferer k celui qu'il a, par ce moyen, rendu posscsseur d un droit de 
 charbonnage, une propriete foneiere, qu'il n'avait pas lui-meme. Avant la 
 concession, le Seigneur haut justicier n'avait sur la mine qu un droit do 
 fouille et d'cxtraction, la concession n'a donc transmis que ce droit ; le con- 
 cessionnaire n'est donc pas proprietaire fonder. 
 
 4«- * * * ^fr * 
 
 (Page 315). " Qu'entend-on par droits seigneuriaux, et quels sont les 
 droits qui, sous cette denomination, ont ete aholis par nos assemblies 
 nationales ? Ce ne sont pas sevlement les droits qui denvent du bail ajiej et 
 DU BAIL d cens ; ce sont encore toiis ceux qui ont leur source, son dans la 
 puissance feodale propreinent dite, soit dans la justice seigneuriale qui 
 n'etait qu'une Emanation de cette puissance. 
 
 " Les droits qui denvent du bail ^fief et du bail &cens, ont sansdouto 
 6t6 abolis par nos assemblecs nationales, conime les autres droits seigneu- 
 riaux : mais ils I'ont et6 bcaucoup plus tard. L'assemblee consituante es 
 avait conserves, parce qu'ils etaient le prix des fonds concedes par les 
 ci-devant seigneurs k leu/s vassaux ou censitaires ; elle s otait bornee, en 
 abolissant le regime feodal, a les convertir en droits purement fonciers, a 
 les assimiler en tout point aux redevances purement foncieres ; et ils n ont 
 et6 supprinies que par la loi du 17 Juillet 1793.— Mais les autres droits sei- 
 gneuriaux, les droits qui ne doivent leur origine qu'a la puissance fe-jdale ou 
 I la Justice Seigneuriale, ont 6te abolis des le 4 AoiU 1789 ; cest a cette 
 grande 6poque que les lois des 15 Mars 1790 et 18 Avril HPl en font 
 remonter I'abolitioii. 
 
— 02 — 
 
 OwVMMHiP 
 
 or MmH. 
 
 AathoritUs. 
 
 Merlin. 
 
 " Or. est-ce de la puissance f6odale, est-ce de la justice Seigncurialo, 
 que d6rive le droit dont il est ici question ? Incontestablement c estde 1 une 
 ou de I'autre qu'il d6rivo si on ne peut lui indiquer une autre source. 
 
 » Mais cette autre source, quelle serait-elle ? Dedeux choses 1 une . ou 
 les seigneurs du Ilainaut tenaient ce droit de lew pmssanoe feodalo, de leur 
 haute justice, ou ce droit 6tfcit pour eux une derivation de la propn6t6 foil- 
 ciere. II n'y a point de milieu entre ces deux propositions alternatives. 
 
 " Or, nous I'avons d^4 dit, il est prouv6 par 'art. 18 du -^hap, 122 des 
 chartes generales, que les seigneurs duHainflutn'6taientpo:ntpropn6taixea 
 fonciers des mines de charbon de terre. Ce n'est done pas de la P/0P"ft6 
 foncidre de c<»8 mines, que decoulait pour eux le droit exclusif qu ils »"weBt 
 d'enpermettrerexploitation; ce droit exclusif ne PO"ya>t. done decouler 
 pour eux que de la puissance f6odale, que de la haute-, ustice, cest done 
 Jussi de la haute justice, que decoulait pour eux la redevance J^^ le^^ ^^wt 
 pay6e pour prix de I'exercice qu'ils faisaient en faveur de tels ou tels, de ce 
 droit exclusif: cette redevance a done et6 suppnmfie en mfme temps que le 
 droit exclusif dont elle dfirivait en meme temps que la puissance f6odale et 
 la haute justice desquelles derivait ce droit exclusif. 
 
 " Ces consequences, dejii si evidentes par eWes-m^mes acguerront vn 
 nouveau degre ie lumidre, par le RAPPROcnEMENT des dispositions (^^sfAaWes 
 generales il Bmnaut stR les mines, ateo les pnncipes du droit naturel et 
 communsur la meme mature. .. ^j *„>,„;„ a«^ 
 
 " Pa/T' le DROIT NATUREL, les Mines qui existent dans un terrain, /(>nc 
 partie du terrain meme ; et il est libre au proprietaire du «>n^3 d «u 
 extraire les suUtanees minirales, commb il lux est Ured en eouper Fhei^Oe 
 coMMB il lui est libre de kcultimr, comme il Uv est libre d^en recueilUr les 
 
 *^^"*^" Cette maxime de droit naturel a et6 de tous temps reconnue par le 
 droit commun positif. _„ 
 
 Sous la RfipuBLiQUR ROMAiNE et du te?nps des premiers emp^eurs,hh.b 
 MINES £TAIENT ENTlfcllEMENT DE DROIT PRIVE ; le proprietaire 
 fonder en amitledomaine libke. ind£pendant absolu: enwi f ««. « |^? 
 'poi^Mait OPTIMO JURE, comme lefonds qui les recelmt dans son sein La loi 
 7, §. 17, D. SoLUTo MAfRiMomo, les lois S et 6 D, de acquirendo rerum 
 DosnNio, et le §. 19, aux Institutes, de ueuum divisione, sont U-dessus tres- 
 formcU. 
 
 "Dans l/ suite les Mines furent comiderm .^mme des objets de droit 
 
 PUBLIC- NON ^.JE ces EMPEREURS s'eN SOIENT JAMAIS ATTRIBu£ I'^^/^?"*;^'* ' 
 
 ™:« e.x«« du'code Th6odosien ni du Code ■^"^^■•"^^"Xe "i RifptTNEN" 
 entiers sur cette matiore, ne le prononce ; tous, au contraire, y RtptGNEM. 
 Ma ce te pa "rde la richesse de I'Etat parut assez interessante, pour que 
 YEtcUlm-Lm^s^n rescrnlt la police, et assez fructueuse pour qu il en 
 
 i'-^^fJ^J^St^'^^'Xn^rqae sont parties touUsUslois des 
 
03 ~ 
 
 des 
 
 tmpereura. Les uncs, telles quo les 1, 2, 8, i:> ot It, C. TafioD., «t Jos 1, 3, Owhrsbip 
 ot 6 C.' DB Mctallabiw, concerncnt le regime des mines ; olle3 donncnt, on- Miubb. 
 refusent modinent le pouvoir do lea exploiter, Les autres, telles mie les lois Authorities. 
 3 4 10 'et 11, 0. TnioD., etlca lois 1, 2, 6, C. du mfimo titre, ddtorminent if«r«fi. 
 le droit dA au fisc sur les produits des Mines, et en rdglent la percepUon. 
 «' Cb droit etait le DixiiME. Une administration, sous le nom des 
 PROCURATOKEs METALLOBUM, ou intendants des Mines, 6tait charg6e de le 
 recueillir dans les provinces, et de lo verser dans la caisae d'un magistrat 
 BUD'* ■ 'ir appel6 Comes Meiallorum, surintendant des Mines. Le prince 
 ne se reservait, au-deli de cette prestation que le droit d'obliger I'exploitant 
 Gui vendait les produits de sea Mines, k les vendre de pr6f6renco au gouver- 
 Semlnt QUIDQUID AMPLIUS COLLIGERE POTUERINT, FISCO 
 POTISSIMUM DISTRAHANT, A QUO COMPETENTIA EX LARGI- 
 TIONIBUS NOSTRIS PRETU SUSCIPIANT. Ce sent les tormes de la 
 
 loi, 1, C. titre d6jti cit6. ^ ^ ., 7 
 
 " Auoune de ces lois, au surplus, ne contrakie le droit du propnetmre, 
 AU POINT DE DONNEB A UN iTHANQEB lu/oculte do vetiir TatAgrb M,/ouiller 
 les minea qui existent dan$ sonfonda. 
 
 *^ Ala verite on trouve dans IcCodb Th^odosiek, toujours sous le titre 
 de metallariis, quatre lois qui permettent k tout le monde indiatinctement 
 defouiller lea Minea de marbre^ mfime dans les terrains des particuliers, et 
 n'assujettissent I'extracteur envers ceux-ci qu'au payanent d'un dixieme 
 pareil k celui qu'il devait payer au fisc. ^ 
 
 •' Mais cette disposition, par cela ae.ul qu^elU etatt PAnricuiiftRE aux 
 Mines de marbre, pormait evidemment unb exception d larigle generale, et 
 elle prouve par consfiquent que la regie g6n6rale 6tait diff6rente pour les 
 
 autres mines. , , 
 
 " Aussi remarquoTiS-nnu* qu'elle ne fut, relativement aux mines de 
 marbre elles-mfimes, que le frUit de circonstanees et de besoins momentan^s 
 et qu'elle fut ou r6voqu6e ou remise en yigueur, suir-nt que ces circonstan- 
 ees ou ces besoins cessaient ou renaissaient. 
 
 " OoNSTANTiN et Th^odose, auteurs des I is, 1, 10 et 11 du titre cito y 
 consignerent cette disposition, pour parvenir avec d'autant plus de facilite k 
 I'embellissement de Gokistantinople, devenue la capitale de I'empire d'Orient. 
 Jclien la renouvela par la loi 2 du mfime titre i)our embellir Antioche, do ;t 
 11 voulait, disait-il, faire une ville de marbre. Et le mfime THfionosE q</,t, 
 par les lois 10 et 11, avaitpermia ind6finitivcment d tov4 lea particuliers, la 
 fouille des Mabbres, leur retira eette permiaaion par la loi 13. 
 
 " Jl faut Wailleura observer qm lea quatre loia dont il s'agit, ne disent 
 point que la propi:At6 des Mines Ce marbre) reside dans la main des empe- 
 reurs; qu'il en resuu seulement qu'aux empereurs appartient le -Iroit d'en 
 diriger I'exploitation pour le plus grand avantage de I'^tat, qu'elles ne 
 depouillentmeme paste prcprietairedu droit d' exploiter lea minea cachees 
 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 VK FOUILLER Zes ««nne« chez lui ; et que oons^quemment ellea supposent 
 quecevE sera qu'a son refus, qu'un etrang&r pourraa'en emvanr en Vin- 
 
 demniaant. , , , -, ,• 
 
 " AiN't, dana le dernier etat dea loia romatnes, la p»opri£t6 des parti- 
 culiera sub les Mines ETAIT CONSTANTS; h droit domanial d'un 
 dixiSme sur Unrs produits le droit de police aur leur exploitation, telles 
 bont les SEULES restrictions que cette propriety ait esauyies de la 
 part dea empareura ; et il faut convenir qu* rien n'^tait plus propre i conci- 
 
 niiiinriTiiiiriTmil 
 
OirvBttsHip 
 
 OF MINR8. 
 
 Aathorities. 
 Merlin. 
 
 — 64 — 
 
 lierrinterdtdueouvernement, qui voulait que les Mines nedemeurasscnt 
 Is iuS avec I'interot de k propriete priyee, qui voukit que c-hacun 
 St rrdosrchose tout le profit dontelleetaitsusceptiW^^ 
 ^ '"LermoTmens les plus kkcul^s <le notre histoire nous offrentles 
 MfiMES pbinSpes constamment suim8 par le gomernementfrangais. De a 
 nous avonsvu que, sous Dagobebt I. VEtat retirmt des Mines une retrjbu. 
 SrauTo"Slzi>?e6 de cens, quoiqu'alors on ne connM encore ni fief, m 
 Sdleurie 111 justice seigneuriale, et c'est assurement unepreuveBi^^ 
 CL!^Z^lTsraidela2>remierera^^^ adoptant sur cet objet toutes les 
 SknSsitlonsdu droit remain qu'ils avaient trouvees en pleine vigueur dans 
 fes Gau es c^^Lne maintenu ^e. proprietaires fonczers dam le droudex- 
 pliter Ulrement les Mines caoUeo dam Uurs terres. 
 
 «' Cependantonvoit, par l'okdonnance de CHARLES VI, de 1413 la 
 
 plus ancie^ d^^^^^^^^^^^^ t?^^;^::;s^n:jf^^^ Z£fz 
 
 %Z::^^:tZ^Xmni LSL dans les fo-ds deieurs vassaux ou 
 Staires MMs 07.2/..it enmeme Umps que, A^-lors i.^ gocvei^nement 
 SfORQAIT de riprirmr leun entrer -^es et de pbot^geb contre eux les 
 
 ^^^^:^^^s^rSr.TBo..5ie^..- .B ---^^f-tsr/^^^^^^ 
 
 DES seigneubs, les marohands et maithep. de TREb-iUiNUfcj aes Mines 
 JL^^Zies proprietaires qui exploitentpar enx-m^mcs les Mines ^e 
 Imrs t^^^ns^^ pour ce afin que dorenavant ils puissent ouvrer continuelle- 
 'Cnt sans en Le euipech(§s ou trorbles en lours ouvrages et ouvrer 
 " franchement et sAreraent, tant comme ils voudront ouvrer icelks Mines ; '' 
 le second der^serverau g'ouvernement la dixi^me par le punfiec de tous 
 mitaux le troisieme, " d'assurer a tous mineurs la faculte de queur ouvrer 
 ^ et tohe-Mines'par tous les lieux oil ils penseront en trouver et icelles 
 " traireetfaire ouvrer, et vendre a ceux qui les feront ouvrer et fondre, en 
 " nrvant Vnous noLe'dixieme francheraent, et en fai.n. certification, ou 
 " ?oSterrcelui ou k ceux a qui les dites ehoses ser..u ou appartiendront 
 
 " """"^GtuXZndS^^^^, ABSOL..ENT CALQU.E ^r Us loisdu Gode 
 oevie «"' '"^ ^, ', moment presente dbsoUment le meme 
 
 que nous «^*^ 7^^^^///J, irMON^Hndistinctement le droit defouiller 
 [e?Ss?.u rutT;Z«.7orl r^^^^ conpibme-t-elle au proprietaire fan- 
 c^rutvitde JouilUr les siennes ; ce n^est meme qu^an proprxetaxre 
 ^Mc£r QUE PEUT s'APPLiQUEH U cUuse qui pevmet de vendre les mnes a 
 joiicur 'fP^/y'^J c'est-a-dire. aux M neurs, raarchands ou maitres 
 
 XS "u rorVo^^^^^^^^ niaitres'de tr^s-fonds ; 0. «... 
 
 Z^TqTvendent les Mines, et les premiers <i^^^ les font ouvrzr etjondre. 
 
 «' A cette ordonnance en scocfeDE dans ^'ordre^chTomlomn^^ 
 BEAUCOUP PLUS cfcLiBBR : c'est celle QUE LOUIS XI donna en 1471 A 
 MortUrik-Tours, et quele Parlementde Pans enr^gistra, le 14 JuiUet 1475. 
 
 ''par /r^k LOUIS XI, cr6e en titre d'office un grand-maitre des 
 Mines 4 qui il attribue, entre autre profits celui de chercher, par lui-meme et 
 mr ses commis, toutes les Mines qui existent en France, et de les fa re 
 rvrirnonsSment dans les teires du domain e, mais encore dans celles 
 delnartkuliers et des seigneurs, en pt.yant I'mdemnite aux trefoncers -|r« 
 ^;'?S$":r.r.V. oue^par Id, les PBOPBifcTAiBES, soient depomlles des 
 Mhmr^uknmiisdam leurs fond£. ainsi que du droit de les ^xpiouer, ei 
 ^u^uTm d redamcr contre '"a .oncessionnnaires irCune smple indem- 
 
 i 
 
— 65 
 
 
 /lite. Vordonnanct elle-meme leur conshbve d, la fois et LEUR PRO-Ownhbship 
 PRIfiTE ET LEUR DROIT D'EXPLOITATION : elleporteque, lorsqu'uneop Mines. 
 Mine aura ete decouvcrte par les agens du grand maitre, il sera, k compter Authorities, 
 du jour de la signification qui en sera faite au proprietaire du foods, accorde Merlin. 
 k celv'i-ci un deJm de six mois pour sk mettre en ^tat de ^'exploiter 
 LUi-MEMH. A son defatit, le droit d'exploitation est donne d son Seigneur 
 imm^d'at; au defaut de ce dernier, au Seigneur SuzeraiNj evjin, au defaut 
 de tons, au grand-siaitbe. * * 
 
 " L'15dit de HENRI IV, du mois do Juin 1601, decide egalement en 
 faveur des propriCtaires fonciers la question de la pbopri^t^ des Mines. 
 II annonce, dans son preambule, que les ordonnanccs antirieures, la creation 
 d'un surintcndant ou grand-maitre, 1h regleraentde ses fonctions, de ses pri- 
 vileges et do ses droits, ii'ojit ev i^our hut que d'eveiller Vautorite desjtro- 
 prietaires, et de les exciter d exi iter leurs mines. Emuite par Vart. ler, 
 Henri IV retire a lui et k sa couronne le droit de dixidme sur les Mines, 
 abandonne jusqu'alors aux surintendans. Far Vart. 2, particulier aux 
 mines de fer, de charbon et de quelques autres substances terrestres, le Roy, 
 par amour pour ses bons sujets propri£taires des lieux, les exempte du 
 dixi^me. Par Vart. 3, commun a toutes les mine'o en general, les pro- 
 prietaires qui veulent les exploiter, sont assujettis d prendre la permission 
 du grand-maitre. Toiit cela prouve encore bien clairement que la PROPRifiTiS 
 FONCifeiiE des Mines ?i'aja?n(zi8 ete separee de Za propri^te des surfaces; 
 et que les proprietaires de celles-ld n'ont besoin que de la permission du 
 gouvernement, permission dont la necessite tient d la police, et nullement 
 
 A LA PROPRI^Tfi. 
 
 " Ce que contient sur les Mines de fer I'Ordonnance du mois de M&^ 
 1C80, n'est pas moins decisif. Cette loi a su reunir le double avantage 
 d'assurer la propriote des Mines de fer aux maitres du sol, et d'empecuer 
 
 elativement aux Mines do 
 
 Mai 1698, qui permit aux 
 
 de cette nature qui se trou- 
 
 que sur son refus juridiquement constate, que le droit d'exploiter est donne 
 a un autre ; et celui-ci est tenu de I'indcmniser, en lui payant un sou par 
 chaque tonneau de mineral de cinq cents livres pesant. Du reste, cette loi 
 lie deroge pas, meme pour le proprietaire qui veut exploiter personnelleraent 
 ses Mines, a la rdgle pr6cedemment etablie pour la necessity de I'obtention 
 prealable de la permission du gouvernement. 
 
 " Cette regie fut, pour un temps, abrogf' 
 charbon de terre, par un Arr^t du Conseil d' 
 proprietaires d'exploiter librement les Mines 
 vaient dans leurs terrains. 
 
 " Mais par nn autre Arret du Conseil, du 14 Janvier 1744, rcnouvel6 
 par un troisieme du 19 Mars 1783, le gouvernement annon^a qu'il 6tait 
 inforrad que les dispositions de I'Edit de 1601 et de I'Anet de 1698 dtaient 
 px-esque demeurees sans effot, soit par la negligence des proprietaires k faire 
 la recherche et I'exploitation des dites Mines, soit par Ic peu de faculte et ue 
 connaissances de la part de ceux qui avaient tento do faire sur cela quelqiie 
 entreprise ; que d'ailUeurs la libertd indefinie laissee aux proprietaires par 
 I'arrSt de 1698, avait fait naitre, en plusieurs occasions, une concurrence 
 entre eux, egalement nuisible k leurs entreprises respectives. En conse- 
 quence, il faut dire qu'a I'avenir, personne ne pourrait ouvrir et mettre en 
 exploitation des Mines de lioiijllo ou charbon de terre sans avoir nreal.ibl 
 tnent obtenu une permission du controleur general des finances, soit qi 
 9 
 
 I 
 
 que 
 
.— 6(5 
 
 OwNKiignip ceux qui voudraient faire ouvrir et exploiter log dites Mines, fiirv^cnt sol ' 
 
 OF Minus. gneurs hauts-justiciers, ou qu'ils eusscnt la propriete dcs terrains oCi elles so 
 
 Authorities, trouveraient. 
 
 Merlin. " Tel etait, par rapport aux Mines de eharion, Vetat de la legislation 
 
 franfaise, lorsque f Assemhlee comtituante s'occvpa de l' abolition des droits 
 SEiONEUiuAux. Alovs, comme vous le voyez, leu droits des pro]))' ieta ires 
 fonciers sun les Mines etaient reconnus, etaient intacts, etaient consa- 
 CRfis par des his expresses. Seule«ent Vexercice en etait suhordonne d vne 
 2'>recautio II de pure I'OUCE, qui ne tendait qu\l rendre leur propriete phis 
 utile d eux-memes et d V Etat. Seulement aussi, dans iin tres petit noinbre 
 de coutumes, notamment dans celle du Hainaut, dont une partic otait dcja 
 reunie a la France depuis plus d'un siecle, et dans laqiiclle existaient des 
 Mines de charbon de tcrre aussi riches que nom^reuses, la permission du 
 gouvernement ne suffisait pas, soit .\ un proprietaire, soit a un concessinn- 
 naire du gouvernement qui avait traito avec un proprietaire, pour exploiter 
 les Mines cxistantes dans le terrain de celui-ci ; il fallait de plus le consente- 
 ment du Seigneur ; et ce consentement, le seigneur pouvait lo refuser, en 
 ouvrant et exploitant lui-meme les Mines dont le gouvernement avait auto- 
 riso I'ouverture et Sexploitation. 
 
 " C'est ainsi que I'usage et la jurisprudence avaient accordo et concilio 
 les dispositions des costumes qui donnaient aux Seigneurs le droit cxclusif 
 d'ouvrir et d'exploiter les Mines avec les reglements generaux qui avaient 
 interdit toute ouverture et exploitation des Mines sans permission prealable 
 du gouvernement; et nous en trouvons la preuve dans quatro Arrets du 
 Conseil, des 14 Octobre 1749, 8 Decembre 1754, 18 Mars 1755 et 20 Janvier 
 1750, qui ont autorise le prince de Oroy, le marquis de Cernay et le chapitre 
 de Saint-Gery de Valenciennes, a exploiter les veinos de charbon existantcs 
 dans leurs Seigneuries respectives du Vieux-Oonde, de Raismes et de Saint- 
 Waast, nonobstant la concession que le gouvernement en avait precedem- 
 ment faite au vicomte Desandroin, en vertu du rdglcnvit de 1744. 
 
 " C'est ce que prouve egalementun Arret du L mseil, du 12 Mai 1771, 
 qui, malgre une concession faito par ^e gouvernement a la Oompagnie 
 l)a\!J, d'aprcs le meme rdglement, aperrais au conseiller d'etat, Fonlon, 
 d'exploiter indistinctcment toutes les Mines de charbon qui se trouveraient 
 dans s." seigneurie de Douay, regie par la coutume d'Anjou, dont I'art. 6, 
 renferme implicitemeut, pour les Mines, autres que celles d'or, une disposi- 
 tion semblable k celle des Art, 1 et 2 du ch. 180 des chartes geuerales du 
 
 Hainaut. 
 
 * * * * * -x- * * -X- * -X- * 
 
 Page 302. " Un nouveau trait de lumiere vient encore se joindre 4 
 cette deutonstration, par la lecture de la loi du 12 Juillet 1791, concernant 
 les Mines. 
 
 " Par cettc loi, rassomblee constituante a ronouvele h plupart des dis- 
 positions des anciens reglements sur cctto maticre importante. Elle a declare, 
 non pas comme le disent les demandeurs, que les Mines appartiennent a la 
 nation, mais qu'elles sonta sa disposition, en ce sens seuiouier.t qu'eilcs ne 
 peuvent etre exploitees que de son consentement et sous sa surveillance. 
 Elie a declare que les proprietaires de la surface auraipni toiijours la prefe- 
 rence et la libervu d'exploiter Its Mines qui pourraient se trouvcr dans leurs 
 fonds, et que la permission ne pourrail leur en ctre refusee lorsqu'il*' la 
 demanderaient. Elle a declare enftn que les anciens cnncesslonnaire.s seraient 
 siiaintenu'' _ndant (-inquante ans, diuii knirs ('xpioitatiinis. 
 
 " Mais qu'a-t-ellc fait en faveur dts ci-devr'nt Seigneurs qui, dans le 
 
t 
 
 ) 
 
 
 — 67 — 
 
 Ilaitiaut frangais et dans 1' Anjou, avaient trait6 avec les anciens concession- Ownkkship 
 nairci ot avaiont nioycnnant une rtdevance quelconque, consent! a ce qu'ils op Mines, 
 ioui«sent de relfet de Icurs concessions? Rien ; elle n'en a ineme point Authorities, 
 parle. Et pourquoi n'cn a-t-elle point parlo ? Est-ce par oubli? Mais i\y Merlin. 
 avait dans son soin des mcmbres tres-interesses k Ten faire souvenir. On y 
 comptait notaramentle due de Croy et le comte d'Aumberg de Lamarck, tons 
 deux deputes du Hainaut francais, tons deux ci-devant Seigneurs de terres 
 considerables, dans Tetenduc desquelles s'exploitaient des Mines eelebres 
 encore aujourd'hui dans toute la France ; et il est bien notoire que 1 un 
 d'eux le comte D'Aumbcrg de Lamarck, avait, avec Mirabeau, qui a paru 
 avec tant d'eclat dans la discussion de cette loi, des liaisons extremement 
 intimes. On no peut done pas supposer que le silence de I'assemblee con- 
 stituantc sur lespretendus 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 reellemcnt 
 qu'une seule cause, c'ost qu'alors il n'existait plus en Hainaut, ni seigneurs, 
 ni seigneuries, ni justices seigneuriales, ni droits seigneuriaux ou justiciers. 
 " Le proces, termine par cette loi, etait tout entier entre 1 Etat et les 
 pvoprietaires des fonds ou il se trouvait dos Mines. Oe n'est qu'entre ces 
 deux parties que I'Assemblee constituante a prononcc ; etilest, d aprescela, 
 bien impossible que I'assemblee constituante, en maintenant, sous certaincs 
 reserves, les ancienncs concessions dans toute leur etendue, ait eu la pensee 
 de conserver a ceux des ci-devant Seigneurs de qui provei lent quelques- 
 unes de ces concessions, les redevances qu'ils s'etaient retennes, lorsqu ils 
 les avaient accordees. En maintenant ces concessions, I'assemblee consti- 
 tuante ne s'c'st occupee que des concessionnaires ; c'est pour eux seuls 
 qu'cllo les a maintenues ; ct elle les a maintenues, non pour les assujettir de 
 nouveau a dos (charges dont elle les avait precedemroent alfranchis, mais 
 pour les laisser jouir pendant un certain temps, du fruit de leurs depenses ct 
 de leurs travaux. „ „ „ ^ «. 
 
 Page 823. " Ici se prescntent des questions absolument particulieres 
 a la cause du cit. Dccarondclet, et la premiere consiste a savoir si la tran- 
 saction du 10 Mars 1770 no place pas Ic cit. Decarondelet dans un cas 
 d'exception, par cela soul qu'ollese presentc, suivant lui, comme propnetaire 
 foncier des terrains sous lesquels existent les Mines dont il s'agit. 
 
 '• Cette question est melee da droit et de fait. 
 
 " Bans le droit, la redemnce comwe dans le ci-devant Hainaut, sovs le 
 nam, d'entreckns, ent-Hle conserv.ee au 2>rqfit des ex-seigneurs qui, avant 
 i/vHOLiTioN DU iiCttiMK iKODAL avaieiit concede des Mines cxistantes inte- 
 P-ralement sous leurs propros fonds? II y a, coinme vous le savcz, pour 
 ^'affirmation un jugement du tribunal de cassation, du 11 nivose an 8. lo, 
 m-ieterJiarbovniere de >'<ars-Lonchamp attaqiiait un ivgemevt i\v\ ''v\\)\iVii\\ 
 civil du (lepartemeit de Sambre et Mouse, qui V avait condamne ct conUnucr 
 au cit. Rlueau, ci-devant Seigneur du lieu, le jmyement du droit u entke- 
 cr.NS qu'il s'etait reserve, on^concedant a cette compagnie I'exploitation 
 exclusive dos voines de cbarbon qui se trouvaient dans seK prorrietes fon- 
 cieres ; vous avoz kejet£ son uecours ; et was en avez moii-w le rejet sur le 
 principe, que la sih'pkkssion des droits feodaux prononcec T>ar les lois do la 
 republiquo, ne peut pkofiteu qu'aiix jtroprietaires de la superficie des terres. 
 .jt ^ j^ ^ -^ * * * * * ■Jfr * * 
 
 Page 827. " Diwns evjln, que ce droit est essentiellement Seigneuuial, 
 quHl est ohoU comme tons les droits Seignem-iaux, ct quHl y a necessite 
 t/tdispensah(e d'annulleh lejttgement qui Pa maintcnu. 
 
— 68 
 
 OwsBBsnip 
 ov Minks. 
 Authorities. 
 Merlin. 
 
 " Ccst d quoi nous coiicluonsy 
 
 " SuR SES CONCLUSIONS, arret du 10 zentvse, an 12, au rapport dc M, 
 Ruperon, qui declare: 
 
 " Vu les art. 1 et 2 du chap. 130 des chartcs nouvolles du pays de 
 " Hainaut, Tart. 4 de la loi du 11 Aoiit 1789, I'art 5 de celle du 25 Aout 
 *' 1792, I'art. 1 de celle du 17.juillet 1793, et les art. 1, 4 et 5 du tit. de ccUe 
 " du 12 Juilletl791 sur les Mines etMinieres ; 
 
 " CoNsiD^RANT, en premier lieu, que, suivant les dispositions des chartes 
 *' du Hainaut, les Mines ou veines de charbou, sont comprises sous la deno- 
 *' mination generique d'avoir en terre non extra}'^e ; 
 
 " Que I'avoir en terre non extraye, consistant dans le droit de fouiller 
 *' la Mineet de s'approprier ce qui serait extrait, etait un attribut de la 
 *' haute-pistice, un privilege exclusivement attache a la qualite de Seigneur 
 " haut-justicier ; 
 
 '' Que les ci-devant seigneurs du Hainaut qui ne voulaient ou ne pou- 
 *' vaient exploiter par eux-m6raes les mines de charbon qui se trouvaicnt 
 " dans I'etendue de leur haute-justice, etaient libres de conceder a qui bon 
 *' leur semblaitla faculte de les exploiter, a la charge par les concessionnaires 
 •' de leur payer une redevance conventionnellement reglee et connue sous la 
 *' denomination de droit d^^ ztre-cens ; 
 
 " Que cette redevance, dorivant d'un droit essentiellement dependant de 
 "la haute-justice, vJavait point pour cause la cothcessio'S pri/nitive d'un 
 *' FONDS, d'uNx. FROPRifiTfi, mais seulement I'exercice simple d'unc faculte 
 *' attribuee a la Seir.neurie haute justiciero, comme I'a tres-judicieusenient 
 " reconnu le tribunal d'appel lui-mome ; 
 
 " Que du moment que la haute justice a ote retiree des mains des 
 " ci-devant seigneurs, leur droit d'avoir en terre non extraye et celui d'cn- 
 " tre-cens qui le represeate, ont dH necessairement cesser ; que les disposi- 
 •' tions des lois precitoeo sur I'abolition des droits seigncuriaux sont 
 " positives a cct egard ; 
 
 " Qu'il n'y a pas de parit6 entre le droit d'entrocens et les tcrres vaines 
 " et vagues, les biens vacans, qui demeurent irrevocablenient 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 dent la consis- 
 " tance, une fois fixee, ne pent recevoir d'accroissement, et qui ont passe en 
 " entier dans le domaine absolu des ci-devant Seigneurs, san? conserver le 
 " raoindre rapport avec le titrefeodal dont ils precedent ; qu'il n'en est pas 
 " ainsi du droit d'avoir en terre non extraye, en vertu duquel I'exploitition 
 *' des Mines s'etendait successivement sur les tends souterrains, sans que la 
 *' Zoi DANS AucpN CAS, rendit le Seigneur proprietaire du fonds productij : 
 " c^est-(l-dire de la mine m^me, que, si un scmblable droit etait encore 
 " maintenu aux ci-devant Seigneurs, il en resulterait que la haute-justice, 
 " aprds avoir ete solennellement aneantie, n'en conscrverait pas moiiis sos 
 " attributs et ses eflfets. 
 
 " Considerant, en second lieu, qu'il est Evident que, par los articles 
 " prdcites de la loi dc 1791, sur les Mines et minieres, portant quo les con- 
 " cessions actuellement existantes subsisteront dans toute lour etendue, le 
 " 16gislateur n'a pas entendu parler de I'^tcndne dos ilispositions des 
 " contrats de concessions, mais uniqueraent dc I'etondue supei-hcielle des 
 " terrains , que d'ailleurs cette loi ne pent etre ceiisee avoir conserve aux 
 " ci-devant Seigneurs des droits de haute justice qui avaient 6te deja 
 ** form el lorn ftp. t abolis * 
 
 " Considerant, en troisi^nie lieu, que, si d'apres la transaction du 2 1 
 
 t 
 
— 69 
 
 * » 
 
 " les juges d'appel ont confirm6 la totality du droit 8tipul6 par cette transac- Merlin. 
 " tion, puisque les Decarondelet y ayant express^ment reserv6 non seule- 
 " ment I'efFet de la concession primitive de 1757, mais encore le droit 
 " d'eotrecens, le cas 6ch6ant, k raison du onzidme dernier comme par le 
 " pass6, dans le terrain dit abonnement ; 11 en resulte qu'une partie de ce 
 " droit a constamment une origine feodale ; 
 
 " Que-des-la que, par cette transaction, les Decarondelet percevaient 
 " quitte de frais la quantity de charbon convenue, on ne saurait y apercevoir 
 " un contrat de soci6t6, parce qu'il r6pugne k la nature de ce contrat, que 
 " I'un des associes prenne une part du profit, sans prelever la depense faite 
 *' pour se le procurer, en sorte qu'il pourrait arriver qu'il y eut du benefice 
 " pour lui, tandis qu'il n'y aurait que de la perte pour les autres associ6s ; 
 
 " Que le jugement attaque, en d^cidant subsidiaireraent que cet 
 " accord n'a point ete aneanti, attendu qu'il n'est pas dit, en termes exprds, 
 " dans les lois sur I'abolition du regime feodal, qu'il ait et6 d6rog6 aux 
 " transactions, a faussement appliqu6 les lois sur la force et les effets de 
 *' cette sorte de transaction ; qu'en eflFet, 1( s lois qui ont aboli generale- 
 •' ment tous les droits feodaux, toutes les redevances et prestations seigneu- 
 " riales, ont en meme temps et veritablement aneanti toutes les transactions 
 " qui auraient pu etre passees sur la quotite, le mode ct I'etendue de la 
 " perception pour I'avenir de ces droits, de ces redevances, par la raison que 
 *' la chose meme sur laquelle est intervenue une transaction, ayant et6 
 " aneantie dans sa substance et dans toutes ses consequences, il est impos- 
 " sible de concevoir que cette transaction puisse continuer de subsister ; 
 
 " Considerant enfin que, quand on admettrait, dans toute sa latitude, le 
 " pnncipe que la suppression des droits foodaux ne doit profiter qu'aux 
 " proprietaires de la superficie, il n'en resulterait pas que le jugement, dont 
 "il s'agit, dAt 6tre confirme, attendu qu'il conserve aux cit. et dame 
 " Decarondelet la totalite du droit d'entre-cens par eux reclame, alors ineme 
 " qu'ils avouent qu'ils ne sont proprietaires que d'une partie du terrain de 
 " la Haine-Saint-Pierre ; 
 
 " De tout quoi il suit qve les juges de Bruxelles, en maintenant ainsi 
 " les cit. et dame Decarondelet dans la totalite du droit d'entre-cens, stipule 
 " par le contrat de concession du 12 Janvier 1759 et la transaction du 21 
 " Octobre 1787, ont viole les lois nouvelles sur I'abolition du regime feodal 
 " et les Mines et minieres, et faussement appliqu6 les lois sur la force et les 
 " effets des transactions sur proems ; 
 
 " PAR CES MOTIFS , casse et anndlle le jugement du tribunal 
 
 d^appel de Bruxelles, du 12 messidor, an 9 ... " 
 
 " II y a, dans le Repertoire de Jurisprudence, au mot entre-cens, un 
 Arrfit semblable du 23 vend^miaire, an 13. 
 
 t 
 
 That authority from Merlin, based as it is upon a 
 decision of the highest judicial tribunal of France, estaUishcs 
 conclusively 
 
 1 ^ . That by Roman Law, under the Republic, Mines 
 loere the exclusive and untrammdUd pvoiyeriy of the tmner of 
 the soil. 
 
 2 - . That, in modifying the Law of Mining, the Roman 
 
— 70 
 
 OWNKRBHIP 
 OF MiNEH. 
 
 Authoritiea. 
 Merlin. 
 
 Emperors never laid claim to the ownership of the Mines, bnt 
 constantly recognized the oioner of the soil as heing 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 consisced in a mere right of Police or supervision. 
 
 3 ® .^ Tliat the French Kings, in adopting the Roman 
 Law, which they found in active operation in Gaul, wo^tfZ<3^/ 
 their Ordinances on Mining closely upon the Laws of the 
 Roman Empire, and likewise recognized the ovmer of the soil 
 as being the owner of the Mine, merely claiming a right of 
 Police or supervision over the Mine. 
 
 4 ® . That under the Roman Law, and imder the French 
 Law, NO distinction whatever exists between Mines of the 
 precious metals and Mines of the baser metals. 
 
 5 ® , 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 Seigniors, as 
 representing the state, to the Mines on private lands. 
 
 It will be shewn hereafter that our Seigniorial Tenure 
 Act has done i,o 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 (Jour de Cassation in 
 France, expository of the Law of 1789, may well be cited 
 to illustrate the meaning of onr Seigniorial Act. But more of 
 this hereafter. Another decision by the same supreme tribu- 
 nal maintained the owner of the soil in the exclusive right to 
 tlie Mines upon his lands. That decision is thus reported by 
 MEIiLIN, m the same article : 
 
 Page 837. " Avant U loi du 12 Juillet 1791, les maitres de fouoes 
 powmunt-ds, dans le pays de Liege, exjiloiter, sans le consentkment des 
 propnetaircs fonciers, les Mines de fek existantes dans les heritages 
 d'autrui ? 
 
 * -X- -x- ***** 4«- * * * * 
 
 " En brumaire, an 3 (ai-jc dit a I'audience de la cour de cassation, 
 section civile, le 23 ventoso, an 11), le cit. Daoust, maitre do forges, domici- 
 lie a Ilourbes, fit dans les teri-es d'nno ibnno dite Pommereuil, situoe dans 
 la commune de Ragnies, pays de Liege, et dependante de I'abbaye de 
 Lobbcs, les fouilles necessaires pour en extrairc les Mines de fer qu'elles 
 rccelaient dans Icur sein. 
 
 " J'eu de temii^apres la suppression do I'abbaye de Lobbes, prononcoc 
 par h loi du ]5 fi-ucti.lor. an I-, Ic cif. Daoust, troui)ly dans son exploitation 
 par le roceveur d'.'s domaincs do Beaumont, parvint ti sV fairo maintenir, 
 non p-is, f'omnu- il I'assuve, par un arret <1j I'adininistration du departe- 
 men^tde Jemmappes((lij nioius il n'en I'apporte aucune preuve) mais dc i'ait, 
 01 d a[>re.-i un .simpu- ima du directour des douiaiiies do ce dcpurtenient, date 
 
 i 
 
- n — 
 
 " Le 23 Hereal, an fi, la forme do Pommcrcuil fut venduo par Totat au 
 ci Lefebvro : et par le procos-verbal d'adjudiVution, il fut d^cla e m.'^n 
 miheu des ten-es de cette fonne, so trouvaie^t de. fosses clont on exp SaTt 
 la Mine do er ce qui ava.t oceasionne denx ou trois bonniers dc dorrW go 
 / Le2l Iructidor, an 7. le cit. Lefcbvre obtint du ju..c do mux du 
 canton do Thu.n une ordonnanoe qui defendit nu cit. Daouit^d'empo r Ut les 
 nunes do for qu',1 avait cxtraitos d'un terrain dependant de la forme do 
 Pommereui], atte.ulu que, d'apros la loi du 12 juillet 1791, il ne pouvait 
 UZ^^^:^^:''' '' -" consentement Lnol, ot Jn lui ^Jj 
 
 an n:Z r^porl ^T BuS^r' ''' "'""" '"" ''''' '" '' "^'"^'"'^ 
 j' CoNsiDEBANT, sur lo premier moyen (porte-t-il) qu'il resulte dp<? di« 
 ScXT20'dw'h i^V^" ^h,Gdelacouimi^do Lio^? ain " t dS^i:. 
 ac 1 art. 20 d i ch. 11 de la motne coutumc, que touf.es espeoes de Mbm omer- 
 te. et d o„rr,r^ appautiennent en toute propriete aux vvJkX''^zTIL 
 sm^Acss ; nu\tucnne autre loi ou vsage .ocal n'autokise Ic. rnMTforZ 
 
 prop}tet> s, nov iLsvirque]eju(/e7ne)U denonce en dkcidant qu'a-nnt 
 lymlluationdelaloidu 12 Juillet 1791, le demandenr x'a pJ fcoufimi 
 2^1^^ contentment du propriitaire, i.k droit d'e.xtkatke la mine 0^"^ 
 dans la fermc de Pommorouil, situue au dit pays, n'afaitqu^une jiSteaJdl 
 cation den sundits art. 13 et20. i ^ > y ^^'"i"- u-ne juste appu- 
 
 " Par COS motifs lo tribunal rejotte la dcmando de Charles Daoust." ' 
 
 fl.ntTI'^ ""It? ^"^f:^}^ the more important from the fact 
 tiattlie Custom of Lie^ije, wliere the disputed Mines were 
 smiated, IS idontical with tho Custom of Paris as to the rights 
 01 the owner oi the sod, as will l)e shewn hereafter 
 
 In treatin- another question, MERLIJST, P. 337, throws 
 tnrther hght upon this subject, in tlie followinc? exhaustive 
 argnment: *=" 
 
 " ^««'' ^''P'^V' 0^ ^ foit d^ exploiter les 3Ene.s de cUrlon, kait en 
 tout ou en part.e seir,neunal avant les decrets du 4 aoilt 1789, le ci-devmt 
 'n^mn^t^t''!'^^'^ ;>n,>.f^..i;. desjonds sous lesuels JSZ 
 SJ.1 ^„?^'^'^ rA:xPLOiTATioN, mant ValolitioJi du. reaime 
 
 jeodal, PEf T-iL aujourd'hui se fa.he pavku, on sa qualite de proprietairo les 
 UEDEVAXQEs qif il s'est feservks en eclle de Mgneur? ^ "P' 'e^^" <^ its 
 
 Pour resoudre cette question en pleine connaissance de cause il faut 
 commencer par seformernne idee exacte des droits que les prZ7etai/e^lu 
 sol amient sur les mines amnt la rerolution. pnpiiemnes cm 
 
 '' On a viT dans le § 1, que les lois romaines consideraient les mines 
 
 i 
 
— 72 — 
 
 ^^ 
 
 OWMBMHIP 
 
 OF Mines. 
 
 Authorities. 
 
 Merlin. 
 
 ** II n'en fallut pas davantage pour ouvrlr anx chefs des peuples du 
 Nord qui demembrerent I'empire remain, une carridre plus large et leur 
 inspirer des idees plus etendues. 
 
 " lis ne 2>rirentpas la peine de disputer, en legistes, aux propri£taires 
 DU SOL la proimete des Mines ; mais profitant de Vhabitude qu'avaient 
 contract6e leurs predecesseurs en souveraincte de rcglcmenter les mati^res 
 minerales, et de s'en r^sekver les profits jcsqu'a une cehtaine QUOTiifi • 
 iU partirent de Idpotir dire aitx proprietaires fonciers : '• II importe peu 
 " que les Mines qui existent sous vos terres, en fassent partie ; nous Ic 
 *' s'jpposons ayec vous : mais comme Tinteret publique exige k la fois quo 
 " des proprietes aussi precieusos se soicnt mises en valeur que sous I'iiapec- 
 " tion de I'autorite, et qu'elles ne deraeurent pas inutilcs, vous ne toucherez 
 " bk ces Mines, qu'apr^s en avoir obtenu de nous la permission expresse, et 
 *' en nous payant telles rcdevanccs. Si vous ne lesexploitez pas, nous auto- 
 " riserons d'autres a le faire ; et alors, vous n'aurez d'indemnite a reclamer, 
 " pour le dommage cause a la surface de vos terres." 
 
 " C'bst BFFKCTivBMEjfT A CBS DBUx POINTS qice se reduiront toi'tes lea 
 loispuMiees en Francb, ««?• V exploitation des Mines, pendant jdusieurs sie- 
 cles ; et ce fut notaminent dans cet esprit que furent redigees la ceUbre 
 ordonnance de Cuarlks VI, du 30 Mai 1413, et VMit de Henri IV, du mois 
 de juin 1601. II y eut m^me quelqu s unes de ces lois qui, laissant lo 
 droit de propri6te fonci^re des Mines sous une sorte de nuage, declarorent 
 oxpressement que les Mines otaient de droit royal ct domanial: c'etait 
 notamment le langage de Philippe-Ie-Long, dans son ordonnance du 5 
 avril 1321. 
 
 " Ce droit exclusif du souverain sur les Mines, eprouva cepcndant des 
 contradictions, non de la part des proprietaires fonciers, mais de celle dea 
 seigneurs qui, ayant usurpe plusieurs droits rogaliens, ne pouvaicnt pas 
 manquer d'etcndre leurs pretentions j usque surcelui-ci. 
 
 " Ce fut en partie pour reprimer ces entrcprises, que fut rendue, par 
 Charles VI, I'Ordonnance deja cite de 1418. "Plusieurs tant d'op'lisc 
 
 avons 
 
 et 
 
 ii qui seul et non a autre elle appartient de plein droit, laquelle 
 " chose est contre raison, les droits et preminences royaux dc la Couronne 
 " de France et dela chose publique, car, s'il y avait plusieurs seigneurs prc- 
 " nant la dixieme partie ou autre droit, nul ne ferait plus ouviir en icelles 
 " Mines doronavant ou peu, parceque ceux a qui elles sont n'auraient que 
 " tres-peu et loant de profit de demeurant. Et s'eflforcent les dits hauts 
 " justiciers de donncr grands erapechemens et troubles en maintes manieres 
 " aux raaitrcs qui font faire la dite oeuvrej et ouvriers ouvrant en icelles ; et 
 " ne leur permettent ni souffrent avoir, par leurs dites terres et seigneuries, 
 " passages, chemins, allees et venues ; caver ni chercher Mines, rivieres, 
 " bois ni autre chose a leur convenance et necessaires, parmi payant juste 
 *' et raisonnable prix ; et avec cc, venant et travaillant les dits faisant I'ceu- 
 " vre et ouvriers, sous 1' ombre de leur dite jurisdiction, en maintes et 
 " diverges autres maniereSj afln de faire rompre et cesser la dite oeuvre .... 
 
 " Pouvquoi, voulant sur ce pouvoir et remedier , disons, disccrnons 
 
 " et doclarons quo nul Seigneur spirituel ou temporel de quelque etat 
 " dignito ou preeminence, condition ou autorito quelqu'il soit en notrc 
 " royaunit n'aura ni doit avoir en quelque titre, cause, occasion, quelle 
 " qu'elle soit, pouvoir ni autorite de prendre, en notre royaume, la dixieme 
 
— 73 — 
 
 *' partie ni autre droit do Mine, raais en sont et seront, par notro dite ordon- 
 '• nance ct droit, du tout forclos, car k nous seul et pour le tout, k cause do 
 " nos droits et Majeste royaux, appartient le dixidme et non k autre." 
 
 Les Seigneurs hauts-justiciersr6claradrent contre cos dispositions, non 
 qu'ils pretcndidsent tous disputer au roi le droit exclusif de I'extraction des 
 Mines, mais parce quo, selon eux, les travaux nficessaires pour les exploiter, 
 exigeaient de lour part une protection qui devait 6tre pay6e par quelques 
 prestations. 
 
 Leurs remontrances furent accueillies ; ct le 10 Octobre 1552, le roi 
 Henri II donna un edit par lequel il lour accorda, pour prix du soin qu'ils 
 prendraient de traiter favorablement les raaltres et ouvriers, le quarantifime 
 du produit des Mines de toute esp^ce, notamment de cellos de charbon tcr- 
 restre, apres le pr61dvement du dixidme royal. 
 
 Henri IV par I'art. 2 de son Edit du mois'de Juin 1601, exempta les 
 Mines de charbon de terre de ce dixidme royal ; et, par les autres disp'isi- 
 tions du meme Edit, r6gla le mode de recouvrement de ce droit sur les 
 autres Mines, sans faire aucune mention du quarantieine des Seigneurs 
 hauts-justiciers. 
 
 " Mais par I'ArrSt de son Conseil, du 4 Mai 1604, concernant I'exploita- 
 tion des Mines metalliques, "afin que les Seigneurs hauts-justiciers des 
 " lieux auxquels sont et seront ci-aprSs ouvertes et travaillees les dites 
 *' Mines, ou foncicrs d'icelles, ne puissent apporter aucun trouble ou traverse 
 " au tribunal d'icelles, sous quelque pr6texte ou pretention que ce soit. 
 '* SaMajesto veut et ordonne, suivant I'edit fait par le feu roi Henui H en 
 " Octobre 1552, qui est le seul de tous les rois qui leur a attrihue aucun 
 " droit, quo, conformement k icelui, apres que le droit de sa dite Majeste 
 " aura dte enti^renient paye et satisfait sur la part qui rcste aux entrepre- 
 " neurs, lesieur haut-justicier puisse prendre et recevoir, par les mains du 
 " facteur general, un quarantidme denier pour tout droit, ct sans qu'il puisse 
 " pretondre aucune chose davantage, k la charge encore d'assister les dits 
 " entrepreneurs do passages et chemins commodes pour leur travail, et de 
 " toutes autres commodites ; et d'etre privfis fk jamais du dit droit et grace, 
 " tant les dits hauts-justiciers que fonciers ; s'ils font refus de laisser faire 
 " les ouvertures et chemins necessaires pour les dites Mines." 
 
 Cependant il y avait alors, meme en France, des pays o^, independam- 
 mentdos entreprises seigneuriales que I'Ordonnance de 1413 avait repriraees, 
 ct que I'Edit de 1552 avait reduites k un droit de protection evalue au qua- 
 rantieme denier, la haute-justice etait parvenue k se ressaisir relativement 
 aux Mines de charbon de terre, du droit exclusif d'en permcttre I'ouverture 
 et I'exploitation. 
 
 Cetaient les provinces (Z'Anjou et du Maine, dont les coutvtr,^, en 
 reservant au roi les Minks d'ob, laissaient aux hauts-justiciers Us Mines de 
 substances terrestres. 
 
 Quelle fixAiT d cette epoque, la legislation du Hainaut sur les Mines ? 
 Uait-elle plus ou moins favorable que celle de la France aux PROPRifixAiRES 
 DU sol ? Elle devait L'fiTBE BEAUCOUP MOINS, et par une raison fort 
 simple. 
 
 U est prouve par difFerentes chartes cities au mot Ferrage, § 3, qice cette 
 contree a forme longtemps, et jmque dans le quatorziime sidcle, un fief 
 iiim£diat de l'empire oermanique. 
 
 OR les pubUclstes allemands sont unanimem£nt d' accord que les Mines 
 appai'tiemient ahsolument ait souverain, et que les proprietaires du sol nhj 
 ont aucun droit. 
 10 
 
 OwifKBSHIP 
 
 OF Minis. 
 
 Authorities. 
 
 Merlin. 
 
Vl 
 
 OWNIMHIP 
 
 or Minis. 
 
 Authorities. 
 
 Merlin. 
 
 Martijii, dans ses *' elementa juris-puhlici," imprimes a Vicnnc eii 
 1773, dit, No 109 ot 171: '* quoniam hona puhlka sunt in dominio 
 " populi, nemo poHsidere, his utiaiitfruipoterit^iiidis cui populus vcl iwpe- 
 " rann in quern jura populi tratislata sunt, permiserit : quaH jus dufptonendi 
 '•' dfl his i-.f jus majestaticum. Ilinc intelligitur nd jura impe.rantis jm 
 *^ quoqne tenenationis, ju8 bubteruaneum, j«a minekale, jus i'/i thesauros.... 
 " ewe rcj'erenday 
 
 After citing Putter and Yitriariiis to tlio same eftect, 
 Merlin proceeds to say : 
 
 " Cos maximes durent naturellement s'enraciner dans le Hainaut : et 
 dansle fait, n^ us uouvous dans le placard des archiducs Albert et Isahelle, 
 do 1613, sur la chasse, queles anciena souverains de ce pays avaient cto tol- 
 lement jaloux d'y exercertous les droits qui, en Allemagno, etaient reputes 
 re^aliens, quo le droit de chasse (jun venenationi«, que I'on a vu tout-a- 
 rheure rant;;6, par Martini, dans la classe des droits de souvei -li note) y est 
 cnonco, h plusicurs reprises, comrae appartenant exclusivement nu piince, et 
 que les Seigneurs hauta-justiciers y sont representes eommo n'en jouissant 
 que i»ar I'effet de sa concession speciale. 
 
 II paratt cependant que les Seigneurs hauts-justiciers de Itainaut etaieni 
 carvenus k sc mettre, par rapport aux Mines, do niveau avec ceux d'Anjou 
 ct (iu Maine. 
 
 l^eC. 70. It thus appears from Meklin tluit, in the 
 
 Provinces of An.tou and Maine, as exceptions to the Common 
 Law (>f the Kitif/dom^ gold-mines belonged to the Sovereign j 
 and the same, as will presently be shewn, may be sua 
 of Bretaonk. Hence it is that, elsewhere in the Kingdom^ 
 e. g. nndcr the Custom of Paris, the precious and tlie baser 
 metals were on precisely the same footmg. Indeed tlie Ordi- 
 nances treat of all Mines alike, and mention expressly gold 
 and silver conjointly with the other metals, drawing no 
 distinction whatever between them, as will be seen hereafter. 
 
 Sec. 7 i ' Before reproducing the text of the tlirec 
 
 great Ordinances of 1413, 1471 and 1601, the Plaintiffs enume- 
 rate all the £!dit8^ Ordonvances, Declarations and Lettres- 
 Patentes oi XYilQ French Kings, on the subject of Mines, in 
 chronological oorder, with the date and place of enregistration, 
 and the authority for the existence, of each one. This synopsis 
 is drawn from a 
 
 Bi.anchard'B a Compilation Chronologique, contenant nn Recueil en 
 
 compilation. ^-^^^^^^^ ^^g Qrdonnances, Edits, Declarations ct Lettres- 
 Pateates des Kois de France." 
 
 Jiy Blancuaed, Paris 1715. 
 
 Bv C''fnmnu 
 Law, (?oM 
 bel^nB;fl to 
 owner of soil 
 
 
u 
 
 I 
 
 III 
 
 
 — 75 — 
 
 No. 1.— P. 223, -4. D, 1413. 
 
 *' Edit portant rcgloment pour les mines d'argent, de plomb et de 
 cuivre, qui sont au Railliage de Mascon, et Senechauss6e do Lyon, et ressort 
 d'iceux. Et Ics privileges des ouvriers des ditcs mines. A Paris, lo 30 May, 
 141g. Reg. en la Chanibrc descoinptes Ic 18 Mars 1483. (Mem. de la Cli. 
 des Coniptes, C<)tt6 S. fol. 26. Reg. do la Cour des Men. Cotte E. fol. 178 & 
 Reg. Cotte G. fol 15)." 
 
 No. 2.— P. 229, A. D. 1416. 
 
 '* Lettres Patentes portant que ceux & qui appartiennent les Mines prds 
 la Ville do Lyon, porteront les matidres d'or et d'argent qu'ils auront, a la 
 Monnoye establie dans la dite ville. A Paris le 8 Novembro 1410. (Reg. de 
 la Cour des Men. Cotte E. fol. 188)." 
 
 No. 3.— P. 251, A. D. 1437. 
 
 •' Edit portant confirmation de celuy du "^O May 1413, qui concerne les 
 mines d'argent, de plomb et de cuivre, qui sont ds Bailliage de Mascon, etc. 
 A Dun-le-Roy, ler Juillet 1437. Reg. en la Ch. des Comptes le 18 Mars 
 1483. Mem. de la Ch. des Comptes, Cotti S. fol. 26. (Reg. de la Cour des 
 Mon, Cotte G.|!fol. 15)." 
 
 No. 4— P= 315, A. D. 1471. 
 
 " Edi* portant reglement pour les mines et minieres du Royaurae. Aux 
 Montils-lez-Tours au njois de Novembre 1471. (2 Vol. des Ord. do Louis XI, 
 Cott6 F. fol. 22)." 
 
 No. 5.— P. 355, A. D. 1483. 
 
 *' Edit portant reglement pour les Mines et Minieres dans ie Vicomto 
 de Conserans. Au Plessis du Pare l^z-Tours, au mois de May 1483, Reg. le 
 12 Juin, 1483. (3 Vol. des Ordonnancea de Louis XI, Cotte Q, fol. 18G)." 
 
 No. 6.— P. 360, A. D. 1483. 
 
 " Edit portant defenses i toutes personnes de travailler aux mines de 
 Conserans, s'ils n'ont le droit du Roy. A. Baugency au mois de Novembre 
 1483. Reg. le 8 Mav 1484. (Vol. des Ord. de Charles VIII, Cotte H. fol. 6. 
 Mom. de la Ch. des Comptes, Cotte S. fol. 39^ " 
 
 No. 7.— P. 362, A. D. 1483. 
 
 " Edit portant confirmation de ceux des 30 May 1413, et ler Juillet 
 1437, conccrnant les mines d'argent, de plomb et de Cuivre du Bailliage de 
 Mascon, et de la Benechaussee de Lyon ; et les privileges des ouvriers des 
 dites mines, etc! Au Montils-lez-Tours, au mois de Fovrier 1483. Reg. en 
 la Chambre des Comptes le 18 Mars 1483. (M6m. de la Ch. des Comptes, 
 Cotto S. fol. 26. Reg. de la Cour des Mon. Cotte G. fol. 15;." 
 
 No. 8.--P. 388, A. D. 1498. 
 
 ** Edit pprtint confirmation des privileges des Mnistres-Marchands, 
 faisant I'ceuvre, et des ouvriers et mineurs des Mines de Lyonnais. 'A Sois- 
 sons au mois de Jum, 1498 {JReg, df, la Oour de^ Mon. Cotte O./qL 2-3)." 
 
 OWMIUSHIP 
 
 OP UiNKa. 
 
 JUancharifM 
 
 compilation. 
 
 I 
 
A 
 
 OWNBBSHIP 
 
 or Minis. 
 
 lilaneharcCt 
 
 compilation. 
 
 — 76 — 
 
 No. 9.— P. 407, A. D. 1506. 
 
 " Edit portant regleraent pour rexploitation des mines ue Conscrans. 
 A Bourges au mois de F6vrier 1506. Reg. le 19 Mars 150G. (Vol. dcs Ord. 
 de Louis XII. Cotte J. fol. 195.)" 
 
 No. 10.— P. 420, A. D. 1514. 
 
 «* Edit portant reglcment pour fouiller les mines d'argent, de cuivre ot 
 autres metaux. A Paris au mois do Juillot 1514. Reg en la Ch. des 
 Comptes, le U Juillet 1514 et au Pari, le 12 AoAt 1550, (i Vol. des Ord. 
 d'Henryll, Cott6P. fol.8)." 
 
 No. 11.— P. 436, A. D. 1516. 
 
 «• D6claration portant rSglement pour I'argent qui provient des Mines 
 du Royaume. A Paris le 6 Mars, 1516. {Ueg, de la Gour dea Mon. Cotte 
 G.fol.m.) 
 
 No. 12.— P. 447, A. D. 1519. 
 
 " Lettres Patentes portant permission & Jaques de Genoilhac, Cnevalier, 
 Seigneur de Capdenat, de faire chercher des mines d'or, d'argent, de plomb 
 de cuivre et de tous autres m6taux dans sa Seigneuriede Capdenat. A Chas- 
 tellerant le 29 Decembre 1519. Reg. en la Oour des Monnoyes le 27 Fevrier 
 1519. (Reg. de la Cour des Mon. Cotte G. fol. 68)." 
 
 ¥o. 13.— P. 450, A. D. 1520. 
 
 " Declaration portant regleraent pour I'ouverture des mines du Royaume. 
 A Fontainebleau lo 17 Octobre 1520. Reg. de la Ch. des Comptes de Grenoble. 
 (Reg. de la Cour des Mon. Cott6, G. fol. 78)." 
 
 No. 14.— P. 454, A. D. 1521. 
 
 '* Declaration portant defenses k toutes personnes de tirer et fouiller des 
 mines, sans la permission du Roy, et de porter des motaux hors du Royaume, 
 sans cstre marquez. A Fontainebleau, le 18 Octobre 1521. (Reg. do la 
 Chambre des Comptes de Grenoble)." 
 
 No. 15.— p. 555, A. D. 1543. 
 
 ♦• Declaration portant regleraent pour les mines de fer du Royaume. A 
 Saint Germain en Laye, le 18 May 1543, Reg. le 25 Octobre suivant. (4 Vol. 
 des Ord. de Francois I, Cott6 N. fol. 22.)" 
 
 No. 16.— P. 598, A. D. 1545. 
 
 " Edit portant confirmation de celuy du Mois de Juillet 1514, concer- 
 nar.t lea mines d'argent, de cuivre, et autres m6taux. A Paris au mois de 
 Mars 1545. Reg. lo 12 Aoust. 1550. (2 Vol. des Ord. d'Henry II , Cott6 
 Q. fol. 85)." 
 
 No. 17.— P. 616, A. B. 1547. 
 
 " Declaration portant suppression de I'lmpost qui a 6t6 mis sur le fer 
 tir6 des Forges des Provinces de Bourgogtie, de Champagne, et de Bric. A 
 p^r,+n|r,^Kloau l« 1 4. Optfibrw 1547. R^er. le 19 D6cembre de la mesme annee. 
 (rVoL des Ord. d''Henry if, (^ott6 PTfol. 51)." 
 
 i 
 
 k) 
 
 r^ 
 
 -^r- 
 
A 
 
 f 
 
 i 
 
 
 .*. 
 
 -9- 
 
 — 77 — 
 
 No. IS.—P, 633, A. D. 1548. 
 " Declaration portant permission k aenn Francois de la Roquo, Sieur do ^wNMaHiP 
 Rr )crval, d'ouvrT et rechcrchcr les mines et substances tant tcrrestres quo %J^^'\ 
 ..etalliques, etc. A I.yon lo dernier Septembre 1 548 Rep «„ la Cour des f 'Jf^'^^JJ^ 
 Monnoycs Ic 11 May 1555. (Reg. de la Cour dea Mon. Cotte K. fol. 258.) corapuauw 
 
 No. 19.- -P. 649, A. D. 1549. 
 
 " Declaration portant Confirmation des Edits du mois do Juillet 1514, 
 ot Mars 1545 concernant les mines d urgent, cuivres et autres metaux. A 
 fontainebleau, le 6 Mars 1549. (Reg. le 13 Aou8tl550. (2 Vol. des Ord. 
 d'Hcnry II, Cott6 Q. fol. 87)." 
 
 No. 20.— P. 670, A. D. 1551. 
 
 *« Declaration portant reglement pour la recherche des mines d'or, 
 areunt, cuivre, fer, plomb, aluns et autres espdces de mines et mati^rcs 
 minerales. A Fontainebleau, le 9 D6cembre 1551. Reg. en la tour des 
 Monnoyea le 2 Mars de l'ann6e suivantc. (Reg. de la Cour des Mon. Lott6 
 K. fol. 162)." 
 
 No. 21.-P. 687, A. D. 1553. 
 
 " Declaration portant reglement pour I'execution de celle du dernier 
 Septembre 1548, et pour I'exploitation et la police des mines, &c. A Rheims 
 le 10 Octobre 1552. Reg. en la Cour des Mon. le 11 May lo55. (Keg. de la 
 Cour des Mon. Cott6 R. fol. 259)." 
 
 1^0. 22.— P. 720, A. '). 1554. 
 
 «' Declaration portant reglement pour les mines d'argent et autres 
 metaux. Au Camp d'Estree, le 17 Aouat 1554. Reg. le 7 Septembre 155b. 
 (5 Vol. des Ord. d'Henry II, Oott6 T, fol. 337. Mem. de la Oh. des Comptes, 
 Cotte 2 X. fol. 227)." 
 
 No. 2.,,— p. 723, A. D. 1554. 
 
 » Declaration portant continuation en faveur du Comte Reingrave, et de 
 Jeanne de Genoillac sa femme, de la permission de fairo ouvrir des mmes 
 accordee a Jacques de Genoillac, son pere, par les Lettres Paten tes du 29 
 D6cembre 1519, A Paris le 18 Novembre 1554. Reg. en la C^our des Mon- 
 lo 19 Janvier suivant (Reg. do la Cour des Mon. Cotte K. fol. 218). 
 
 No. 24.— P. 730, A. D. 1554. 
 
 " Lettres Patentes portant relief d'adresse ^ la Cour des Monnoyes 
 pour renregis^rement des declarations des dernier Septembre 1548 etJO 
 Octobre 1552, qui concernent les mines, A Fontainebleau le 23 Mars 15o4 
 Reg. on la Cour des Mon. le 18 May 1B55. (Reg. de la Cour des Mon. Cotte 
 
 ^•''''''^•" No. 25.-P. 792, X i?. 1659. 
 
 " Declaration portant reglement pour I'exploitation des mines de Pont- 
 gibaut. A Paris le 7 Join 1559. Reg. le 27 Aou8t^l5G0. (Vol. des Ord de 
 Francois II, Cotte Y. fol. 287. Mem. de la Ch. des Comptes, Cotte, 8 B 
 fol 231) " 
 
 No. 26.— P. 807, A. D. 1559. 
 " Lettres P&tentes portant reglement pour les privileges des maitres et 
 
— 78 
 
 ,J- 
 
 OWNBBBHI? 
 OF MiNSS. 
 
 Blanchard't 
 compilation. 
 
 ouvriers ues mines dans lu Province d'Angoumois. A Bi.yi3 au mois do 
 Janvier 1559. Keg. le 14 Juin 1560. (Vol. des Ord. de Francois 11, Cotte Y. 
 fol. 237)." 
 
 No. 27.— P. 808, A. D. 1559. 
 
 " Lettres Palentcs portant confirn^ation de la Declaration du 7 Juin 
 1559, concernant I'exploitation des mines de Pontgibaut. A Blois, le 2 
 Fevrier 1559. R6g. Ic 27 Aoust 1560. (Vol. des Ord. de Francoib II, Cotte 
 Y. fol. 803)." 
 
 No. 28.— P. 817, A. D. 1560. 
 
 *' Lettres Patentes portant permission & Claude Gruippon de Guillion 
 Escuyer, Sieur de Saint Julian, d'ouvrir les mines et minieres, qu'il 
 pourra trouver dans I'estendue du Royaume de France : et reglement pour 
 les privileges des ouvriers qu'il employera pour les decouvrir. A Fontaine- 
 bleau le 29 Juillet 1560. R% le 9 May 1562. (1 Vol. des Ord. de Charles IX, 
 Cott6 Z. fol. 272. Mem. de la Oh. des Comptes, Cott6 3 C. fol. 137. Fonta- 
 non, t. 2, p. 1161. Rec. dos Ord. de Charles IX par Rob. Est. fol. 180)." 
 
 No. 29.— P. 834, A. D. 1561. 
 
 •' Declaration portant confirmation des privileges de ceux qui iravaillent 
 aux mines et aux minieres. A Saint Germain des-Prez lez-Paris le 11 Juillet 
 
 1561. Rog. le 9 May 1562. (1 Vol. des Ord. do Charles IX, Cotte Z, fol. 272. 
 Fontanon, t. 2, p. 1163. Rec. de-. Ord. de Charles IX par Rob, Est. fol. 185.) 
 
 No. 30.— P. 847, A. D. 1562. 
 
 " Lettres Patentes portant permission a Estienne Lescot d'ouvrir les 
 mines et minieres dans toute I'estenduo du Royaume. A Paris le 10 May 
 
 1562. Reg. le 10 Mars 1565. (3 Vol. des Ord. dr Charles IX, Cotte 2 B, f. 89 
 Rec. des Ord. de Charles IX, par |lob. Es^ ".. 489)." 
 
 No. 31.— p. 856, A. D. 1563. 
 
 ** Declaration portant reglement pour le disi^me qui appartient au Roy 
 dans les mines et minieres. A Troy, le 26 May 1563. Reg. le ler Juillet do 
 Ij, mesme annee, (2 Vol. des Ord. de Charlos IX, Cotte 2 A, fol. 44. Fontanon, t. 
 2, p. 445. Rec. des Ord. de Charles IX par Rob. Est. fol. 263. Chopin, de 
 Dom. Lib. 1, tit. 2, n. 6)." 
 
 No. 32.— P. 873, A. D. 1563. 
 
 " Lettres Patentes portant quft le dixieme des mines dela Province de 
 Champagne se prer.dra en la forge et non sur le ferfafonn^. A Troyes lc28 
 Mars 1563 avant Paques. Reg. le 16 May 15G4. (2 Vol. des Ord. do Charles 
 DC, Cott6 2 A, fol. 273. Rec' des Ord. de Charles IX par Rob. Est. fol. 402. 
 
 No. 33.— p. 880, A. JD, 1564. 
 
 " Lettres Patentes portant relief de surannatipn pourl'enregistrement de 
 cellos du 10 May 1562,||parlesque!les il est pcrniis k Estienne I'Escot d'ouvrir 
 les mines. A Roussillon, le 12 Aoust 1504- Reg. lo 2 Mars 1565. (8 Vol. des 
 Ord. de Charles IX, Cotte 2 B, fol. 89. Rec. dca Ord. de Charles IX par 
 Pob. Estien. fol. 492)." 
 
 0^^ 
 
 
.h 
 
 - 7.0 — 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 ^\ 
 
 V 
 
 .¥o. 34.— P. 1069, A. D. 1577. Owkmsh.p 
 
 OF MlNRB. 
 
 " Declaration portant reglement pour les mines et niiniercs du Royaumc. BlancharcCi 
 A Blois, lo 10 Mars 1577. Reg. le 20 Juillet de la rncsmc annee. (2 Vol. des compilation. 
 Ord. d'Henry III, Cotte 2 F. fol. 395)." 
 
 No. 35.— P. 1106, A. D. 1580. 
 
 " Declaration portant reglement pour ies mines et minifires du Royaume. 
 A Paris, le dernier Janvier 1580. Reg. le 11 Mars de la rnesme annee. 
 (4 Vol. des Ord. d'Henry III, Cotte,2 L. fol. 18)." 
 
 No. 36.— P. 1300, A. D. 1597. 
 
 " Edit portant reglement pour les mines et minidres du Royaume : et 
 pour la jurisdiction du Grand-Maistre Super-Intcndant et general Refornia- 
 teurld'icelles, &c. A Rouen, au mois de Janvier 1697. (Reg. de la Oour 
 des Mod. Cott6 2 B. fol. 205)." 
 
 No. 37.— P. 1341, A. D. 1601. 
 
 " Edit portant confirmation de ceux qui ont este faits' sur le fait deg 
 miner et des jiini^res : creation d'un office de Grand-Maistre Superintendant 
 et Reibrmateur general des mines et mini^res, d'un do Controlleur general, 
 d'un de Receveur general, d'unde Greffier, etd'un de Lieutenant general, et 
 reglement pour leur pouvoir, fonctions, etc. A Fontainebleau, au mois de 
 juin 1601. Reg. au Pari, le 3 Avril 1602, et en la Ch. des bomptes le 
 dernier Juillet 1603. (4 Vol. des Ord. d'Henry IV, Cotte 2V. fol. 373. 
 Mem. de la Ch. des Comptes, Cott6 4 V. fol. 177)." 
 
 No. 38.— p. 1345, A. D. 1601. 
 
 *' Edit portant reglement pour les mines et minidres qui sont dans le 
 Royaume. A Paris au mois d'Aoust IGOl. Reg. au Pari, le 8 Mars, et en la 
 Ch. des Comptes le 1602. (4. Vol. des Ord. d'Henry IV, Cotto 
 
 2 V. fol. 390. M6m. dt) la Ch. des Comptes, Cotte 4 T, fol. 240)." 
 
 No. 39.— p. 1347, A. D. 1601. 
 
 " Declaration portant reglement pour les mines et miniores du Royaume. 
 A S. Germain en Laye le 19 NovemI re 1601. Reg. le 14 May 1602. (4 Vol. 
 des Ord. d'Henry IV, Cotte 2 V. fol. 400)." 
 
 No. 40.— p. 2300, A. D. 1677. 
 
 " Declaration portfint reglement pour la' recherche des mines d'or 
 d'argent et d'autres metaux dans les Provinces d'Auvergnc, de Bourbonnais, 
 de Forests, et de Vivarais. A Versailles le 30 Juillet 1677. Reg. le 22 
 Janvier 1678. (19 Vol. des Ord. do Louis XIV, Cotte 4 D. fol 270)." 
 
 No. 41.— P. 2658, A. D, 1703. 
 
 " Declaration portant reglement pour la recherche des mines de Cuivre 
 et de Plorab dans les Province? de la Marche et d'Auvergne. A Versailles, 
 le 2 Janvier 1708. Reg. le 15 May do la mesme annee. 43 Vol. des Ord. de 
 Louis XIV, Cotte 5 E. fol. 167)." 
 
 No. 42.— P. 2686, A. D. 1704. 
 
 " Declaration portant reglement pour la recherche des Mines d'Estain. 
 A Versailles le 8 Mars 1704. Reg. le 5 May de la mesmo ann6e. (44, Vol. des 
 Ord. do Louis XIV, Cotto 5 P. ibl. 288).'' 
 
~ so — 
 
 OwNiBSHip No. 43.— P. 2742, A. D. 1705. 
 
 BlancharcFs " Edit p^.*^!>at reglemcnt pour rouverture des mines d'or et d'argent 
 
 compilation, nouvelleinent decouvertes dans les Terres du Vigean et de I'Isle Jourdain en 
 
 Poitou. A Versailles au mois do Juillet 1705. Reg. au Pari le 8, et en la 
 
 Cour des Aydes le l-i Aoust suivant)." 
 
 K^GC. To. Before proceeding 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 Bla-nchakd, for the purpose of shewing that the latter 
 were not of general application to the whole Kingdom, and «' 
 not appear in most cases to liave been received and enregiste- 
 red by the Parliaments, aid also for the purpose of establishing 
 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. Tlie GapiUilaire de St. Louis, as will be 
 hereafter shewn, concerns treasure-trove merely. No. 1, or the 
 Ordinance of Cuari.es VI, of May, 1413, was drawn forth by 
 discoveries of silver, lead and coj)per near Mascon <& Lyons, 
 but was made applicable to all the Mines in the Kingdom, 
 without distinction. That is evident from the words : " Nous 
 „ a etc rapporto qu'en plusieurs lieux de notre Koyaume, et 
 " specialement de nos bailliage de Mascon et S^nechaussee de 
 " Lyon, et es ressorts, ?/ a plitsieurs i^/mes d'akgent, de piomb 
 " et de cuivre, et autres raetaiix qui deja sont trouves, etc, etc." 
 The general nature of the Ordinance still further appears from 
 these words : " osquelles Mines et autres quelconques etant en 
 " notre dit Royaume, Nous avons ot devons avoir, et a nous et 
 " non a autre appartient de plein droit, tant a cause de notre 
 *' Souverainete et Majeste lioyale eomme autrement, la dixieme 
 " partic piiritiee de'noG^ metaux qui en icelles Mines est o;ivre 
 " et mis au clair," In the face of tliat express mention of silver 
 Mines, and of the Royal claim to one-tenth of all metals 
 extracted from all the Mines in the Kingdom, how can it be 
 pretended for a moment that, by the Common Law of Franco 
 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 Minec, 7ii en autres quelconques assises 
 " dans le royaunieP Again the Sovereign commands all 
 Seigniors, throughout his Kingtiom, to give all necessary 
 facilities to the Miners, such as roadp, timber, &c. x\nd after 
 
 
 !> 
 
81 
 
 ff 
 
 comnipviiding his Bailly de Mascon^ and Scnechal de Lyons to Ownbrsuip 
 see to the execution oi that Law, he lays a like injunction on : J^'^^^'^'f 
 " tons nos avtres justiciers et ojficiers de nostre Boy. nine.'''' Laws'^refer- 
 It is therefore, in consequence of that Law having been made red to by 
 applicable to the entire Kingdom, and having been enregiste- Blanchard. 
 red by the Parliament of Paris, that the Plaintifi's have 
 demeed it right to reproduce the Law in its entirety. The 
 text reproduced is taken from P. 141 of Volume X. of the 
 " Ordonnances des Boh de trance^'^ being the continuation 
 by de Villevault et de Brequigny of de Lauriere et Seoousse's 
 Collection. It is also found with confirmatory Declarations by 
 Charlks VII, Chaeles VIII, Louis XII et Fkanqois I, at 
 P. 5 of a very rare little work entitled : " Edits, Ordon- 
 " nances, Arrets ef, Keglements sur le fait des Mines Cl 
 " Minieres de France, avcc les declarations du Droit de 
 '• Dixieme du au Roy sur I'Or, Argent, Cuivrc, Acier, Fer, 
 '' Plomb, Azur, etc., etc., etc.," otherwise called " Ahnes et^ 
 Minieres " : — Anonymous^ Paris 1761 from the Edition of 
 1631. It is also to be found at P. 386 of Volume VII of 
 Isambeut's Becueil des anciennes his Frangaises^ Paris, 1833. 
 
 No. 2, which indirectly confirms No. 1, is to be found at 
 length at Page 386, of volume X, of the " (h^donnances des 
 Bois de France " ; the King, who shortly betore had establis- 
 hed a mint at Lyons complains that the Mniers were not bringing 
 their gold and silver to be coined tliere and states : " Poui'- 
 " quoi Nous vous mandons et expres,36ment enjoignons que 
 '' par k's Gardes de nostre dicte Monnoye de L)*'on, ou autrcs 
 " telz que bon vous semblera, rous faitesfaireconimandement 
 •' de par Nous aaxditz Marchans a qui sont ir^s dictes 
 " Mynes pres de nostre dicte villa de Lyot^ et a tons autres a 
 '' qui il apparticndra que sur les peines cont'^nues esdictes 
 " Ord( nuances toute la matiore d'or et d'urgent et billon 
 " qu'ihi auront ou pourront avoir on temps advenir, tant u 
 " cause des dictes Mynes, cjmmo autiemen^ ilz portent ou 
 " faccnt porter en nostre dicte Monnoye de Lyon, etc." If 
 the gold and silver Mines had then beer 'h./ property of the 
 Crown, what need would there nave 1 c . tor the Sovereign 
 to order the Miners to bring thot^e metals to the Mint at 
 Lyons? It is further evident that, in those days, any man was 
 free to work a gold or a silver Mine wv.'' as little restriction 
 as any other Mine, bv pcuing the rovaJty of one-tenth. 
 
 No. 3, to be found' at P. 236 of Volume XII of the 
 " Ordonnances des Bois de France " and at_ P. 15 of Mines 
 ET Minieres, ii a co'"firmation pnr.ly and simply of No. 1. 
 11 
 
 9 
 
1)5 
 
 Ow«snsHip 
 
 OF Minus. 
 Ndture of 
 Laws refer- 
 red to by 
 Blancharil, 
 
 — 82 — 
 
 No. 4, is the second general Law we liave on the subject 
 It treats of gold and silver Mines, as well as of tho baser 
 metals, and places them all on the same footino' precisely. I'i 
 establishes conclusively the pretensions of the Plaintiffs in 
 this cause It is to be found at P. 44(5 of Yolume XVII of 
 the'' Ordomumccs des Rois de France,'' beino- the contiii na- 
 tion by the Marquis de Pastoret, under the iii-st empii-e, of 
 the Collections oUIe Lauriere, Seco^isse, de Villevanlt and de 
 Lreqmgyyy ; ii is also to be found at P. 023 of volume X of 
 Immberfs Collection. That Ordinance is a complete Miniuf-- 
 Code, and was enregistered by the Parliament of Paris, with 
 certain modifications, which Plaintiffs reproduce Avith the 
 Ordinance hereafter. 
 
 ^o. 5, was issued in April 1482, and not in May as 
 Blanchard has incorrectly stated. It is bv Louis XI,' and 
 7iot by Louis XII, as the Code ILenky, among its oth.r 
 manifold errors asserts. It was moreover not enrco-'stered in 
 tlio Parliament of Paris ; by Blanchard it lias been impro- 
 perly styled an Edit; it is, in fact, onlv Letters Patent, 
 makmg a special grant to private individuals of certain Mines 
 m Coascrans or t'onserana ; its sole reterenee to the present 
 cause consists in the fact that it treats on 0([u:J footiuir of the 
 precious metals, and of the baser metals; and it concludes 
 M-ith these remarkable words ; " sauf qn'ils seront tenus de 
 '^ payer nostre droit de dixi*-- -«e et le droit du Seig/ieur foncier 
 " tout aind ipL^il est accot de faire ev autrfs mync^ di' 
 
 " Boyaume'' It is to be at Page 105 of Volume XIX 
 
 of the " Ordonnances des ^. 9 de France.'' and at P. 911 
 volume X of Immherfs collection. ' 
 
 No. 6, is a confirmatior of No. .5, and is to be found at 
 P. 175 of the " Ordonnances dts Hois de France," and P. 10 
 Volume XI of Isamherfs collection. ' 
 
 No. 7, is a mere Confirmation of Nos. 1 & 8, and is 
 referred ^o in mte c, P. 277, volume XIX of " Ordonnances 
 des Bots de 1^ ranee / " it is found at length at P. 17 of 
 Mines et Minieres. 
 
 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 m here else than in 
 Blanchard^ compilation ; and the text is not there ^nven ; 
 moreover the Plaintifis Imvo not been able to procure the 
 work referred to by i?^a«c/ia/'«{; but from the title it would 
 
 ^ 
 
— 83 — 
 
 de 
 
 ^ 
 
 r 
 
 seem to be a mere confirmation of the special grant contained 
 in No. 5. The fact of its having escaped the observation of 
 the host of l-een observers, who searched the rolls of tlie 
 French Parliaments and Courts for Koyal Ordinances, at the 
 close of the Inst and beginning of the present century, would 
 seem to establish that it never Nvas enregistered, and that it 
 never received an application. ^ „ , 7 , 
 
 No. 10, to be found at P. 666 of Volume XI of Isambert s 
 Collection, is a Declaration and not an Mit as Blanchard 
 has termed it, confirming, in favor of two brothers, Pierre 
 and Jean de Besze, a ijrant previously made to their father of 
 the Chitoy-Mines in iSTivernois, and the Pontaubert-Mine m 
 Bourgogne and permitting the brothers to seek and open 
 silver, lead and other Bourgogne-Minea elsewhere, on condi- 
 tion oj- settling with the proprietm^s^ accobding to the Okdi- 
 NANOES 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 
 the LaAv of Mining iVom what it was before. 
 
 No. 11, is found at P. 105 of Volume ^11 oi Isambert f 
 Collection, and goes no further than enunciated inits title ; it 
 orderrf that tlu; silver raised from the Mines of the Kingdoiu 
 shall l>e brought to the nearest Mint to be coined. Thoi-.e 
 Lett(;rs of the Kini,' v^'ere speedily followed by others of the 
 27 Docembei- of tlie same year to the like effect, and found at 
 P. 100 of Isa7rd)erfs Collection 
 
 No. 12, is noticed, but not given at length, at P. 171 ot 
 Volume XII of harnherfs Collection; Isambert in a foot 
 note says : " Ces Lettres ne contiennent aucune disposition 
 '> d'intoret public. EUes se bornent a permettre au Seigneur 
 '' de Genvilhacdefairechercher et oiivrir des Mines sur ses 
 
 " proprietes." 
 
 No. 13, is to be found at P. 179 of Volume XII ot 
 hain.hcrt's Collfction. It is an Edit of general application 
 throuo-hout the Kingdom. It recites the efforts of previous 
 Monarchs to dovelope the Mining wealth of the Kingdom, 
 the bonohts likely to accrue therefrom, and the clandestine 
 rcmovnl from the Kingdom of the gold and silver raised from 
 the Mines. It then goes on to state that the prosperity of the 
 countvv has been greatly retarded by the pretensions of 
 certain' pereons 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 
 
 OWNHREHIP 
 OF MiNKB. 
 
 Nature of 
 Lnws refer- 
 red to by 
 Blanchard. 
 
OWUKBSUIJF 
 
 OP Minks. 
 Nature of 
 Laws refier- 
 red to by 
 Blanchard. 
 
 - 84 — 
 
 persons claiming Mining privileges shall bo held to exliibit 
 their titles to the King in Council to be aminecl, and 
 that no one shall thereafter open, or work at any Mitie 
 whatever without the King's permission. 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 then 
 provides for the collection of the Royalty on all such Mines. 
 
 It is clear that, beyond the fact of 'its having made 'the 
 Royal 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 Minin^j- 
 grants, of the description complained of in the Edict, were then^ 
 as they are still, 3 centuries later, deemed, a hindrance 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, witliout 
 a Royal permission : It is merely noticed at P. 196 of Volume 
 XII of lsamhert?s Collection. 
 
 No. 15 is to be found at P. 810 of Volume XII of 
 IsamberCs Collection. It merely commutes the Royalty 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 Blanchardh compilation. 
 
 No. 17, ban not been found elsewhere than in Blanchard' s 
 compilation, and in the work referred to by him. It appeaj-s 
 by its title to be a mere suppression of the tax on ii-oii ; and 
 it did not make any alteration in the law of Mining as aifoc- 
 ting this case. 
 
 No. 18, was an exclusive grant to de Roberval of all the 
 Mines in the Kingdom. His grant met with so much op})()si- 
 tion from the several Parliaments that the Monareli, who 
 made the grant, died w^itliout seeing it carried into effect ; the 
 Btruggle between the Monareli aiid his Parliaments on' this 
 head is interesting enough to induce one to notice it apart from 
 the other Mining Laws. The grant is rcu-odnced at leno-th at 
 P. 57 of Volume XIII of Isamherfs Collection and at P. '42 of 
 MiNiDS ET MiNiEREs. It will howcvcr be more fully noticed 
 hereafter. 
 
 No. 19 is ii mere confirmation of Nos. 10 & 16. a private 
 grant to the brothers, de Beszo. 
 
 No. 20, is a mere confirmation of de Robervur? jirivllc-'cs, 
 ab set forth in No. 18 ; see P, 236, volume XIII of Jsamherfs 
 Collection wJiere it is noticed. 
 
 
— 85 — 
 
 t 
 
 No. 21, is also a confirmation of do "Rol^erval^ i^vi- Ownsrsh^^^ 
 Ic-cs, and notliins? more. See P. 2S5 of Volume XllI ot J^^f^^^/ 
 /imnherfs CoWectwn. Laws refer- 
 
 Xo. 22, is a mere confirmation of do liobcrval s j^nant; nvl to by 
 see P. 400 of Yol : XIII of Jmmheri's Collection, and foot Bianchard. 
 note (2) Ibidem. 
 
 Eo. 23, is a confirmation of the private ^rant, to de 
 Gcnvilliac, contained in No. 12 ; it is not noticed elsewhere 
 than in Blanehard'' s eonipihition. 
 
 No. 24, is Letters-Patent in reference to the ever disputed 
 de Eoberval'Grant ; it is not noticed elsewhere than in 
 Blanehard'' s compilation. 
 
 No. 25, seems a local affair, and is noticed by Llanckard 
 
 only. „ 
 
 No. 26, is a grant of privileges to Miners, and is not ot 
 general interest ; it is noticed bv Blanehard only. 
 
 No. 27, is a confirmation "of No. 25, is not of general 
 interest and is noticed by Bhiv chard only. 
 
 No. 28, is tlie de Roborval- Grant again, in another shape ; 
 the Sieur St. Jnlien alleges himself to liave been a partner ot 
 de Roberval, and obtains a grant to himself of the Mines ol^ 
 the Ivingdon. for a limited time, see P. 41 of Volume XIV ot 
 Isamhcrt^fi collection. 
 
 No. 29, is a confirmation of St. Juli-n's grant and notlimg 
 more. See P. 108, Volume XIV of hamlert'^ Collection. 
 
 No. 30, is a grant to L E^cot, and just such anotluM- grant 
 as those to de Robeival and St. Juiicn, and, in No. 33, we see 
 it revoked, as wo have seen the others revoked. It is not 
 n ticed elsewhere than in Blanehard. 
 
 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 
 Immhert's Collection. It is to be found at length at 1 . 3o7 
 of Vol : 2 of Fontanon, (second edition). It refers to all 
 u^etals without distinction and in that respect destroys the 
 absurd proposition that gold and silver are Royal Metals. 
 
 No. 32, is a transposition of the KiugV royalty froin the 
 wrought iron to ihe rough ore ; it is noticed by Blanehard 
 alone. . 
 
 No. 33, is a revocation of VEscot's grant, and is noticed 
 
 by Blanehard onlv : 
 
 ' No. 34, is another of those monopolies so frequent y 
 granted in this and the tsvo preceding reigns, to be shortly 
 after revoked. See P. 319 of Volume XIV oihamhcHs 
 Collection. 
 
— 8G - 
 
 OwNBnSHlP 
 
 OF Minks. 
 Nature of 
 Laws refer- 
 red to by 
 
 B'anchard. 
 
 Nos. 35 find ?,Cy nre two others of those privato grants ; it 
 is noticed oidy hy Blvncliard. 
 
 No. o7. is the tliird and hist of the ^^rorit Ordinances 
 concernini? Mining, and was issued l)y Henry IV in June 1601 ; 
 it will he rcpi-od'iced at length with tlio necessary comments 
 to shew its ai^])lieatit)n to this case; suffice it to say, for 
 the present, that it ])laces gold and silver, on precisely the 
 eame footing as other metals, and recognizes in the clearest 
 ])0ssil)le 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 hamhert's Collection, and at 
 r. lis of Mines & Minikkks, with an Arret du grand 
 Conned on the llrth May 1604:, in execution of that Fdlt 
 
 Nos. 38 and 39 are two others issued a few months later 
 than the preceding one and are confirmatory of its provisions ; 
 they are noticed hy Blanchard only. 
 
 Nos. 40,4:1,1:2 and 43 are mere private grants in the reign 
 of Loi)is XIV, and neel not be noticed here; because even 
 supposing that tlie enunciations contained in a private grant 
 were to he taken as being Law, a j)roposition which the 
 Plaintiffs clearly disprove hereafter, nevertheless Avith rctb- 
 ronce to those jiarticuhtr grants, they were not enregistered in 
 this Colony, and have no ibree here, as will be shewn hereafter. 
 
 Sec. 79. Over and above the Ordinances cited by 
 
 Blanehard, there aio others, vrhich it is as well to mention, 
 lest the riaintiifs be accr.s'Ml of having wUheld information 
 on th's ])oint; those other Laws and Letters Patent are 
 
 —21 May. 1455— LetU-rs-Patent granting privilege^^^and 
 o?cemi)tions to the iron-masters of Prance, noticed at P. 573 of 
 V^ohnne IX of Imndhrt\^ Coilcetlou. 
 
 —February, 1(!2G— Edict in isolation to the iron-mines of 
 the Kinirdom— noticed P. IS3 of Volume XVI of hamheri's 
 
 Collection. 
 
 —May, 1035— Creati()n of 2 offices of Controller-General 
 of Mines, P. 441 of Volume XVI ot Iscmherfs collection. 
 
 Those Laws and Letters- Pa' ent do not affect the question 
 at issue between the ]>nities in this cause. 
 
 tioronrt" Sec 80. It has ah-eady been shewn at P. 54 and 
 
 *^"p?ar"t ""'-V •' ^^^- '^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ Pactum, that Letters-Patent have no 
 pi^v^fhem ^ eli'ect until after their enregistration in Parliament, the parties 
 effect. interested haviuL' first been heard or duly called. That 
 
 Others not 
 rpferrod to by 
 Blanchard, 
 do not aU'ecl 
 question. 
 
87 - 
 
 ])roposition of tlie riuiutiffs is borne oat by tbc following 
 autlioritios: 
 
 GuYOT, vho. Leit'.es-Patentes, P. 482. 
 
 GuvoT, vho. GhanceUn\ P. lOO. 
 
 GuYOT, vho. ChanceW'ne, P. 110. 
 
 Nouveau-Denizart, vho. LcUrex-t^atentcs. P. 137. 
 
 BosQUKT, Did. raisonnc de-n Dom : vho. Lettres-raVmicfi. 
 
 2 Dui'LESsis, P. 14:2. 
 
 jJTouvEAc Denizakt, vho., (JhancelUru. 
 
 Sec SI. Tliu same necessity existed for the ei ire- Tliesarae 
 
 ' 7 r^ 7 J • 1 ^'^ Edits, 
 
 ^^\hi\-2ii\o\\of?^\MiUj)>'dominncefi and JJedaraUnas \ and, ordowmccs 
 nntil sucli enregistratioi/, tlie Law bad no force. To establisli and Dedara- 
 tliat proposition, it is hardly neccssafy to refer to the follow- ^^o"'- 
 ing authorities. 
 
 JS'ouvEi^r-DENizAKT, r?>^>. Jy/vi'tjidt'ement P. 060. 
 
 Anoikn Dei^izart, vho. Loix, P. 7S. 
 
 Kouveau Denizari', vho. Kilt, P. 422. 
 
 Ancien DE^'IZAKT, vho. Bt'daration, P. 350. 
 
 GuYOT, vho. Enregidrevieiii., P. 750. 
 
 Precis des Ordonnances, hu ]>k Montvalon, P. 300. 
 
 Sect. 82. In tba^ Ordinance, which intioduced, ^^^^''- 
 
 as it were Lmo and Courts of Laic into this Couidry, the ihatpffoctia 
 Ordinance of April 1607, title 1, Art : 4 and 5, to be found ^^"^^"^^ 
 at Page 108 of Vol : 1, Edits et Ordonnances of Canada, it is ^eirttvds 
 expressly required that all Ordonnanr.es, Edits., Dtdarations Canada. 
 and LeitTGS-Patentes >hall be eniegistered ; and our Courts of 
 Law have, at all times refused to recognize as binding on us 
 such Laws, subsequent to that period, as had not been 
 enregistered 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 Registers here. 
 
 Sec 83. With tho:>e observations, the Plaintiffs TEXT of 
 
 n T ^ y-v T Ordinance of 
 
 reproduce tlie text of the first of the 3 great Ordinances on cqarlksVI. 
 Mining, that of Charles YI, of the 30th May, 1413. 
 
 LeMrc:i de Chaulks VI, par Icsquellcs il declare qu'an Roi seul appar- 
 ticnt LA uixifcME I'AKTiE wetalUqiie tiree dca Mincfi, apres qu'clle a eto 
 purifiee ; et accorde dcs privileges a coux qui travaillent aux Mines, et k 
 ceux qui y Ibnt travaillcr. 
 
 I 
 
mr.vT r CHARLES, par la f/rdce de Dlen, Roy pk France. Savoir fiiiHons a 
 
 V'YnaLof tnus T tos et ulvenir. que pour re quo par plusieurs de noz (m.c.ors et 
 O^^IulL VI u tres personnes notuhlJs, dipues de Iby, Nous a esto ruppor e que cm 
 CHABLta VI. » '^ P ^. ^ „^^t,.^ Royaume t especialc.ncnt en no/. Haill.af^c-s do 
 Mnscon ct Seueschauccc dc Lyon, ci ressors d'icculx, y a plimenrs Mync, 
 f^ic.^^Xvlo>nh ct dc cnjrrc k d^a.Ures mcfaaU, qui desja sont trouvez, 
 ot e^n.fclz I'on a ia lonKucuient ouvro et ouvre Ton chacun jour, ct est le 
 terroucM- en iceulx Railliase et Seneschaucee plus plain de Mynes, que en 
 aucuu autre lieu de nostrc diet Royaume, qui soit encores venu a la co-nois- 
 sanco doceulx qui en tclles choscs se cognoisscnt, si coimne 1 on dit ; 
 rmnelles 2J>/nes et autues quelzcon.jl-es eUans en nostre diet hoyamrw 
 7oSLn/et devour moir, et a Nous et non a autre, myarlumt dc 
 S;Mi4^^ tant a cause de nostrc Souycrainete et Majcste Royal commo 
 autven.ent, LA dixiesme paktiv. pimjfiee dc tons mcMaulx qui ea adlcs 
 lines est ouvre et mis au cler, sans ce que Nous soyons tenus dc y frayer ou 
 dospendrc aucune chose, se n'estoit pour main' nir et garder ceulx qui font 
 f ire mivrer, et sont rcsidens, faisans feu et lieu sur a dictc cuyrc, par eulx 
 Icurs de, puty qui scavent la maniere et science d'ouvrer esdictcs Mynes 
 eU iceulx donner previieigcs, fr.anchises ct liberte/, tellcs qu'dz puissent 
 vivre franchenicnt ctseuremcnt en nostre dit Royaume, mesmement que une 
 rrant nartio d'iceulx sont dc nacions et pays estrangers, ct en voit-on 
 plusieurs mourir et nnitiler en faisant 1c dit ouvraige tant pour la puiuiteur 
 qui est esdictcs Mynes, commes par les autres perils qui sont daller sou z 
 iT crre niynant ; pourquoy lis ont besoing d'estre prcservez et gardez de 
 toutJs V anccs, oppressions, grief/ et molestcs par Nous, commc Ic temp.s 
 pn s6 a estc fait par noz predeccsseurs Roys dc France en cas semblablc ; et 
 U soit aim que p..u..euks Seigneurs tant d'Eglise comme s6cu lers, qui on 
 iurklkions haultcs, moiennes et basses es tcrritoires esquelles les d.ctcs 
 Mviies sont assises veulcnt et s^eforcen i d^avoir en icelles J/yn^s, la dixiesme 
 .IS^iri^iee^avtre droit eoime-io^^. a qui SEUL et NON A autres 
 Ei LF APPARTiaNT DE PLAIN DROIT, commc dit cst, laqucllc chosc cst contrc 
 raison les drritz ct preherainenccs Royaulx de la Couronnc de France et dc 
 [aZsepublinne: car s'il y avait plusieurs Seigneurs prenans la dixicsmo 
 nnrteou autre droit nul ne feroit plus ouvrer en icelles Mynes doresn..- 
 Tnf ^.Vr c QUE CKHLX a qui SONT LES DICTES MYNES, n auraient 
 que tfes-pcu ou neant de proufnlt do demourant; et s'efforccnt les diz 
 IlauU Justiciers de donner grand empeschement ct trouble en maintes 
 manieres aux Muistres qui font faire la dicte cuvrc, et ouvncrs ouvrans en 
 S'et nc leur pcrmettent ne seuffrent avoir par leurs dictcs Terres ct 
 Sei-neurics, passaiges, chemins, allees ne venues, caver ne chercher Mynes 
 ne Rivieres Bois ne autres ehoscs a eux convenables ne nccessaires parmy 
 pavantiustesetraisonnablespris; et avecques cc, ycxent ct trayaiUent les 
 diJfaisans faire I'cuvre at ouvriers, soulz umbrc de leur juridicion c en 
 maintes autres et diverses manieres, atlin de faire rompre et cesser la dictc 
 cuvrc et pour les faire da tout supcrceder au dit ouvraige ; et pour ce se 
 pourrait la terre legiercment reclorre des dictes Mynes qui sont desja 
 ouvrecs et I'allec des diz ouvriers cstre empeschee et toutle tait perdu j qui 
 seroita'nostrestres grant dommaige ; lesquelles choses sont cntrcprinses 
 contrc Nrus, nostre Majesto Royal, et les droictz preheminenccs de no.stie 
 Couronne, au grant prejudice, dommaige etdiminucionde nostre Dommaine, 
 ctseroit encore plus se hactivement et dilligcammcnt n'y cstoit pourvu de 
 
 remede convenable. , . , 
 
 PouKQuoY Nous, ces choses considerees, voulans sur ce pounoir de 
 remede ainsi qu'il appartient de faire en td cas, par grant ct meure 
 
 f 
 
I- 
 
 I 
 
 f 
 
 — 89 — 
 
 deliber tcion .li; nnstn^ Grant-C(iiiscil, et antrcs Offlciers nians conjtnoiRsance Ownkrship 
 (los r]\o^\C'< "I'^susilictcs ct (li- UMir> <'irconst!infH<s et (Uppcnilcnces «i'0//.v i^nr ^k Minbk. 
 iimnieri) dc F.dit, StJiliit, Loy ou Ordouiuince Koynl iirovociiblu, <l(t, <hcerne Authontiet. 
 et ileclaire <Zw(JMs tlnfei'inlnoim et doclairoiis par la tenour do ces prese»k>s, Chabi.bs VI. 
 ,/uennl Scl<)neur espiritticl ou tcmi)orol, de quelquo estat, dij,'mte ou prehe- 
 inincnce, rundirion ou auct.^rite, quel qr soit, en nostn;dit Iloyanmc no 
 n^avra „e doit avoir a qr..^IronqMe tillr. ise on occasion quel e quo elle 
 Koit t^onrnir iie ovctorite <le praiuire, re.clamer //<■ ilcmnnder codictcn Mynen, 
 
 NF FN VI-TIIKS QUK.hZCONQrES ASSISES EN NOSTUK RoYAU.MK, III dlXUmiC JHinie 
 
 Ve autre droit dc Mijia: ; niais on sont ot sorout par uostredicte Ordonnancc 
 ct dr.uct du tout forrU./, : mr d Nam sod H po^ir le tout, a cause de no/, 
 droi.^ts et Magesto lloyaulx, apparfimt U '^'^'i^'^'''^'/^ '".'/' '^''."'^'i' ''''' ''°''" 
 
 CB KT AFFTN QUK. D'oiiF.SEN AVANr F.KS MaHCU VNS KT M.\I>TRES DR TRAFFONS 
 
 UFS MYNES qui font oiitrr- et les ovrricn qui ouvrent esdictes Mynes, 
 fiiisans feu, lieu et residence, ou leurs depput-/,, i^w/Wrti ourrcr contimelle- 
 mcnt uim ,'Mre empenclm ne trouhhr m leur oiivrai(je, et ouprerjranchement 
 et miremeut en nostredit Royaume, tnnt amine ih vonldront omr'^r en 
 icelh'S M}inc>^. Voulons ct ordonnons scinblablemeiit que les haulx Justi- 
 ciers, nioyens et has, sou/ quelle juridicion et Seignetn-ie les dictes Mynes 
 sont situdes et assises, baillcnt et dclivreut ausdits Uuvners, Miirchan.ls et 
 Maistres desdiotes Mvncs, moyennans et par payant juste et raisonimble 
 pris, cheniins et voves, entrees et yssucs par eurs lerres ct pays, Bo.s, 
 Rivieres et autres clioses necessaircs et prouflitables .usdiz faisans, a faire 
 I'euvre et Ouvriers, es lieux plus prouffitables pour leur ouvrai^e faire, et 
 pour ravancement de la dicto besoigne, ct moins doM,maige pour lesd.z 
 Seignieurs qui les dictes choses leur vendront, ct aulres a qui les dictes 
 choses sevont, le inieulx que faire se pourra. . 
 
 (2) Iti'tn VoalnuH et ordonnons que tons .Jynevrs et autkes, pu-'^ent 
 nverir ourrir et chercher Mijne^ par tou^ les li^nr tn) ih penxcront ir.nner 
 Llt.fs thaikk kt FAiRR ouvKFU, OU VENDRE d ceulx qin les Jer^nt 
 onvrer et fond re, par.uv pavant a Nous nostre dixic^s ne franchement, et en 
 faisant satisfaction ou contenter a celuy on a ceulx qui les dictes choses 
 seront ou ai.partiendront, au dit de deux preudes hoiniui'S. 
 
 (3) Item Sembla'idement avons voulu et ordonne, \oulons ct ordon- 
 nons pour la cause dessusdicte, que d'orescnavant les diz Marchans 
 Maistres faisans faire Veuvre, et les Ouvriers qui esdictes Mynes ouvrent et 
 se occupent. et font residence sui- le lieu du Martinet et Mynes, ou leurs 
 deppute?. par eulx, auront en nosdiz Bailliage ct Seneschaulcee tant en 
 dekendant comme en demandant, un Jugc bon et convenable, ou Commis- 
 saire et tel oommc Nous leur ordonnerons, lequcl congnois'tra et determinera 
 de tons cas meuz et a mouvoir, que lesdiz marcbans et ouvriers pourra 
 toucher- et auquel seront baillees nos Ordonnanccs et Instr ct-on ^ par 
 nosdiz Gencraulx-Maistres des Monnoyes, sur le fait desdictes yynes; 
 cxcepto de meurdre, rapt et larrecin ; et duquel Juge ou Commissure 1 en 
 appellera qui so sentira greve, quant lecasy eschena, devant noz Gencraulx- 
 Maistres de noz Monnoyes, en leur Sieige et Auditoire de nostre Vllede 
 Paris: et la partie qui aura mal appelle, payera pour son lo! appel, AAA 
 livres t)arisis, a appliqncr a Nous, nonobstant que ks appellans et appella- 
 cions viennent de pays ouquel Ten use de Droit Escript ; et qui appellera 
 desdiz Maistres des Monnoyes. I'appellacion ira en nostro Court deParlement, 
 en laquelle qui aura mal appelle, payera soixante livres parisis d amende 
 
 pour son fol appel. . , , i « „„„ 
 
 (-l) Item. Avons voulu ct ordonne, voulons et ordonnons par ces 
 preseutes que les Marchans et Maistres qui font ouv.or les dictes Mynes a 
 12 
 
■^\^^ 
 
'iu 
 
 %. 
 
 ^/«>, 
 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 '^O 
 
 ^/ 
 
 
 ■■^i: 
 
 
 <i-^<^ 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 V 
 
 % 
 
 1.0 
 
 LI 
 
 
 [2.5 
 2.2 
 
 
 :£ 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.4 
 
 J4 
 
 
 < 6" — 
 
 
 ► 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /2 
 
 % 
 
 A 
 
 I 
 
 '^m 
 
 > 
 
 >^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 <? 
 
 > 
 
 '^>".^ ^-^^ 
 
 -'V5^ 
 
 o 
 
 / 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 m 
 
 ,\ 
 
 1^^ 
 ^ 
 
 ^9) 
 
 V 
 
 "^0^ 
 
 
 '<*) 
 
4^ 
 
 Q., 
 
 & 
 
 o 
 
 \ 
 
- 90 — 
 
 OWNKBSHIP 
 
 OF Mines. 
 Authorities. 
 
 CHAItLBS VI. 
 
 leurs pronres coiistz, Trais, missions et despens, et font feu, lieu et residencfl 
 surlesditz Mart'netz et Mynes, ou ^ouis depputez, les deux Fondeurs et 
 Mineurs on ung chacun Martinet tant seulement, et aussi les diz Ouvriers 
 ouvrans esdictes Mynes, n vec noz Gardes et non autres, soieiit quictes, francs 
 et exempts de toutes aides. Tallies, Gabelles, Quart de Vin, Peaigeset autrea 
 quelzconques subscides ou subvencions quelz qu'ils soient, et ayans cours 
 en nostredict Royaumc ; c'est assavoir, ducreu de leurs Terres et possessions, 
 et non d'autre-? choses ; considcre qn'ilz ouvrent et vacquent contmuehe- 
 ment ou bien de Nous et de la chose publicque, et pour ce se mettent en 
 peril d'estre desheritez et mors continuellement ; et avec ce, d abondant, 
 que les d'"z Marchans, Ouvriers et autres personnes dessusnomnie •, qui 
 vacqueron*^^ aux ouvraiges desdictes Mynes, soient preservez tt gardez de 
 toutes offenses, griefs et molestacions inder.es, iceulx Marchans, Maistres, 
 Ouvriers, Gouverneurs et Gardes, ouvrans etbesoignians pour la dicte euvre 
 avons prins et mis, prenons et mettons par la tcneur de ces presentes, en 
 nostre protections especial, sauvegarde et sauf conduict, k la conseryacion 
 de le^rs droictz tant seulement ; ensemble leurs femmes, families, serviteurs, 
 biens, meubles et heritaiges quelzconques estaos esdiz Bailiages de Mascon 
 et Seneschaulcee de liyon, et autre part en et partout nostredict Royaume. 
 Si donnons en manderaent au Bailly de Mascon, Seneschal de Lyon, et 
 k tons noz autres Justiciers et Officiers de nostredict Royaume, ou a leurs 
 Lieuxtenans, et k chascun d'eulx, si comme a luy appartiendra, que nostre 
 present Edict, Statut, Loy et Ordonnance Royaux, et nostre presente sauve- 
 garde et sauf conduict, ils facent crier et publier en et par tous les lieux 
 desdiz Bailliage et Seneschaucie, et ailleurs oil il appartiendra et requis en 
 seront, en nostredict Royaume ; en deffendant de par Nous n tous a qui 
 il appartiendra, sur grans peines a applicquer k Nous, que aux dessusdiz 
 Marchands et Maistres, proprietaires, Ouvriers et autres personnes quelz- 
 conques ouvrans et besoignans esdictes Mynes, ne raeffacent ou actemptent, 
 ne souffrent meffaire ou attempter en corps ne en biens, en quelque maniere 
 que ce soit, contre la teneur de ces presentes ; mais les maintiennent et 
 gardent les dessusditz, es libertey et franchises dessusdictes, sans venir ne 
 soudrir estre venu par aucuns au contraire en quelque maniere que ce soit, 
 soit par opposition, appellacion ou autrement : Car ainsi le voulons et Nous 
 plaist estre fait pour consideracion des choses dessusdictes ; nonobstant 
 quelzconques Ordonnances, Coustitucions, Stille, Usage ou Statut de pays, 
 et Lettres subrepticcs impetr6es ou a impetrer au contraire. Et que oe soit 
 chose ferme et estabie k tous puis. Nous avons fait raectre nostre Seel a ces 
 presentes Lectres : sauf en adtres choses nostue droict, et L'AUTRUY. 
 Donne k Paris, le XXXe jour de May, I'an de grace mil iiij & xiij., et de 
 nostre Regne le xxxiij. Ainsi signe. Par le Roy, le Confesseur, le Sire de 
 Savoisy, Messire Girard de Graireval et plusieurs autres, presens Bordes. 
 
 I(;norance of 
 French Jurists 
 
 Sec. 84.- 
 
 or that Ordi 
 nance 
 
 ■How little the most eminent French 
 arto^'coTents Jurists of the last century knew of the Ordi nances of the 
 " ' ^ " French Kings is strikingly illustrated by a written opinion 
 delivered in 1767, by three eminent French Counsel, M. M. 
 Elie de Beaumont^ Target and Rouchet. That opinion is 
 extracted from the Reg. Frangaif^, letter O, P. 260, and is 
 found at P. 256 and seg., of a Ketum to an address of the 
 
 L__-!-1_i.: A ^^-j.^Vl" 'i^ Do^Q'la /if tliP 9,0 Allfirnaf ISHl "Tid 
 
 printe 
 Theo 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 P 
 U 
 
 o 
 e 
 
 t] 
 c 
 a 
 a 
 i) 
 t 
 
 t' 
 1] 
 t. 
 I 
 
 (I 
 u 
 
 tents 
 put il 
 Ordh 
 j;'ontl( 
 the (J 
 the n 
 tion, 
 Icarni 
 inclu( 
 the n 
 not tl 
 
— 91 
 
 et 
 
 printed in book-form at Quebec by E. R. Frechette in 1852. 0wnk3ship 
 The opinion L^oes on to state : «/ Mines. 
 
 ^ ^ _ Auihorities, 
 
 " The Patents of Concession contain the following Ignorance of 
 clause : " on condition of giving notice to His Majesty of -^^'^cA ju- 
 " Mines and minerals, if any should be found in the said ^„'ent3 of 
 " concession." that Ordinan- 
 
 " In the case submitted it is asked whether this ce. 
 clause is to bo understood as constituting the King joint 
 proprietor of the Mines and minerals which may be found 
 upon the property granted, or merely as showing a desire, 
 on the part of His Majesty, to be informed of their 
 existence, in order to have it in his power to provide for 
 the security of these treasures, and protect them from 
 conquest, for the benefit of the state ; and whether, under 
 any circumstances, tlie 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 yroj^rietor of 
 the land is not, in virtue of his title to it, 'proprietor of 
 the Mines also^ and whether companies could be formed, 
 with privilege or otherwise, who could dispute his right. 
 
 " The Counsel answer that this question also onght 
 to be decided by the Laws of France, according to what 
 has been said above. Now by the Ordinance of Charles, 
 the sixth,, of the 30th May 1413, which is the most ancient 
 Law we have concerning this matter : " Gold Minks 
 " helong to the King, and to him, and not to any other, 
 " belongs the tenth part of all metals when purined 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 tin j 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 im.pardonable, as by looking into Denizart^s collec- 
 tion, tibo, Jt/{;it6', just then published, they might at once have 
 Icarnovl that riie Ordinance, though silent eo nomine as to gold, 
 includes it in the general designation oi other metals, and tliat 
 the reason given by Denizart for such silence eo nomine is 
 not the trne one, as will be seen hereafter. 
 
OWNKRSHI? 
 OF MlMEB. 
 
 Authorities. 
 
 CUABLRS VI. 
 
 Inferences 
 from that 
 Ordioance. 
 
 — 92 — 
 
 The same tLree Counsel, after quoting' otiier Ordinances 
 and Arrets du Conseil, decide the question of the ownership 
 of silver and all other Mines, excepting gold, in a sense 
 unfavorable to the de limiY-Paterdees ; and they proceed to 
 say : 
 
 " Such is the P.iblic Law of France with re.s] oct to 
 Mines, and such is the reason of the obligation to giv(; 
 notice to His Majesty of Mines and Minerals, not that the 
 King may at once become the master of them ^ but that lie 
 may exercise over them, according to their nature, the 
 rights arising from the Laws of the Kingdom." 
 
 Sec, 85. From that Ordinance of Chakles VI, 
 
 we therefore gather : 
 
 Firstly : Thy.t the Ordinance applies to the Kingdom 
 GENERALLY, and to siCver-Mines, and to all other Mines, not 
 even excepting gold ; because the words are : " enplusieurs 
 " heitx de nostre Boyaume '^'^^ y a plusieurs Mynes <#Argeot, 
 " deplorrJ) et de ciiivre, et d'autres metaux ****** Ss gudles 
 " 7nynes et autres quelconques esiant en nostre dit Boyaume 
 " oioi/s avo7\s et devons avoir, et a nous et non d autre appar- 
 " tient la dixleme jpartieP And the Sovereign gives as the 
 " source of his right : " a cause de nostre Souveruinete et 
 " Majesie RoyaU:' The words \ all other ■ Mines whatever 
 laust assuredly be held to include Gow-Mines: moreover 
 the injnction laid on all his officers, throughout the Kino;- 
 dom to see to its execution, proves flic Law to be one of 
 general application ; and it was enregistered in all the Parlia- 
 ments of France. It seems to the Plaintiffs that iiothino- can 
 be clearer. '^ 
 
 Secondly. That the Ordinance recogtiizes the owner of 
 the soil as the oioner of the Mine. Because no one,, sui-ely, 
 will pretend that the King claims the ownership of the Mine' 
 in view of the fact that he only claims one-tenth of the rclin(?d 
 metals extracted. The Sovereign merely says : " d Nous et 
 " non a autre ajypartient la dixieme partie" purifice de tons 
 " metaux " in all the Mines of the Kingdom. He does not 
 SAY : " a Notts a.ppartiennent les mynts " ; nou. does He 
 " state : '' a Nous appartient for." Moreover the Kin f, by 
 " these Avords : '' Et pour ce a fin qve doresiirfvant les 7)iar- 
 ^^ chands et MAif=,'TREs des tres-b-onds et des Minfs qui font 
 " onvrer, etc., etc.-. etc.," dearly shows that the 7naiirc du tres- 
 fonds " (or owner of the soil) is one and the same person with 
 
 t 
 
 { 
 
 4 
 
t 
 
 i 
 
 4 
 
 ■— 93 — 
 
 tlie mmlie cles Klines (or ownei* of tlie Mine) ; the words are Owebship ot 
 NOT " maiatre des trez-fons^ et maistres dcs Mines ; but the ^'^'^* . . 
 words : Alaistres des tvez-fons et des Myms.^'' shew him to ho "' °" ***' 
 maitre ot* the one and the other. For ratifications of tnat 
 Ordinance by CnARLES VII, on the 1st July, by Charles YIII, 
 in Febnary, 1483, by Louis XII, in June, 1498, by FRAN§oisI, 
 in December, 1515, see pages 17, 21, 33 et 41 of Mines et 
 
 MiNIEiiKB. 
 
 SpC. 86. If any doubt could possibly remain in Louis XI. 
 
 one's mind, after reading the Ordinance of Charles VI, as to 
 gold being on precisely the same footing as silver and other 
 metals,those doubts will quickly vanish on perusal of the follow- 
 ing Ordinance of Louis XI, to be found at P. 446 of Volume 
 XVII of the Ordonnances des Rois de France^ being a conti- 
 nuation by the Marquis de Fastont in 1820, of the collection 
 of de Lauriere^ Secousse, de Villevaidt and de Brequigny : 
 
 ORDONNANOE du Roi sur V Exploitation des Mines dans le Royaume, 
 
 LOYS, par la grdce de Dien, Roy de France, s^avoir Jaiiom k lous i^gpjteB exist- 
 prescns et .idvenir, qxie comme nous avons esto deuement advertis ct infor- ^^^^ ^^ j^ 
 mes (]ue en nos royaume, Dauphin6, Comtes de Valentinois, Diois, Rossillon, g^^gj, and ' 
 Sardaigne ct es montagnes do Catalogne et es rnarclies d'environ, y a Q^jjgji' Mines 
 2Aumurs Mines d'ok ct d 'argent, de caivre, de plomh, estain, pottiii, aznr 
 et anltres mestaux ct matidres, losquelks, par detFaiit de conduitc; d'ouvriers 
 et (I'autres gens experts et connoissans en tclies niaticres, ct dcs edicts et 
 constitutions et ordonnances convenablcs ct necessaires pour rcntreniecte- 
 nicnt d'iceulx, sont et demourcnt en choinniagc et de nul effet et valeur ; et 
 lious ait este remonstre que si voulons faire bcsongncr csdictes Mines, ainsy 
 qu'on faict en plusieurs autres royaumes et parties de la Chrcstiente, comme 
 tin piiys d'Allemngne, es royaumes de llongric, Boheine, Poulogne, Angle- 
 torre et ailleurs, et fiiire esdicts, ordonnances ct constitutions pour mcctre sus 
 et entreteiiir le diet ouvrnige, ainsi qu'il est esditcs royauincs et contrecs, il en 
 I)ourrait advenir plusieurs grans biens, utilites et prouftit k nous, nosdicts 
 royaume, Dauphine et autres pardessus nommez et subjects d'iceulx, et 
 quo, en deffaut de pourvoir a ces choses, nous et nosflicts subjects y avons 
 de grands dommaiges, c< S6' riwrfo' chascunjoiir Vor et f argent de nosdicts 
 royaume, Dauphine, pays ct licux dessusdicts, sans y retonrner, dont se 
 pourroitensuir la totallo ruinc et destruction d'iceux. si provision n'estoit k 
 ce par nous donnec, ^j«?' qiioy l'or et l' argent ainsy trampoHe puisse 
 retourner en vos diets royatime, Dauphine ct autres pays dcssus nommes, et 
 Tutilito pubiicque d'iceulx et preservacion dcs domnuigcs et interests quo out 
 soulfertjusqu'a cette heure par deffaut de ladictc provision toutcs maniercs 
 de gens, taut d'esglise que nobles, bourgeois, marcbands, gens mecaniques, 
 laboureurs ct autres dcmcurans esdicts pays, laqueUe chose, comme avons 
 cstc en oultrc infonnes, ne se peat 7nieux i.e par ■meillevr moyenrcdricerque 
 parjnire micrer mlictts Mines, qu'clUs soient oavcrtcs, que VoviTaigc se 
 continue ainsy que en tel cas aviparticnt, et que faisionts certains esdicts, 
 
04 
 
 OWNBESHIP 
 OF MiNR.'i. 
 
 Authorilwa. 
 LO01S XI. 
 
 Grants, to 
 miners, cer- 
 tain exemp- 
 tions, 
 
 And privile- 
 ges, 
 
 An J protec- 
 tion in case 
 of war, 
 
 constitutions et ordonnanccs pour co corvonables et nocessaires, et^ en ce 
 Jaisarity l'ok et L'AitdKNT en serolt et ne recouvreroit cnklemment en plus 
 grande quantite sans coinpavaison eii. nosdicts royaume, pays ct sicgneurics, 
 qu'il ne faict a present, et si aurout nos monnoycs, qui sont la plusoart on 
 chommaige, largement a besoiQ;ner, et li'espamlroU Vor ct Vargent par les 
 bourses, ety auroient tous ct chacnn en son endroit grande utilite etproufltit, 
 pour lesquelles chosos et laquelle lantiero avoir et sortir son effect, soit 
 besoin de fairo lesdictos constitutions ot or.ionnances notables? tcUes que la 
 matiere le requiert, qui soiont sole'uiellement criees par nosdicts royaurae, 
 Dauphin^, Valcntinois, Dlois, Ilos lion, S:irdaigne, pays ot lieux devant 
 diets, a ce que nosdicts subjects et aussy les estrangiers ayent cognoissance de 
 nostredicte volonte et intention en cctte partic, et conune chascun en son 
 endroit se y aura a gouverncr : pour ce esf-il que nous, voulans par effect 
 pourvoir aux choses dessusdictcs par I'advis ot deliberation des gens de 
 nostre grant Conseil ct a litres notables hoinmos cxpers et connoissans en 
 tellesmatieres, ct pour le bicn ct utilite do nosdicts royautne, Dauphine, ^ffiys 
 et lieux que dessus et des subjects d'iceulx, avons faict, comtitue et estably, 
 et par lateneur do ces presentes, /a/sons, ordoiinons, constUvons el estahlis- 
 sons par esdict solennel, les statuts, ordonnances et declarations qui 
 s'ensuivent. 
 
 PREMifciiEMENT. Quc tous Ics marcliands et maistres qui fairont ouvrer 
 les dictes Mines a leurs propres cousts, frais ot despens, et fairont feu, lieu 
 et residence sur lesdictes Mines et Martinet, ou leurs desputes, ou les fondeurs 
 et '..ffineurs, et t as aucuns ouvriers mineurs, et avtrcs qui se mesleront de 
 faire la manceucre des dictes Mines en quelque esp§:ce que ce soit, estran- 
 giers et non natifs de nos royaume, Dauphine, Val'ntinois, Diois, Couite do 
 Rossillon, Sardaiguc, et lieux devant diets, qui viendront ou sont ja deniou- 
 rans de nosdicts royaume, Dauphine ct lieux devant diets, et se employeront, 
 besongneront etcontiiiuoront lesdictes niarchandises ctouvraigos, seroni tous 
 et demourront quictes. francs et exempts, pendant et durant le temps quHls 
 hcHonyneront esdictes Mines, d'icy a viagt ans entiers, a compter du jour et 
 datte des dictes i)resentcs, da toutcs stailles, aydes, subsistunccs, imposi- 
 tions, francs-archiers, guet, garde, pwrte d'} ville, et autres charges et subven- 
 tions quelzconques. 
 
 (2) Item. Et avec ce, voulons et nous [)laist, et ausdicts estrangiers 
 avons octroye ct octro3-ons parcesdictes piesenios, qu'ils joyssentde tels pi'i- 
 vile'ges. ^-anchiscs et libeiles, soitnt comnn naturalises, faceiit testament, 
 acquisit' de biens nieables ou muncubles, donations,, transports et dispo- 
 sitions d'iceulx biens, et que leurs eiifants ct plus prochains lignaiges puis- 
 sent succeder et recueillir leurs successions soit tcstats ou intestats, covnmo 
 s'ils estoient natifs de nosdicts royaume et pays de Dauphine, Valcntinois, 
 Diois, Rossillon, Sardiiigne et autres lieux devant diets, ;'ou qu'ils eussent 
 grace et lectrofi de naturalitu de nous en la ibrine et nianiere accoustumees 
 en tel cas, veriffiees <*t cxpediees ainsy qu'il appartient, sans ce qu'ils soient 
 tenus do prendre de nous ne d'autres nos officicrs autres lectres de uaturalite 
 et grace, ou en requerir I'enterinenient ne verifflcation, fors seulemgnt le 
 vidimus de ces presentes faict soubs sccl royal, avec la ccrtiffication du 
 general maistre gouverneur et visiteur desdictes Mines ou son lieutenant, 
 appelo 4 ce nostre procureur, lesquelles icur voulons valoir et sortir leur 
 ple.in effect en toutcs les choses dessusdictcs, tout ainsy que si eulx et nn 
 chascun d'eulx avoient lesdictes lectres do naturalite et grace de nous 
 veriffiees et expediees, ainsy qu'en tel cas appartien: de faire. 
 
 (3) Item. Et en oultre, pnur plus grande seureto d'iceux et do chascun 
 .d'eulx, leur avons octroye et octioyous par ces pr6sentes qu'ils puissent cstrc 
 
— 95 
 
 qui 
 
 et demmirer seureincnt en r osdicts royaume et pays <ie Daupliine Valentinoi<? 
 Dio.s, Ross, Ion, Sardnigne, montagncs do Catalogne ot I Sches d W 
 ron, pour les causes , no dessus, nonobstant quelzconques gucrres «„ 
 divisions qui puissent Ibndrc entre nous rt les seigneurs, pals et communau 
 tes dont lis seront natifs, et eux en rctourner quand bon leur Sblera* 
 pourveu qu'iLs ne feront ne pourchasseront ne seront trouves avoTr foitou 
 pourchasse aucuno chose prejudiciable a nous, A la cho^^pXcque de 
 nostre royaume ou a nos pays et subjects, et qu'ils aient congeC uXe e? 
 
 ittenfrAr^eSe^^"^™"^ '' ^'^'''^^ «^«^- ^I--' - ^"on 
 (4) Item. Avo7is ordonne quHl sera CRifi solempnellement ef faipt 
 coMMAXDEMENT de par xous d tons cenx qrd out cognat^muedcs mZ 
 ESTANs EN LEURs TERHiToiKEs ET n^.TAm^i que, apr^ qvZnte joZs^^^^^ 
 ledictery et pubheation, Us viennent reveler et denmceLu TenenilmTtt 
 
 loires €t aux baillifs, seneschaux, gouverncurs et autres nos officiers rip K 
 jurisdiction desquelles lesdits territoires sont, les Mines ^JSrS Tv xEuis 
 B icTS TERRITOIRES et quclhs slles sont, suk' peine de perdre lb pro™ 
 QuiLs EN POURRONT AVOIR JUSQUES A DIX ANS, m. autlementMh 
 
 vmtenr desdictes Mcnes ou son lieutenant sera admse, i.equei general 
 
 MAISTRE GOUVERNEUR ET VISITEUR DESDICTES MlNES OU SoTlAmtM^ 
 POITRRA COMMECTRE GENS IDOINES ET StTnSANS UU OU pludcUrs^lvZe U 
 
 caslerequerra et qu\l verra. estre d faire, et au surplus comme Ts d?ctes 
 Mines sepourroi. mieux conduire a nostre prouffit et au bien d'iceulx et 
 "E^^l^^t^ '^ ^^- ^"^•^^^^ ^« nostredit'i^'re! 
 
 aucommandement dessusdiet, sr ainsi est qde d'eu.x mesmes nrvEu™T 
 
 ENTREPRENDRE LA CONDUITE DE BESONGNKR ESDICTES MlNES et d Jfai^l 
 
 qmappaMp^^ Va<hk etdemeration du dit general maittr! olde son 
 lieutenant on de nosdicts ojficiers, et que eux seuls ou autrps personne^ 
 soiENT RECEus OU suFFisANT par reputation pour h pouvoirfc2?eteoMre 
 SERA donn£ terme de trois mois apres les quarant! joxirs deZs diets Z'k 
 
 FAIRE LEURS PREPARATIONS DE CE Qu'lL LEUB FAUDRA "pOUR LE PAICT DESDrCTES 
 
 M NEs, sans que pendant ledict temps aucune vexation, travail ordommaire 
 leur soit dorme pour non avoir besongne jusqu'audict temps e JicterSinS' 
 
 tenvrle territoire auquel seront ou jd ont este trouvL lesdicUsMiSL 
 soENT RICHES ET PuissANs, ;,.w^«oy d leurs despens ils puisZnffateet 
 condmre ledxct travail et manoeuvre desdictes Miim, ou que par autre mms 
 ^lsne voudroient pas prendre la eharge de eefavre, et qu^ils^n^Iu™ pa' 
 IT A '^' S^?^«T^« ^^'^^^ dedans quarante jours, ainsy que dess^s 
 est ordonne, NOUS voulons et ordonnons en outre esdiets cIs etd Sun 
 deux, que le die* maistre general, ou son lieutenant, ou autres mt omZ 
 qmpour ce seront dappeler puissent, saulve Vindemnite de cektvoud^ceux 
 auxquels appartiendra ledict territoire, ordonner etcommZtTlTnotabUs 
 experts et connomans esdictes matiires de Mines, polTZrcuSret 
 
 ront et I utilite et prom que vraysemhlablement en pent advenir et ce Z'rf 
 tutZT:L:7' "J^^f <'-:4-^aires, lesdicts \eltTZi:Ltl 
 lieutenant appellesnosdutsotf^iers et aulresqui sur ce seront d avZller 
 pouTrontJauemanmweretbesongn,.r c^dictes Mines ct UsTailhFdgZl 
 
 OWKSnSHIP 
 
 OP i'lssa. 
 Authorities. 
 L0C13 XI. 
 
 Orders disclo- 
 sure of exist- 
 ence of 
 Mines, under 
 penally of lo- 
 sing ten yeartf 
 profits of 
 Mine: not so 
 disclosed^ 
 
 Inve; ts party 
 discl'ising 
 Mine with 
 exclt-'sive 
 nght to work 
 
 And, on refu- 
 sal of OTrner 
 ofsoi', sub/o- 
 gates seignior 
 /onciVr, after 
 parties heard, 
 
96 — 
 
 Ownership 
 
 OF MCKES. 
 
 Authorities. 
 Louis XI. 
 
 And, o;\ rofu 
 eal of bo'h 
 owner aud 
 seignior /on- 
 eier, subroga- 
 tes seignior 
 suzerain. 
 
 Disposes of 
 Mines in 
 Royal Do- 
 main, 
 
 Provides for 
 salary and 
 expenses of 
 Inspector of 
 MineB, 
 
 I 
 
 receans et solvcibles tcls qv?ils adpiseront estre ft fake pour leu /aire rn'offlter 
 au mieux qui possible sera, en nous 2)ai/aiit vosfrc dixiesme pour le dro'd de 
 nostre souvcraiiiete, el aux Seigneurs trrffonciern leur jiortioii. quails verront 
 estre dfaire^ soil d\m dixiesme, demy -dixiesme, on autre somnie plus gmnde 
 ou plus petite, selon la quantite et valeur dfs dicies Mines ; toutksfois, 
 
 NCUS ESTENDONS ET DECLAUONS PAIl CESDICTES I'KESENTES qVO CeUX qui ll'au- 
 
 ront rercle et denonce les Mines qui cont en Icurs territoircs dedans les 
 quarante jours, ainsy que dessus est diet, perduont le pkouffit que leur 
 enpourra adveniu, pouk tel temps que seha advis^, prononck et taixe 
 par iesdiets maistre general ou son lieutenant, nostre jyi'ocureur d ce appelle. 
 
 (7) Item. Et .si ainsy estaitque, apres la dicto denonciiitinn faicte et 
 .les dits quarante jours et; temps dcwsus declairos pas'ses, touchaiit les Minos 
 
 qui scroiit es territoires <3c.igens particuliers, ceux d qui sont les diets terri- 
 toiresn^y voudrontou auront jiuissance d''y lesonyner, ainsi que dessus est 
 diet, et quHl y aura aueun seigneur feodal ou sovverain a qui sera Icdlct 
 territoire qui vicnne jJVendre la charge de eondnire ledict ouvraige et 
 manmuvre desdictes Mines comrne oust pu fairo coluy a qui est le diet terri- 
 toire, en iceluy cas NOUS voulons, consentons et accordons ausdiets 
 seigneurs que, trois mois apres Iesdiets quarante jours, ils se 2JU'issbnt presen- 
 ter ou faire presenter devant ledict maistre general ou. son lieutenant ou 
 autres offiaiers dessusdiets. pour requerir d'estpe suRROafis i:\ la place 
 ET au droit touchant lesdictes Mines DE SON VASSAL ET subject, et 
 leqiiel y wulons estre receu et subroge par ces presentes, moyennant que 
 Iesdiets ainsi subroges garderoatet observercnt Veffet et contenu de ces pre- 
 sentes ordonnanees, et quHls s'obligeront d^entretenir et continuer le diet 
 ouvraige, et manoeuvre, comme eussentfaict et deub fairo ceux a qui Iesdiets 
 territoires sont et appartiennent. 
 
 (8) Item. Et en tant que louche les territoires qui sont d nous nuk- 
 liEST:, esqucls lesdictes Mines seront oujd out este trouvees, NOUS voulons 
 ET OBDONNONs que icellcs Mines soient faictes, eonduittes et manoeuvrces, et 
 qiCon lesballle au plus operant et dernier eneherisseur, au mieux et le plus 
 prouffitablement a nostre prouffit et adoantaige que faire sep)ourra. 
 
 (9) Item. Et pour cc qu'il convlcndra faire plu^ieurs frais et mises, 
 tantaux Seignours fonciers comme aux marchands et autres qui prendrontla 
 charge et conduite des susdicts ouvraiges et manoeuvre desdictes Mines, et 
 que bien souvent y adviennent et eschoient plusieurs grands danglers, perils 
 et dommaiges, nous desirans que Vouvraige et manceuzre dcs'/ictes Mines 
 8oit conduit et entretemi, et qu^il y soit soigneuscnient, et en grande cure et 
 diligence, ceuvre et manceuvre, et que Iesdiets fonciers et autres marchands 
 ay ant plus grand vouloir, njfeotion, et rolante d!y besoigner, tacquer et 
 entendre, et pareillement le dit general maistre, son lieutenant et autres nos 
 offlciers qui ont et auront la charge de besongner et laire bcsongner esdictos 
 matieres, esquelles faudra plusieurs voyages et depenses, a ceste cause soient 
 plus enclins a eux employer esdictes matieres ct y vacquer diligemment et 
 entendre, et nos droits garder esdictes Mines, nous avons, de nostre plus 
 ample grace, octroye etoctroyons par cesdictes presentes, que tout le prouffit 
 qui nous pourrait corapeter et appartenir, du jour et datte de la publication 
 de cesdictes presentes, a cause de nostre dixiesme desdictes Mines pour le 
 deub de nostre souverainete, jusqu'a douze ans prochain venant, soit et 
 vienne au prouffit dudit genei'al maistre et visiteur desdictes Mines pour ses 
 gaiges, salaires, voyages et dcspenses qu'il y faudra faire, et h. son lieutenant 
 general et autres ses lieutenans particuliers, nos procureurs, gardes et 
 offlciers desdictes Mines, et autres qui s'y eraployeront par I'ordonnance 
 desdicts maistres et visiteur general et ses lieutenans et autres offlciers, a 
 
 ^ 
 
 i^l 
 
 % 
 
 I, 
 
t 
 
 
 ■f- 
 
 X 
 
 i 
 
 1. 
 
 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 •^. 
 
 
 
 — 97 — 
 
 faire les diligences qu'il faut et qu'il conviendra fairo pour mectro sur OwNiBsarr 
 lesdictes Mines, et semblableraent pour en departir aux seigneurs fonciers, of Minks. 
 marchands, et autres qui auront la charge et dependance pour faire ledict AuthoritUi, 
 manceuvrage, selon que ledict maistre et visiteur general desdictes Mines ou LoDw XL. 
 son lieutenant advisera estre k faire, eu regard a I'ouvraige qu'ils feront, et 
 aux frais, niises et despcnses que k ceste cause leur conviendra faiae. 
 
 (10) Item. Voulons cl ordonnons^ enoultre, quHl soit permi» et loisi- 
 hie audict general maistre et visiteur^ ou aon lieutenant eteommis^ et pareil' 
 lenient avx maistres et omriers hesongnans et comtinuam ledict ouvraige, de 
 quSrir, ouvrir et chereher Mines par tous les lieux et contrees de nosdicts 
 royaume, Dauphine, Valentinois, Diois, Comtes do Rossillon, Sardaigne 
 montagnes de Catabgne et es marches d'environ et ailleurs, soimt en nostra 
 territoiro mesmement et de nos subjects oil ils penseront en trouver, et iceiles 
 ouvrir sans faire indempnite des proprietaires, et y faire manceuxrer au 
 provffit de ceux <i qui il appartiendra, scion la teneur de ces presentes 
 ordonnances, sans qu'il soit besoin k nosdicts oflBciers, maistres, ouvriers et 
 besongnans esdictes Mines, en demander conge et licence aux diets proprie- 
 taires treffonciers ne k autres quelzconques, ne que par eux leur soit ou puisso 
 estre donn6 aucun destourbiers ou empeschoment, poubvkl^ que quand les- 
 
 DICTS MAISTRES MINErRS ET OUVRIERS ADRONT TK0Uv£ LESDICTES MINES, Us 
 
 teront tenus, avant qu'ils commencent le voyage pour ouvrer et manoeuvrer 
 en iceiles, le notifier et signifier auxdicts maistre general gouverneur et visi- 
 teur esdictes Mines, ou son lieutenant ou commis, nosdicts procureurs et 
 gardes, et aux seigneurs fanciers auxquels lesdicis territoiret appartiendront, 
 
 AiFIN Qu'eN ICELLES CHOSES NOSTRE DROICT ET CELUV DES PARTIES Y SOIT CARDfi 
 
 (11) Item. Voulons et ordonnons que nosdicts ofiiciers et aussy les 
 hauts, moyens et bas justiciers, soubs la jurisdiction et seigneurie desquels 
 lesdictes Mines auront esto trouvees et sont assises, baillent et delivrent 
 auxdicts ouvriers, marchands et maistres desdictes Mines, moyennant et par 
 payant juste et raisonnable prix, chemins, voyes, entrees et issues par leurs 
 terres, bois, rivieres et autres leurs jurisdictions et toutes autres chosea 
 necessaires aux diets maistres et ouvriers pour faire le diet ouvraige, ainsy 
 que par iceux maistres et ouvriers pour la nscessite dudict ouvraige leur sera 
 requis sans contredict ou difficulte aucune ; et si question ou debat s'es- 
 ir^ uvait entre nosdicts ofBciers et lesdicts seigneurs et treffonciers d'une 
 part, et les diets ouvriers, marchands ou maistres, d'autre part, pour les 
 causes cy-dessus, ou pour la precaution de I'interest des parties, ledict 
 maistre general ou son lieutenant, en sur ce I'advis de nostre bailly, senes- 
 chal ou son lieutenant, ou autre nostre plus prochain juge du territoire ou 
 autre chose dontpourroit estre question a la cause dessusdicte, en appoinc- 
 teront comme en pourroit faire en cour souveraine, sans ce que de ce Ten 
 puisse appeler ou reclamer en aucune maniere. 
 
 (12) Item. Et ajin que lesdictes ordonnances puissent estre mieux 
 entretenues et gardees, et que a toutes les choses qui sont et seront necessai- 
 res pour trouver lesdictes Alines, iceiles faire ouvrir, procurer les ouvraiges, 
 commencer les ouvertes, entretenir les eaux et autres empeschements qui y 
 peuvont survenir, faire vuider et oster, entretenir aussi et garder les privi- 
 leiges des maistres, officiers et ouvriers qui y vacqueront et appaiser, 
 Recorder, appointer par la voye judiciaire amiable, se faire se pent, tous lea 
 debate et questions qui pourront estre et survenir entre les parties, soubs 
 quelque couleur ou occasion que ce soit, nous voulons et nou^plaist, et par 
 ces presentes l'avons ainsy ordonn£ qv!il y ait un maistre general qui soit 
 gouverneur, visiteur et maistre ordinaire detdictes Mines et leurs deppendaU' 
 
 ces, ET LEQUEL Oar ceA me-imes nrAsep.tj>» NOUS ■'^tanvg rplSnuja KST^. 
 
 13 ' "' 
 
Ivl 
 
 98 — 
 
 r 
 
 OwNKiisniP BtTSsoNs ET co^HTttvo'ss maistrCy visiteur et gonvrrnriir etjugc de toiites les 
 OP MiNKH. (juestionH et ihhah qui sc pourraient mouvoir cntrc qucUronqucn j)C7'itonnt(C8 d 
 Aulhoritiet. cause desdirfes MincH, soit en mntierc civile ou criminello mn rcquerant 
 Loi"i3 XL. punition corporcllc jusqu'i la mortiiiclusivcmont, sansco qu'autre qu'iceluy, 
 sinon est de sa fauto et par sa demeurc, depuis que Ic cas serait venu a sa 
 connoissnnce, en puirse avoir ou pr6tendre cour ou connoissance, soit au 
 cas de batturcs, vilaincs injures, ou autre debat cntre icelles parties, ou en 
 matifire civile pour le debat qui pourioit cstro entre lesdictes parties a cau!;e 
 du territoire ou du bail et prix dcsdictcs Mines, ou de nostre droict ou de 
 celuy que les parties pourraient prctendre, soit d came de Uouvrmge ou du 
 territoire ou du seigneur fonder, ouvricrs on autrement, en quelque inanidre 
 que ce soit, hw^ que dHceluy ma\nire general et pouverneur ou son lieute- 
 nant juwmc estre appele ne reclame en aucunc nianiere, et que se appel^ kn 
 ESTAiT, voulons et dettendons qu'aucun ajournement en cas d'ajipel en soit 
 bailie, et s'il estoit ainsy qu'on le buillast, voulons quHl ne sortisseson effect 
 et quHl rCy soit obey ne obtempere en aucune raani^re et sans amende, 
 EXCEPT^^ toutefois des causes et matieres qui poiirroient toucher la propriete 
 des seigneurs fanciers, a^aucun debat s'esmouvoit entre cux d cause des 
 treffonds, et les diets cas et crimes requerans punition corporelle jusqu'a la 
 mort inclusivcment, dont voulons que la connoissance demeure d nos hailUfs, 
 seneschaux et auxjuges ordinaires, ainsy qu'il estoit auparavant, pourveu 
 toutesfois que, se question ou debat s'esmouvoit entre Icsdicts seigneurs 
 pour les causes que^dessus, I'ouvraige n'en soit point retarde nt discontinue ; 
 auquel cas, pour y fairo oiivrer duement, vsans le prejudice du droict des 
 parties et dos procos, nous donnons pouvoir audict maistre general visiteur 
 et gouverncur desdictes Mines, ou son lieutenant commis on a cotnmectre, 
 appelle Icdict juge ordinaire, d'y faire ouvrer et bosongner ainsy qu'ils 
 vcrront estre k faire au bien de nous et de la cbose publicque de nostre 
 royaume et pays que dessus, et no^obstant lesdicts proces qui pourroient 
 estre entre lesdictes parties a cause desdicts trelfbnds et quelzconques 
 oppositions ou appellations faites ou a faire au contraire, auxqueiles en cc 
 cas no voulons aucunenient estre obey ne obtempere comme dessus. 
 
 Si donnons en mandemcnt par ces mesmes prcsentcs, a nos amez et 
 feaulx conseillers les gens de nos cours doparlement de Paris, Toulouse, 
 Poictiers, Grenoble, et Pcrpignan, auxgouverneursduLanguedoc, Dauphino 
 et Rossillon, les gens de nos comptcs et tresoriers et generaux Conseillers 
 par nous ordonnes sur le faict et gouvernement de toutes nos finances tant 
 en Languedoc comme en Languedoil, aux prevost de Paris, baillifis de 
 Vermandois, d' Amiens, de Senlis, de Rouen, Caen, Evieux, Gesoris, Cons- 
 tantin, de Lyon et des raontagnes d'Auvergne, Seneschaux de Poictou et 
 de Limosin, de Toulouse, Carcassonne et Beaucaire, et a tons nos autres 
 justiciers et officiers ou a leurs lieutenans, presens et advenir, et a chascun 
 d'eux si comme k luy appartiendra, que nos presens statuts, ordonnances et 
 declaration et toutlc contenu es articles cy.dessus incorpores ils enterinent, 
 veriffient, et enregistrent, et facent enteriner, observer et garder C ••loinct en 
 poinct sans enfraindrc, en les faisant publier par les maistres da leurs jurisdic- 
 tions es lieux oi>. on a accoustume de faire cry et publication et ailleurs ou il 
 appartiendra, affin que aucun n'en puisse pretendre cause d'ignorance, et k 
 ce faire et souffrir contraignent et facent contraindre reaunient et de faict 
 tous ceux qu'i) appartiendra par toutes voyes et manieres denes et requises 
 en tel cas, nonobstant oppositions ou appellations quelzconques. Et pour ce 
 qui3 de ces presentes on pourra avoir k fairs en plusieurs lieux, nous voulons 
 que au vidimus d'icolles, faict soubz seel royal, foy scit adjoustoe comme a 
 ce present original. Et aifin que ce soit chose lerme et estublu k tousiours, 
 
 ^ 
 
 4 
 
 I, 
 
— 99 — 
 
 * 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 
 nous nvons faict mectro nostrc sccl k ces presentos, saup en actres cnosEs 
 
 NOSTKK DllOIT ET i/aUT11U\' KN TOUTKS. Doune ClUX MuNTILZ-LiS-ToCHS, (III 
 
 moia da Srpfemlic, Van de <jrdce mil quatrc cent ftoixunte-onge, et dc nostre 
 regne le oiizienmc. Sic sk.natum: Par le Hoy en son Cornell^ Fi-ameno. 
 
 Et est sciuptum : Lecla, publicata et ^njiMrata, sub rescrvalionihis et 
 iriodijicationibm m rottilo hie sub contra-siffillo regio alligato contentis. 
 Actum in Parlamento, vigmmd ncptimA di6 Jnlii, anno Domini milleaimo 
 quadringentesimo neptHagemno-quinto. 
 
 Pkiml's akticulus. — Touchiint I'exemption do tous subsulcs ; pourvcu 
 quo ce Roit sans I'mude ct quo soient gens qui no se ineslcnt d'autrcs mes- 
 tiers ou marchandisc, duratit lo tonips qu'ils vacqueront au faict desdictts 
 Mines. 
 
 ToucnANT LE DEUxiESME, quG los cstratigicrs puissent testei et lours 
 horiiiers succ^dci- sans prendre autres lectres fors cestes et la ccrtiffication 
 du inr.istre, a ce appelle le procureur du Roy ; pourvcu qu'ils nyent continue 
 lesdictos Mines un an du moins. 
 
 Teutjus. Qu'ils puissent partout dcmourcr, nonobstant los guerres ; 
 pourveu quo ce soit en robeissunce du Roy en faisant sernient qu'ils no 
 procureront choso prejudiciable au Roy ne au royaume et pays, et s'en 
 pourront retourner en ayant conge du Roy. 
 
 QuAitTus. Que ceux qui auront connoissance dea Minea le viendront 
 denoncer dann quarante joiira au maistre general, sur peine de perdre le 
 proutiit pour dix ans, ou a sescommisou au plus prochain juge ou greffier 
 royal, ct dedans quutro uiois apres que les proprii^taires en auront est6 
 deucracnt advertis, et sans autre peine que d'estoe pkiv^s du prouffit 
 DE liA DiCTE Mine pour dix ans. 
 
 Quintus. Pouuveu que le temps de trois moia octrcye aux treffoncibrs 
 pour bcsongner tiwufWciiiP, l\\n(ii!, aera proroge c tr ^ 7nois, qvels gens 
 
 QUI-; CE soient, PAUVRES OU RICHES, dr ■ tiiv.et lo pourront 
 
 denoncer au plus prochain Juge ou greffti rot ' *re general ou sea 
 
 commis n'estvientsur lea lieux. 
 
 Skxtus. iSc le pi'oprietaire n^est puisaani 
 Vauroit 7'evele, que le general maistre oh aUi 
 heaongner^ sauf i.'indempnite qui sera taxee par . 
 ordinaire, appolld I'un descommis du maistre general o 
 absentia le procureur du Roy, touchant colui qui aura revvjle dedans les 
 quiitro niois a tempore notitice, et p areillement touchant celui qui ne Vaxira 
 2)aH rcnele, poitr kn jouir aprJis ces dix ans pass£s„ et sans que en ladicte 
 2Jeine soient co7nprins prisomiicrs, mineurs dkms, gens occvpeapour la chose 
 IJublicque ou autres necessitea. 
 
 Srptjmus. Que dominua feodalis subrogdbitur loco vassali ; pourveu 
 quHl soit haut justicier du lieu et qiCil ayt atttant de temps que le pro- 
 prietaire, apres que le temjis du proprietaire sera passe ou qu'il aura declare 
 non y vouloir ou jjouvoir besongner. 
 
 OcTAvus. Que cellos qui seront en la terre du Roi, tradantur ultimo 
 inciritori sauf les baux jji foits k hdritaiges et a tousiours, et auss^' a 
 teiiijis jusqu'a ce que lour terme soit exjare. 
 
 NoNus. Que lo prouiTit du dixiesme appartiendra au maistre jusqu'4 
 douzo ans pour en departir aux seigneurs foncicrs et ailleurs ; pourveu que 
 ce soit sans prejudice de ceux qni ont droit cs mines par cy-devant ouvertes, 
 ou ucs dons faicts par avant par le Roy ou ses successeurs et autres, 
 
 Decimus. De ourrir Unites Mines partont snns conge des proprietaires ; 
 pourveu que ce nk SOIT en tekres labourables, vignes, prez, jardins, 
 
 BOIS, PASTURAOSS, TERRE3 POETANT FRUITS INDUSTUIAUi Ct SUnS le COnSCnte- 
 
 OWNRRFHIP 
 OP MiNBfl. 
 An/horiliet, 
 LuuiB XI. 
 
 Modifications 
 by larliamtnt 
 of Paru. 
 
 eaongner on ne 
 
 puiaaent /aire 
 
 OU par le jugo 
 
 it present, et in 
 
100 — 
 
 'IP*- 
 
 OltNIRSHIP 
 
 or MiMia. 
 Authorities. 
 LO018 XI. 
 
 Modifications 
 by Parliamert 
 of Parit. 
 
 Inference a 
 from Ordi- 
 nance of 
 LoDia XI. 
 
 Sjnopiis of 
 proTisioDS of 
 that Ordi- 
 
 ment du proprietaire, on par Vordonnance diijuge ordinaire, PARTIBU "^ 
 
 AUDITIS, M\IS EN LIEUX DKSEllTS, NON HANT^S, EN FKISCHKS ET STEKILES, 
 
 Oil ri'y a labour, /di its venants 2)ar labour et Industrie: (a cherche etouve?'- 
 ture He fern pur VorJoniiance du numtre general, a ce appei,l£s leprocureur 
 du Hoy ET LE PKoritiETAiRE, j)ar lequel maidre et procurenr du Hoy sera 
 dispute dehhuDEavynd du pkopkiet/ike. 
 
 Undecimus. Pourveu que aucun prix ne Boient mis aux vivres ; et n« 
 tera bailie passage par terres laboiirahies, viyncs, prez, jardins, bois, maiuona 
 ou her itaiges portaiit fruit par indu8trie,sans le consentcuieni da proprie- 
 taire ou par Fordonnvnce aujuge ordinaire, le pkopkietaire appell^ et 
 OVY, et quand par autre lien non dommaigeable ne pourrait estre trouve 
 passaige. 
 
 DuoDECiMus. Lo maistre general n'aura que la cognoissanco dcs causes 
 civiies et personncUes sur les offiders, ouvriers et manueuvriers dcsdictes 
 Mines, quand ils auront k fairo I'un centre Tautre pour le faict desdictes 
 Mines ou conr,rats faicts entro eux et nonobstant appell-'lions, et pareille- 
 raent des criminelies, fors des cas pour lesquels escherroit niort et pordition 
 00 abscision de merabre, et en gardant au surplus les ordonnances royaux 
 touchant le faict desdictes Mines. 
 
 Actum in Parlamento, mgesirri septimd die JuUi, Anno Domini mille- 
 simo quadringentesirr,} septuagesi,,.^ quinto. Sic signatum. BRUNAT. 
 
 Lecta pariter, publicata et registrata, in Cur id Parlamenti Tholoze, 
 sub eisdem reservationibus et modiJicatiorJbus, ae etiam absqzie jurivm et 
 possessionum Comiium Fuxi et Convenarum neo nor,, vice comitum C'^zouxyi 
 et Cabamagni et dominide Mirapisce, aliorumque si quifuerint in materid 
 habentes seu pretliendere valentes interessc, prejudicio. Actum Tholoze, in 
 Parlamento, vigesimd sextd die Februarii, anno Domini millesimo quadrin' 
 gcntesimo quinto. G. DE LA MARCHE. 
 
 nance. 
 
 Sec, 87. From that Ordinance of Louis XI, 
 
 ■we 
 
 gather. 
 
 Firstly. That the Ordinance applies to iJie whole 
 Kingdom ; because the Sovereign says so distinctly. 
 
 Secondly. That its provisions apply to goLD, silver, 
 and all other metals. That is evident from those words used 
 by the Sovereign : " en nos royaume, Davp/mie, etc., eic^ 
 ^^ y a plusie^irs Mines d'or et d'ai?gent, de cuivre * * *, 
 " lesquelles sont et demourent en chommage, etc., etc., " 
 " and still again from the words : " eten ce faisant Vor etVar- 
 " gent en seroit et se recouvroroit evidemment en plus grande 
 " quantite, etc., etc.," and still further from the words : " et 
 " s'espandroit Vor et V argent par les bourses." 
 
 Sec. 00< After recl+ing the advantages to be deri- 
 ved from the working of theMidCS, the Ordinance proceeds, in 
 twelve separate articles, to lay down a complete mining code. 
 
 Art : 1 grants to miners, aliens and others, exemption 
 from the usual taxes of the Kingdom. 
 
 \ 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 4. 
 
 t 
 
 i- 
 
 i. 
 
 • • 
 
"'Ip*- 
 
 11 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 4. 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
 i- 
 
 i. 
 
 * • 
 
 . .<.H8BIP 
 
 Or (rilNRf;. 
 Authorittu, 
 
 --> 101 — 
 
 Art : 2 grants to alien-niinerF tlio right of acquirin*: 
 and transmirtinn^ property, and other civil rights. 
 
 Art : 3 grants protection and rights of neutrality .o lo"d?b xi!* 
 alien miners^ in case of war with their native country. 
 
 Art : 4, 5, 6 & 7 establisli, in tlio clearest manner, the synopiis of 
 right of the Plaintifis to all the Mines, without distinction, proviaiojn of 
 on their lands. tbat Ordi- 
 
 Art : 4 enjoins o7i all per>ionff, who have Tcnauoledge of °*°^® 
 the existence of Mines on the%r lands^ to Disclose the situation 
 and nature of such Mines, within 40 days, under penalty of 
 losing the profits of the Mines during ten years. To say 
 that that Ordinance does not recognize the owner of the 
 soil as the owLor of the Mines, is to say that a man may lose 
 that whic]» does not belong to him. How can a man be said 
 to lose the profits, dnriug ten years, of a Mine that does not 
 belong to hi?n ? Again, when the Ordinance says that the 
 reticent owner of the soil shall lose the profits ol the Mine 
 during ten years, doea it not also decree that, after the lapse 
 of ten years, the mine shall revert to the even reticent /^wner 
 of the soil? 
 
 Art : 5 is even more explicit. It states thai., if the 
 owD8r of the soil, who has disclosed the Mines, is wilHng to 
 work it, ho shall have three months to make his preparations 
 for that purpose. 
 
 Art : 6 , by implication, a^, Jn decides that the disobe- 
 dient owner of the soil, who is unable or unwilling to work it, 
 shall nevertheless be indemnified, and shall become reseized 
 of the Mine after such time as the Master-General of Mines 
 shall determine, after hearing all interested parties. 
 
 But Art : 7 clearly and distinctly defines the position 
 of the owner of the soil as one of right to the ownership of 
 the Mine, in these remarkable words : ^^ M si ainsy estoit 
 " que * * * * ceux a qui sont les diets (erritoires n'y vondront 
 " ou auront puissance d'y hesongner, * '^ * ei quHl y aura 
 " aucun Seigneur feodal ou Souverain a qui sera le dit terri- 
 " toiro qui vlenne prendre la charge de conduire le dit 
 " ouvrage, * * * en iceluy cas, nous voulons, consentons 
 " et accordons auxdicts Seigneurs, que, trois mois apree les 
 *' diets quarante jours, ih ss puisseni, presenter, ou faire 
 " presenter dcvant le diet Maistre general ou son Lieutenant, 
 " jwur requerir d'estre subrog^s en la place ET AU DROIT 
 " touchant les dictes Mynes de son vassal et subject." In 
 those words the sovereign treats the claim of the owner of 
 the soii, who is willing to work the Mine as a right {droit) ; 
 
 (( 
 
 
OWNBBBHIP 
 OF MiNBP. 
 
 Auihoritiea. 
 Locis XI. 
 
 Synopsis of 
 provleions of 
 that Ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 Synopsis of 
 modifications 
 by Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 — 102 — 
 
 moreover what is this suhrogation spoken 9^ ^[^^J^^ .^JPf^' 
 Does not the word " subrogation '' necessanly imply a p e ous 
 67- .tence of certain rights transferred from one to ano^^^^^^ 
 It is clear, it seems to the Plamtiifs t,^^^\, Jf^ ^^^^^^^ 
 owners of the gold and silver and of all other metals on 
 
 ^^''wrtfregard to the subrogation referred to by the King 
 the Parliament of Paris made certain ^^^^ih cations approved 
 of by the King, as to how such a subrogation should be 
 dem'^nded and "obtained ; those modihcations shall be pre- 
 
 ""\^?:f 'treats of the disposal of Mines in the King's 
 
 ^^'Tk 'rrtstows his Eovalty of one-tenth for the space 
 of 12 years on the Maistre-General des Mines, m lieu ot 
 
 '"^''art: 10 empowers his officers to «?^^-^\ ^^^ /^^^^^^^^ 
 for Mines; but that article was so modified bv the i ai la 
 ment as to preclude the possibility of the owner of tig .oi 
 being deprived of any Mine discovered by he King s 
 oSs, without a fair indemnity not for the soil, but lor the 
 
 ^'"^ Art : 11 enjoins on all persons to give every facility 
 
 '''^IniTKi: 12 creates a tribunal for the disposal ot 
 mining law-suits. 
 
 Sec. 89. The modifications introduced into that 
 
 Law bv Parliament, in so far as tV^ey affect this case, are _ 
 
 1 o Proprietors (pauvres et riches) are bound within 4 
 months after notice to them, d tempore notUiw, to declare 
 whether they intend working the Mine. 
 
 2 All persons knowing the existence of M ne., aie 
 bound within 40 days, d tempore scieniice, to disclose the 
 existence toec^^^^ to work a Mine, in subrogation to the 
 owner of the soil" shall be^ar Vordonnancedujuge ordinaire, 
 
 PATfTIBUS AUDITIS. , . . i.i „ 
 
 4 « Six months instead of three months, arc given to the 
 owner of the soil to make his ^reparations. 
 
 Ordinance 
 clearly as- 
 81(1^3 all me- 
 tals to owner 
 of soil, 
 
 QO Tn tho i^rcsence of this clear, uninista- 
 
 keable declaration of the King as to the respective rights ot 
 
 
 in. 
 
 i 
 
103 — 
 
 the Sovereign and the subject as to Mines, even of gold and OwNr.RgHiP 
 silver, how cmi it be pretended, for a moment, that gold is not «" *^"'=«- 
 mcluded m the scope of the Ordinance, or that the Kin (^ wis ^"'^'"i^i«- 
 proprietor of such Mines in France ? ^ ^^ ^'^"^ ^'• 
 
 Sec. 9L 
 
 -That Ordinance is further remarkable Andreserrea 
 
 w'/hTP'l ^*P'^' ^^ r^^^^' '''^^'^' ^y the use of those fiiC 
 words : " sanf en autres choses uostre droif, et Vautruv en 
 toutes; that reservation as to v)rivate rights is in keepina 
 with the reservation, whicli at P. 54 of this Factum we 
 have already shewn by authority to be implied as existing 
 in and forming part of, all Letters-Patent. A like reservation 
 of private riglits is found in the preceding Ordinance of 
 Charles Ml, and in the succeeding Ordinance of Heney IV. 
 
 Sec. 92, That Ordinance of Louis XI was confir- And was con- 
 
 medby Charles VIII, in Febiuary 1483, and bv Tnm^ Ytt fi™«dby 
 
 low XVIl" n '^r; ^^ ^'^^^^-^^^^^'^^^ andTo^"^ 
 
 Ilread;S. Ordonnances des Hois de France] ^^^^ 
 
 ^ Sec. 93. The position assumed by the Plaintiffs Hbnrt IV. 
 
 18, if possible, still further strenghthened by the next, and last 
 great Ordinance on the subject, that of Henry IV, of Jnne 
 1601. It 13 the very Ordinance recited by the de Leby- 
 y «^.n^ and is tound, with a confirmatory Arret du ConseiL 
 at P. 148 of Mines et Min^res. It runs thus : 
 
 EDICT DE RtoMENT G£n.'bal faict par le Roy stir lefaiet des Mijisa 
 et M„ueres de son Royaurne. Et creation d'un Grand Maisie Super^trn- 
 dantct General Reformateur.ou Lieutenant, un Controolleur et unTeceveu; 
 
 uor'^oi^e^sriSuf '^^^^''' ^"^ ''''-'' ^^^^«-«' p-"^s- ^tsr; 
 
 .iiZS^7^Z^^::i^^^'^'^' ^«-P*-'^^ dernier Juillet 
 EENRY, par la Ordce de Dleu, Roy de France et de Navarre • 
 A tous prescns et advenir, Salut. Nous avons fait vcoir en nostre Conseil 
 Ics Declarations des Roys nos predocesseurs, mesmes cellerdrFrancot 
 Pretmer, Henry deuxieme, Frangois deuxi^me et Charles ncufLme nos 
 tres^honorez Se,pcurs beau p6res, freres et autres, veriflees en nX Cou? 
 de Parlement Chambre des Comptes et Cour des Aydes a Paris etailleurs 
 mi besom a este sur e faict des Mines et Minieres de ce Royaume St 
 Terres de nostre obeissance : par !e.«n,iell«c nn.,ii^t„ ^ Jjj; _ .®' '^o '^ **' 
 meuzd« lamosme attection ^^no^-.o.;^:^^^'^^:^^^ 
 
^ 104 — 
 
 OwKBBSBiP subjects que Dieu a tellement bony nos Royaumcs, Pais et Torres de nostre 
 OP MiNBS obeissance, que toutes choses s'y pcuvcnt recouvrcr cu tres grandc abon- 
 
 Authontiea. dance, ils auraient, pour induire leurs subjects a fiiire recherche, et travailler 
 Bbnbt IV. auxdictes Mines, et pour y appellor les Estrangers, et leur faire quitter les 
 Mines etMinidres de nos voisins, beaucoup moindres que les nostres, fait et 
 attribue plusieurs beaux et grands privileges, auctoritcz, franchises et 
 libertez, tant 4 I'estat de Grand-Maistre Supcrintendant et General Refor- 
 raateur dcsdictes Mines et Mini^res, qu'a ses Lieulenans, Commis et Deputez, 
 et ouvriers regnicoles et estrangers, avec pouvoir de Justice audit Grand 
 Maistre, comme plus au long le contionnent lesdictes Ordonnances, Declara- 
 tions et Reglemens ; et comme I'ixperienc:', seul Juge assure des bons 
 establissemens, elle a fait cognoistre beaucoup de delfauts auxdictes ordon- 
 nances. en ce que par icelles, au lieu de gaiges ordinaires qui devoient etre 
 attribuez au diet Office de Grand-Maistre, nosdicts predecesscurs auroient faict 
 aux pourveus du diet office, don de leur droict pour certain temps, le jugement 
 duquel appartenant aux officiers establis par lesdicts Grands-Maistres, il s'y 
 commettroit de tres-grands abus. En ce que lesdicts Officiers dependans 
 entierement de lui, lui adjugerent plutost ce qu'il desiroit que ce qui lui 
 appartenoit, dont se seroient ensuivies plusieurs plaintes en nos cours de 
 Pnxlement. A quoi desirant pourvoir, et a ce que nostredict droict a nous 
 appartenant a cause de nostre Souverainet.e inseparable d'icelle, ainsi que le 
 contiennent lesdicts Edicts et Ordonnances, Reglemens et Declarations, et 
 qu'il a este juge plusieurs fois, specialement par la Declaration de feu Roi 
 Francois second, notre tr^s-honore sieur et frere, du 29 Juillet 1560, con- 
 firmee par autres Lectres du feu Roi Charles neufiesme, aussi notre tres- 
 honor6 sleur et frere, du 25 Juillet 1501, verifiees en nostre Cour de 
 Parlement le 9 Mai 1562, par laquelle est enjoint k nostre Procureur General 
 et ses substitus, de faire poursuitesde nosdicts droicts, sans dissimulation, et 
 desirans a I'avenir faire inviolablement garder lesdicts Edicts, Ordonnances, 
 . > Reglemens et Declarations, pourvoir ii la conservation de nosdicts droicts, et 
 
 obvier 4 1' usurpation d'iceux. 
 
 I. Nous avons confirme et approuve, et par ces prdsentes confirmons 
 et approuvons lesdicts Edicts et Declarations de poinct en poinct selon leur 
 forme et teneur : pour saivans iceux nosiredicb droict estre passe Jranc et 
 quitte, pur et a fine en TOUTES lesdictes Mines. 
 
 II. Sans toutqfois comprendre en icelle les Mines de Souffre, SalpeMre, 
 de Fer, Ocre, Fetroil, de Charbon de terre, d''Ardoise, Piastre^ Croye et 
 autres sortes de pierres pour iastiments et meuUes de moi^Zins, lesqcelles 
 pour certaines bonnes et grandes considerations, Nous en avons exceptees, et 
 par grace speciale exceptons en faveur de nostro noblesse, et pour gratijier 
 nos bons subjects proprietaires des Ueux, 
 
 III. Voulous aussi que celui qui sera par nous pourveu du dit office 
 de Grand Maistre, Supcrintendant et General Reformateur ; et tons les 
 autres officiers etpersonnes employees auxdictes Mines, et autres qu'il appar- 
 tiendra, jouissent des privileges, auctoritez, jurisdictions, preeminences, 
 franchises, libertez et droicts y attribuez par nos predecesscurs, conmio side 
 mot a autre les diets privileges, preeminences, auctoritez, jurisdictions, 
 franchises, libertez et droicts estaient ci-inserez ; aux rcstrinctions toutefois 
 que ceux de nos subjects costisables a nos tailles, qui travailloront et com- 
 manderont auxdictes Mines, nepourront pretcndro autres exemptions que des 
 charges desquelles nous les avons descharge et deschargeons. A scavoir de 
 Tutelles, Curatelles de Mineurs, CoUecteurs de nos tallies, commis A, les 
 asseoir, ou d'estre establis Commissaires etDepositaires des biens do justice, 
 et de toutes autres coinmissions- dont nosdict-s subjects denieuraDS tant en 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
— 105 — 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 nor, VilleR,Bourgs quo Villages, sont ordinairement choisis et cslcus pourvcu Ownkrbbip 
 ncanmoins quo ce-.,x qui pretendront telles exemptions, aycnt c u?ant si" of Minrb 
 mo.s serv; ou truva.llo aux choses dessusdictes auparavant four ellection, et AuthoriL 
 quilscontmuont: .nntrcnient et si par fraudc ils avak'nt travaille durant Hcnby iV. 
 Icdict ton.ps, et apres avoir cschappe ladicte ellection, ils discontinuoient leur 
 tnivaii, en ce cas ils seront tonus en tous les depens, dominaiges et interests 
 do celui qui aura cste csleu en leur lieu, ^'^'^-^'is 
 
 TV. Et on tant que besoin seroit, et d'abcndant, de I'advis de nostro 
 Conscil, auqucl ostoicnt plusieurs Princes de nostre sang, et princinaux 
 o , nors dc nostre Conronne, estans pres de nous. Oui le rapport fait en 
 icelui nostrediot Consoil par ceux que nous aurions ci-devant envoyez pour 
 fiurc faire recherche dosdictcs Mines; et des moyens de lesmectre en valeur. 
 Par cestui nostre Ldict perpetuel et irrevocable, nous avons faict dc nouveau 
 creeet enge, croons ct erigeons en titre d'offlce, forme ledict estat de Grand 
 Ma.strr Superintondant et General Reformateur desdictes Mines etMinites 
 
 l^r^H M '^'y'T'i' ^""^1 '^ ^'"'' ^' nostre obeissance auquel Nous 
 avons attribue et attnbuonstreizecens trente-trois escus, vingtsols de caices 
 ord.naires par chacun an, A prendre sur le fondsprovena\it di, droict TNous 
 nppavtcnant sur lesdictcs Mines : Ensemble un Lieutenant General par tout 
 nostnMct Poyaumc, avec la qualite de nostre Conseillor, ct un Controolleur 
 general aussi en titre forme, pour tenir Rcgistre et Controolle de^d' -tes 
 Wv' \'"'\ ^}>""^'^'' et qualite, et de nosdicts droicts, et pareillen.cnt\m 
 Ilece^eur General pourfairclarccettegeneraledesdicts deniers, lequel Nous 
 avons estabh a Parrs ct un Greffler, pour estre tant avcc edict Grand 
 
 ^'^^2ZlZr"'''^r^^^^ ^'' scscommis pour Ics 
 
 Expod t nns, .Sontencos, Jugemens et autres qui se feront en ladicte cliarge. 
 Auquel Lieutenant General nous avons donne et donnons parcils et sembla- 
 bles nouvo.rs ct auctorite sur lesdictes Mines et Minidtcs, et ce qui en 
 depend, qu audict (irand Maistre en I'absence d'icelui, ct aux choses prJs.ce " 
 ctq.nnepourroPtattcndrcsa presence ou ses ordonnances, sur les advis 
 qui lui auront este donncz des occurrences de sa charge 
 
 y. Voulons et Nous plaist que lesdicts Grands-Maistres ct Lioutcnrnt 
 General en son absence, commc diet est, puissentcommectre personnes capa- 
 bles ct suflisans en qualite de Lieutenans particulier.s, par tous les lienx et 
 endroicts que besom sera pour en leur absence ordontler, rcglcr, restablir ct 
 reformer tout ce que sera besoin et necessaire pour le faici desdictes Mines et 
 Min.ercs ct c.msen'ation de nos droicts, comme il est diet ci-dessus, bailler 
 adyis aud.ct Grand-Mais re et Lieutenant General des nouvelles ou erJires 
 qu on voudra faire d icolles leur en envoyer les qualites, essais et eschantil- 
 lons, pour estre par ledict Grand-Maistre ou son Lieutenant Gen1i-al en so„ 
 absence, ordonne de qui sera cogneu plus utile pour nostre service sur I'ou- 
 
 Zl'?t ^^^"1 ^^'"''l '^?T't' '"' '« ^^'''«"* ^'^ ^^rt« des Commissions du 
 diet Grand-Maistre ou dudict Lieutenant General en son absence. 
 
 \ . Et aim que Nous puissions faire estat certain k I'advenir du profit 
 et emolument qu. pourra revenir dc nosdicts droicts, nous voulons e ordon- 
 ? iont?Zf r'' .^7'^'?^-^^'«t'-« S';Porinteudant, et'en son absence Set . 
 Lieutenant General a mesure qu'ils vacqueront k faire leurs chevauchees -^t 
 visitations, rdformations ct establissement, chacun separcmentesdlctes Mines 
 par les Provmccs de nostre Royaumc, dressentles Proces-Verbaux desd ctes 
 visitations. Et de la recettede nosdroicts, desquels, ensemble du Controolle 
 il en sera par eux enyoyo un en nostre Conseil d'Estat, et un autre rends S 
 E"er. ''"' '"'''' P""' ^'"'■^ '" '"'''^^ '' r couvreme t deTd cS 
 
 VII. 
 
 Et pour obvicra ce O'l'il n'advienne confusion, par le moyen des 
 
106 
 
 O^miRSHiP diverses commissions que ledict Grand-Maistre General Supcrintondant, et 
 OF M1NB8. ledict Lieutenant General pourroit bailler ci-apres sur le faict desdictcs 
 Authorities. Mines ; Nous voulons et ordonnons que ceux qui seront commis par ledict 
 Hbnbt IV. Lieutenant General ne piiissent jouir de leurs commissions, et en vertu 
 d'icelles faire aucun exercice sur lesdictes Mines, qu'au prealable ils n'ayent 
 sur leurs lectres de commission, prins attache dudict Grand-Maistre ; lesquels 
 Commis porteront la quality de Lieutenant particulier dudict Grand-Maistre, 
 et jouiront pendant le temps qu'ils exerceront lesdictes charges et commis- 
 sions des privileges et exemptions attribuees par cesdictes presentes aux 
 ofBciers desdictes Mines : A tous lesquels estats et offices, Nous avons attri- 
 bue et attribuons la qualit6 de nos Conseillers. Et outre ce des gages par 
 chacun an 4 prendre sur le fonds de nostre droict, comme diet est. 
 
 VIIL A s^avoir audict Estat de Lieutenant General mille escus : au 
 dit Controolleur General tant pourlui que pour ses Commis, mille escus ; et 
 dudict Receveur General, tant pour lui, ses Commis, que pour le part et 
 voiture des deniers en ses mains 4 Paris, pareillc somme de mille escus, 
 avec 4 den. pour liv. de la recette actuelle, h I'instar des Receveurs Gene- 
 raux des Bois, 133 escus, un tiers audict Greffier, et a chacun de ceux qui 
 seront commis esdictes generalites de Lieutenans particuliers esdictes Provin- 
 ces, un esou et demi par chacun jour qu'ils vacqueront a faire leurs 
 visitations, reformations et establissement sur lesdictes Mines et Minieres. 
 
 IX. A tous lesquels offices ainsi par nous creez sera par Nous pourveu 
 des k pr6sent, et ci-apres quand vacc&tion y escherra : lesquels prestcront 
 le serment, k sgavoir, ledict Grand-Maistre General Superintendant et Lieu- 
 tenant General, es mains de nostre tr^s cher et foal Chancelier, et pardcvant 
 nos am^z et feaux Conseillers les gens tenans nostre Cour do Parlcment do 
 Paris. Lesdicts Controolleur et Receveur Gen6ral pardevant les gens de nos 
 comptes. et ledict Greffier ds mains dudict Grand-Maistre General Superm- 
 tendant ou dudict Lieutenant G6n4ral en son absence : et sera ledict Rece- 
 veur General tenu en outre de bailler caution pardevant nos amez et feaux 
 Conseillers et Tresoriers de France de la sommo de 
 
 X. Et pour donner plus de moyen auxdicts Grand-Maistre et Lieute- 
 nant General de bien et diligemment vacquer au faict do leurs charges, leur 
 avons ordonno et attribue, ordonnons et attribuons, outre et pardessus 
 lesdicts gaiges ordinaires, h sgavoir, audict Grand-Maistre six ecus deux tiers, 
 et audict Lieutenant General quatre escus par jour qu'ils vacqueront k 
 leursdictes chevauchees par les Provinces de nostre Poyaume, dont ils rap- 
 porteront bons et valables Procds-verbaux de tout cc qui aura par eux este 
 faict sur lesdictes Mines ; et au Greffier uu escu un tiers, aussi de taxations 
 expresses. 
 
 XL Tous lesquels gaiges et taxations, et ce qui sera ordonn6 par 
 ledict Grand-Maistre ou ledict Lieutenant General desdictes Mines, soit aux 
 Huissiers ou Sergens pour les saisies, contrainctes et autres frais necessaires 
 pour le faict desdictes Mines,|conservation de nos droicts : ensemble les taxa- 
 tions desdicts commis, Lieutenans particuliers. Nous voulons et ordonnons 
 estre payez des deniers qui proviendront du droict desdictes Mines par ledict 
 Receveur G6neral et ses Commis, en vertu des Ordonances et simples 
 quittances dudict Grand-Maistre et du diet Lieutenant General et des parties 
 prenantes, en veitu desdictes Ordonnances. Lesquelles Nous avons validez 
 et auctorisez, vullidons et auctorisons ; sans qu'il soit besoin cy d'autres 
 vallidations sur icellcs que cesdictes presentes, rapportant lesquelles, ou 
 vidimus d'icelles par nostredict Receveur General pour uno fois : avec lesdicts 
 Proc^R-verbaux dudict Grand-Maistre du Lieutenant General et desdicts 
 Lieui^enans particuliers et Commis avec lesdictes Ordoauaaccs et quittances 
 
 ^ 
 
I 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 — 107 — 
 
 vonr r 1"^^''?^^^' ^^"^^ ^^"1°"^ *°"* ^'^ que payez aura est6 par ledict Recc- Owrbbship 
 JZ«f„! r ul^"^^^ Commis, estre passez et allouez en la despense de ses of MiiiBi. 
 comptes, et rabattu de la requeste d'iceux, par tout ou il appartiendra. Authoritiet, 
 
 ,, '^"Sf "t, revoquant et annullant, commenouscassons, revoquons Hbmry IV. 
 dnJ?;Tnffl*^ ^"*^! provisions, commissions et dons cy-devant faicts 
 nnlnl!. '""^ '''I'^^I.''^ "1"^ •'^"^ <?"« Nous en ferons pourvoir en conse- 
 quence du present Edict, ettous donsde nostredict droict, tant imp^trez qu'4 
 SaH' P"'' q"°'q"es personnes et pourquelquo cause et occasion que co 
 «vnir.eS?f •/'''"' ^^J ''^^\ ^ '*=^"^' ^* ^"^ Verifications qui en pourroient 
 Vuhtt- f '"' ^''^^}'^ prejudice que lesdicts dons ont jusques ici apporte 
 
 rendro A ^J^T'""^'^^ ^k- ^'^^^''ture et travail desdictes Mines devoit 
 renare a JNous et a nos subjects. 
 
 ip oo?wf N'®"}^"^o"s toutefois en ceste rfivocation g6n6rale comprendre 
 nostre n,^.lff 1 ^a^ ^'''* f "^^^^ t VO^^v nos Mines de 
 
 en.T4ll w ? ^"y'""«' ^"t et has pays de Languedoc, paysde Labourt, 
 Nnn= nfi *"t''^s contracts passez en nostre Conseil, et depuis ratiflez par 
 nmivAir mvr™""'''^i''^T°°''^''^..P^'' ^^ ^•«"'' ^^ Beringhen, suivant le 
 entrXm^H "''r ^' Nous : Ainsi voulons qu'ils soient observez et 
 entretenus de pomct en pomct selonleur forme et teneur. Pourveu toute- 
 rnmS.- ^ Irapetrans de&^^Commissions dudit Beringhen, prennent nouvelle 
 
 forTro ' '■.^g^T'" '^"^^^^ Grand-Mai«tre, et satisfassent en tout ce qui 
 leur sera par lui ordonne. ^ 
 
 et M^l'.. J'""'"''- If.dict Grand-Maistre faire faire et passer tous Contracts 
 
 toU tl T^^^T^^'l^I^i^^^ '^^""^s- M^'«o°«. Moulins, Martinets, 
 m? fk /f;,yp.««"«tru.re tous Edifices ct Maisons, achepter tous ustenciles et 
 
 voir nrlo.i-^."^^'''"^''^^''?'"''*^^""^'' ^^^ payemens, ouvriers, chartiers, 
 f^Trr. fro. -n '*'^?w' ^^ autres personncs qu'il conviendra employer pou^ 
 Si!'' ""-^'d'<^tes Mines precieuses et austres pour le biende nostre 
 
 t::^SI^:::,'SlX:^i^ --* P- - - <1- -usreviendra 
 
 R,^r,wr*no'^'''''^-''''?5f^^*''^',^'^"'^' e* Ordonnances ci-dessus, et tous 
 ?vons d S"'. ^^!.'^* G'-and-Maistre. suivant lesdictes Ordonnances. Nous 
 S ?,S«L ,r ? ^^^ ? P'^'''?*' "* des 4 present commc deslors, valli- 
 oniH nnri/ f ' ''^^''^«"« ^ auctorisons par cesdictes presentes, ensemble les 
 deic^^ionTr.l?'''^'ir'"! '^"' T ^'''^"* ^'^•^*^ P°"'-^'^" q"« le tout soit bien et 
 au vr f nnr r H-'f n' '^ ?'^? ' Receveur General ait faict verifier son Estat 
 au vrai par le diet Grand-Maistre. 
 
 .^. .r.^7-^' . ^^ ^'a"tant qu'il seroit impossible, tant audict Grand-Maistre et 
 n mesne tZn"' ^^^troHeur General et Greffler desdictes Mines, d'estre en 
 pou noTro 3L m"'^''1^'"T ^^^\"e>sle»r Presence seroit necessaire 
 m.Hnn«^?,; 1- r«^^''?xc''.^^ 1^"'' ^^^^S^" ^ous avons permis et per- 
 SelcVn ; on l' ^^•'""^-^•''•stre, Controolleur et Greffier, de commectre et 
 taxafinrfAw v "' •^'"''^''^ Personnes resseans, capables et solvables, aux 
 lovanr'f '^'"'""'"'^"^'^ ^'^* Drand-Maistre verra et jugera en sa 
 
 So fl ""''•"'" ''L'". '■"^^""^^l^' leur donner selon les occasions et 
 pour le temps qui s'en offriroit. 
 
 mcntf I/i;«i/L?l''w"^''''^''^' ^'^•^*'.' Or<lonnances, Declarations et R^gle- 
 7knt Te Tl ZV 71'' ^''-T^^^^ t ^^^^^^^ ''^""^ '^ conditions quHh 
 ci er el nrorf^ '^- ^''"^'^'^^^^ auxdictes Mines et Miniires, ou eux asso- 
 
 Oontr'iots m lonf r'"^ P.^"' ^'^ ^''"''^^ ^"'^ conditions ci-dessus, ct des 
 d^rol^r A Noh '" ■ •''''""* P'''"^-' '^"'^ ^"^''^ P^'^^e"' pour ce estre diets 
 ^^'^f' /,,.^*'\*'''T' "' « aucunes dignite.? et qualitez qu'ils avent. en nous 
 mains ln;ll./'rP'yL"'''/' ^^^^^^s, h serment accoustum6 entre les 
 nuins dudict Grand-Maistrp, ou Tun de sesdicts Lieutenans G6n6rauj: ou 
 
4- 
 
 OWKEBSCIP 
 
 or MiNM. 
 Authontiea. 
 Hbnbt IV. 
 
 — 108 — 
 
 particnliers en son absence, appclle le diet Controolleur General, ou Tun do 
 leurs Cornmig. 
 
 XVIII.^ Seront iceux Entrepreneurs et gens qui febont la reclierehe 
 desdictes Mines, tenus, aussi-tot qu'ils en auront decouvert quelqu'une, d'en 
 advertir le Grand-Maistre, lui apportcr o%i emoyer VEssai et Eschantillon 
 qui en aura este fait, le lieu. Province et Paroisse oii ladicte Mine sera assise, 
 afin de prendre de ltd nglement avant que d'y pouvoirfaire travailler. 
 
 ^IX. Et pour prevenir tous abus, le dit Controolleur Reiieral ou sos 
 Commis tiendront bon et fidele Registre des noms, lieux et pays, de la 
 naissance et demeuro de chaque personne qu'ils employeront, et en quelle 
 qualite, et quels gaiges oujournees, Tarrivoe de chacun dcs ouvriors, Ics 
 jours et journees qu'ils travailleront, les payemens qui leur seront fiiits ; ce 
 qui sera fait do jour en jour, de sepmaine en sepmaine, de mois en mois, et 
 d'an en an. Ensemble tous les marchez, achapts et acquisitions qu'ils 
 feront, de quelque chose que ce soit pour servir aux Mines, et de tout co 
 qu'ils en tircront, tant affine que non afBne. 
 
 XX. Ne pourront lesdicts entrepreneurs et gens qui feront la recherche 
 desdictes Minns, vendre ou faire vendre aucuns Metaux provenans desdictes 
 Mines, sans la marque dudict Grand-Maistre. 
 
 XXI. Et ajin que les Mines et Minieres puhsent estre pifises pak 
 TOUTEs PERsoNNES QUI EN AURONT LA voLONT^, et avec toutes Ics assurauccs 
 requises, Nous avon^ diet et declare, disons et declarons quHls ne jtourront 
 estre deposez ni leurs associez, successeurs et ayans cause, des Mines qu'ils 
 travailleront ou feront travailler sans discontinuation, en payant et satisfai- 
 sant par eux aux conditions de leurs contracts et reglements qui leur auront 
 este bailiez par le diet Grand-Maistre. 
 
 XXII. Et pour obvier et £viter aux diffiSkends qui j)Ourroient 
 intervenir entue les Propbietaip.es des heritaiges, auxquels se trouveroiit 
 aucunes desdictes Mines, et les estrangers ou autres qui hs voudroient 
 oavriret travailler, Nous voulons et tr£s-expkess1ment enjoionons par 
 ces presentes que des Proprietaibes qui auront dans leurs terres, heritai- 
 ges et possessions des Mines ci-dessus non-excepteez, et qui les vouuhont 
 ouviJiR, ne le puxssent faibb sans envoyer prcmierement divers hdict 
 Grand-Maistre prendre reglement de lui. 
 
 XXIII. Permettons auxdicts Maistres, Entrepreneurs et Ouvriers, 
 travailler et faire travailler auxdictes Mines et Minieres, sans aucune discon- 
 tinuation a cause des Festes solennelles, en gardant Ins Saints Dimanchcs, 
 Festes do Pasques, Pentecoste, I'Ascension et les Festes-Dicu, les quatre 
 Nostre-Dame, des 12 Apostres, des 4 Evangelistes, la Feste do tous Ics 
 Saincts, celle de Noel et les Festes des Paroisses oil Icsdictes Mines sont 
 assises, et deffendons tres-expressement a tous nos Justiciers, Prelats et 
 autres OfBciers et Subjects de les troubler en travaillant les auties Jours et 
 B'estes, d'autant que s'ils estoient troublez, cela causoroit trop de perte et 
 de dommaige ausdicts Entrepreneurs et interest au public. 
 
 _XXIV. Et pour ce que ci-devant lesdictcs Mines ou Minieres ont este 
 (lolaisseez au moyen des troubles qui ont este donnoz aux Entrepreneurs et 
 Ouvriers d'icelles, Nous avons interdit et deffendu, interdisons et deffendons 
 a tous Juges quelconques la cognoissance des differends qui interviendront 
 a cause desdictes Mines, circonstances et deppendances, entre quelques })er- 
 sonncs quo ce soit, en premiere instance, et icelle av^ns de rechcf altribua 
 et attribuons au diet Grand-Maistre et susdict Lieutenant Genenil, pour ics 
 juger diftinitivement, appelez avec eux des Juges en nombre sufRsant, sui- 
 vant rOrdonnanc^ ef le Substii-ul de nostre Procureur General du Si6geau 
 ressort duquel se feront les ouvertqres d'icelles Mines, quand le cas y 
 
 t 
 
 Tf 
 
— 109 
 
 
 V 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^chcrra, ct par appel Nous Ics avons renvcycz et rcnvoyons en celle de nos OwniensHip 
 Cours du Parlement au ressort dc laquelle seront assises lesdictes Mines. op Minks. 
 
 XXV. Enjoignons tres-expressement a tous nos Lieutenans generaux, Authoritiu. 
 Seignours, tant Ecclesiastiques ayant justice, que teniporels, do prester aIknry IV 
 auxdicts Offlciers, Entrepreneurs et a leurs Cotntnis et Associez tout confort, 
 assistance et telle faveur que requis en scront et que besoing sera, i\ peine 
 
 de tous despens, dommaiges et interests des parties intoresseez, et de faire 
 en leur pouvoir Inviolablement gardcr et observer Ic contenu en ces Pr6sen- 
 tes, sans soufFrir qu'il y soit contrevenu sur les niemes peines, et de priva- 
 tion de leurs diets droicts et justice. 
 
 XXVI. Et afin que soubz pretexte de ces Prescntes, ceux qui ont 
 jouy desdictes Mines ne soient travaillez, Nous leur avons quitto et remis, 
 quittons et remettons entierement tout ce qu'ils nous peuvent devoir du 
 passe, jusques au jour et datte de cesdictes prescntes, pourveu qu'ils no 
 soient rcfusans de payer ce qu'ils dcvront par oi-apres. Et qu'ils viennent 
 prendre reglement et pouvoir dudict Grand-Maistre. Ce que nous leur 
 enjoignons tres-expressement faire, a peine d'estre de tous privez desdictes 
 Mines, suivant la dite Declaration du 20 Mai 1563, et d'estre contraincts au 
 payement entier de ce qu'ils doivent de nostre droict a cause du passe, et 
 d'etre chastiez comme usurpateurs de nos droicts do Souverainete. 
 
 XXVII. Enjoignons 4 nosdicts Procureurs-Generaux et leurs Substi- 
 tuts, qui seront surce requis de la part desdicts Offlciers Entrepreneurs et 
 leurs Commis et Deputez, de poursuivre et requerir I'entiere execution des 
 Prescntes et payement de nostredict droict: Ensemblo tous nos Lieutenans 
 Generaux, Gouverneurs de nos Provinces, Villes, Ports, Ponts, Peages et 
 Passaiges, Baillifs, Seneschaux, Prevosts, Consuls, Maires et Eschevins, 
 Capitouls, Jurats et Communautez, de prester auxdicts Offlciers Entrepre- 
 neurs tout confort, conseil, main-forte, et telle favour que besoing sera, ct 
 roquis en seront pour I'entiere execution des Prescntes, et ;i tous Iluissiors 
 ou Sergens, sur peine de suspension de leurs charges et privation s'il y 
 oschet, de faire tous exploicts requis et necessaires pour I'execution des 
 Mandemens, Sentences, Jugemens ct Ordonnanccs desdicts Grand-Maistre, et 
 ses Lieutenans Generaux, Commis et Deputez, sai.s pour ce demandcr 
 aucuncs Lectres de placet, visa ne 2>areatis, dont et de ce faire Nous I'a-ons 
 releve et dispense, relevons et dispensons. Mandons et commandons a tous 
 nos justiciers, offlciers et subjects a lui en ce fnisant obeir. 
 
 Si donnons en mandement a nos araez et feaux Conseillers les Gens 
 tenans nos Cours de Parlement, Chambres denos Comptes, Cour des xiydes, 
 Generaux de nos'Monnoyes, Chambre de Nostredict Tresor, Tresoriers de 
 France et Generaux de nos Finantes par tout nostredict Royaume, Grands- 
 Maistres de nos Eaux et Forests, Gens 1 enans nos Sieges Presidiaux, Baillifs, 
 Seneschaux oa leurs Lieutenans, Prevosts, et autres nos Justiciers et 
 Ofliciers qu'il appartiendra, que ces Prescntes ils fassent lire, publier et 
 enregistrcr, ef lo contenu en icelles garder et observer selon leur forme et 
 tonour, sans y contrevenir, ny souffrir y estre contrevenu en quelque sorte 
 ct maniore que ce soit, cessant et faisant cesser tous troubles ct cmpesche- 
 rnens ati contraire : Car tel est nostre plaisir, nonobstant oppositions ou 
 appellations quelconques, pour Icsquelles et sans prejudice d'icclles, ne 
 voulons estre differe, en ayant envoj'6 la cognoissance a nosdictcs Cours, 
 nonobstant aussi toutes Ordonnanccs, dons, privileges, octrois, exemptions, 
 Edicts, Arrests, Constitutions, Usages ou Statuts de pays ct Coustumes, 
 restrinctions, Mandemens, deffences ct Lcttres a ce contraires. Auxquellcs 
 et aux dorogatoires des derogatoires y continues, Nous avons deroge et 
 derogeonspar cesdictes Prescntes, attendu qu'il est question du restablisse- 
 
OwirBBOHtP 
 
 or Minis 
 Authoritiet. 
 Hbnb7 IV. 
 
 Inferences 
 from that 
 Oriinance. 
 
 King's riglita 
 royalty only. 
 
 Owner of 
 soil also 
 owner of 
 Mine. 
 
 — no — 
 
 Sel^Li; ,P'P»";:™1™ ;i''cellc.s on poum avoir nffairo on plu 
 TOiirset dirers lioux, Nous voulons qu'au tidimm d'ic.lles soiiW sl«l 
 
 Sign6, VOYSIN. 
 
 «.,^i^D'P"''"®^J^r^?'^*'"^' semblablement en la Chambre des Comnfp., 
 itegistre de ce jour, le treiziesme d'Aoust Tan mil six cens trois. 
 
 Sign6, De La Fontaine. 
 
 SOC. 94. The first article of that Ordinance asserts 
 
 no other claim than the right {rhowi) to one-tenth refined in 
 ail Mines (pur et ajfine en toutes lea dictes Mines). Can 
 language shew more clearly than do the words of that Ordi- 
 nance recited m the " dk LtuY -Patent;' that no Mines of 
 any descnpfion^ belong to the King, and that thf Roya 
 rights are res tr.cted to the one-tentff Royalty ? The secTd 
 article remits the Royalty on salphur, salt/ctre, iron ancl other 
 substances, and assigns for reason " pour graiifier nos bans 
 " subjects proprtetaires des lieux:' '' 
 
 ,^. ^^"^ els^ than the owner of the remaining nine-tenths of 
 he Mine could be " i,ra^//^.' " by the remissfon of the one- 
 tenth Royalty ? Who else than the debtor of the Royalty, t"ie 
 owner of the soil , could profi t by the remission of the Royalty ? 
 The^^pwprietatresdeslieux", or owners of the soil, whom 
 the king was thus pleased to " c/raiijier ", must have thus 
 been, in the opinion of the Sovereign, owners of the Mines on 
 their lands. And yet there are men, more loyal than the 
 King, more catiiolic than the Pope, who have attributed, to 
 
 Ha4"If f;^?>'.,??^'^ ""i"?- i^' '^'7 ^''''''''^y repudiates 'all 
 ^saaii It, ; I ojuL jjiuro 01 this nereaiter. 
 
— Ill — 
 
 Sec, 95. Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, T, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,o.Ti«r 
 
 1-1, 15 and 16 have no special bearing on this case, and may ^'"'•<""''»^'- 
 
 therefore be ])assed over without notice. But articles IT and '^''^ 
 
 18, which allow all persons to search for, and work Mines, but _ „ _ 
 
 . . 1 , 1 i • ii n 1 • • 1 i- Owner allow- 
 
 enjoins on thein to obtain the Koyal pcrmwsion betoro open-g^tg ^orjj 
 
 ing the mine, must certainly be held to apply to the owner Mines on his 
 
 of the soil; he is surely somebody, and must be held to be own land. 
 
 included in the words '• all persowi.^' The same is to be said 
 
 of articles 19, 20 and 21 ; they do not affect this case. 
 
 Akt: 22, in the most express terms gives to the owner 
 of the soil, the right to work the Minea on his lands in prefe- 
 rence to all others, subject to the condit'on of applying to the 
 Master General of Mines for the Koyal permission ; 
 
 twr 
 
 
 XXIT, Et pour obvieij f,t evitek aux differends qui pourroient 
 intervenir entre les Proprirtaires des heritniges, auxquels se trouveront 
 aucunes desdictos Mines, et les estranoiers oh autres qui lea voudroient 
 ouvrir et traiyiillei: Nous voulons et tres-expressement enjoignons par 
 ces presontes que des Pkoprietaires qui auront dans leurs terres, heritai- 
 ges et possessions des Mines ci-dessus non-exceptoez, et qui les voudront 
 OUVRIR, NE LB puissENT FAiitE unns eii>ioi/er prenii^rement devers ledict 
 Qrand-Maistrc prendre rejlenient de lui. 
 
 Tlie remaining Articles have no bearing on this case, and 
 may therefore remain unnoticed. 
 
 S('C. 96, There is, however, about the Ordinance Rg^opation of 
 
 of Henry IV, a feature worthy of notice ; it recites certain de Robervai 
 Letters of the Kings, his predecessors, namily FiJANgois I, ^^'^^s. "'""' 
 Henry II, FKANgois II and Chaklks 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 the collection of that Koyalty, the Ordinance in 
 question (Artie' e 12) revokes precisely those parts of the 
 Letters of his Predecessors as had provoked the successful 
 resistance of the Parliaments of France against the enregistra- 
 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 important to shew that 
 those grants never obtained their execution in France, and 
 were successfully resisted by the Parliaments, and never, for 
 
 a niuiiiCiiI CvL-n, Hiiu lUv iuiv;c ui AJrt" III fiaiiuw. 
 
 »r 
 
 X. 
 
— 112 
 
 OWNIBIRIP 
 
 OF Mtiria. 
 
 Authorities. 
 Private 
 grarii'' relied 
 on by Dpfend- 
 ants, viz : to 
 
 -Tlie Grants tlius insisted 
 
 on 
 
 by tl 
 
 1* de Robtr- 
 val, and 
 
 2» de St. Ju- 
 lien. 
 
 Error of 
 Defendants 
 in stating 
 those two 
 grants to 
 have been 
 enregistered. 
 
 Sec. 97. 
 
 Defendants are 
 
 i^*Vj»%,— Z^«^r.9-/>a^^n^of Septeniber, 1548, l)y Henry II, 
 tavor of the Chevalier de la Itoqne, Seignnif de RohervaL 
 |?rantinff to that gentleman an exclusive right to all the Mines 
 m the Kingdom for the period of nine years ; that grant is 
 merely notu^od by BlancUrd (see P. 77 of this Factum), but 
 18 reproduced at length, by laarnhert, vol. XII, 1'. 57 (see 
 1 . bi ot tins i actum). ^ 
 
 Secondly, -Ldters-Patent of the 29 July, 1560, by Fran- 
 50IB II, m favor of M de St. Julien, granting to him, for a 
 limited time all the Mines of the Kingdom, only noticed by 
 Blanckard d; IsamherL (See P. 78 & 84 of this Factum) 
 
 mnimlr ^"^ ''* ^' ^^' ""^ Lame-Fleury, Legislation 
 
 ^CC. Jo. In noticing those grants, the Defen- 
 dants have stated, at P. 34 of their Factum, that the grants 
 harl heen " toutes devx enregistrees:' That is not the case, as 
 m -y be seen on referring to IsamheH, Blanchard, and Minfs 
 KT MiNiERKs,/rw. c7j5. Soalso Lame-FUuvy, yxXxQ wrote in 
 18oj, with all the lights of modern re^earch, and who had 
 lurtlior mane the most minute ciiquirv in this direction, fays, 
 at I. 28, note 2 : » Les tables du "^fark'nu-nt de Paris ne 
 nientior:neiit pas I'enregistrei'^'ent des lettrcs de 1543. et il 
 
 by Letters- 1 afent, dated, as some say the 6 July 1561, others 
 the 11 July ]o61 (most probably the latter date), had modi- 
 hcdthe L,tte,-s.Patu>toinQQ, by restricting de St. JuUcnh 
 grant to tlie Itoyalty of one-tenth only, as will be seen 
 tierealter. 
 
 \ 
 
 -¥ 
 
 Origin of 
 resistance of 
 Parliaments 
 
 ^f'^*» •^J« 'ITic de I^ohe'*'val-G RAjfT is, to say tlie 
 
 o%nr"1StV^J,,^'^f* ^^ ^^' ^ ."'<^«t extraordinary document, giving away, in 
 
 ion ofthoFe '"'''' '^^''icrpliir), fo df JioJhrvaf, U>r \]\v spaw f»f nine years, ail 
 
 \\\o grants. 
 
 « 
 
 u 
 
— 113 — 
 
 the Mines of tho Kingdom not then actually beinj? worked, Owwmmip 
 with power to expropriate the owner of tho soil by paying °/ ?'^?"- 
 ♦' pour le regard de la valeur desdites terres aeulement, et non "^' 
 " DE8 Mynks y estans." It does not therefore surprise U8 
 that the Parliaments, composed of high-minded and honorable 
 men, who had sworn to preserve the existing Laws of tho 
 Kingdom, should have, with the single exception of the Par- 
 liament of Grenoble, successfully braved the anger of Henry 
 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 
 remonstrance, by the gena du> roi, by the mouth of StouiEK, 
 avocat du roi, when de Rdberval unsuccessfully presented his 
 Letters-Patent for enregistration in the Parliament of Paris, 
 see Lame-Fleury, P. 47, note 1, 
 
 ^eC, 1 \3\}, The de PobervaW-Rmi, was no sooner Royal confir- 
 
 made than we find ^6 -ff(?5en;a^ again asking and obtaining "'^^^o'^ of * 
 from the Sovereign, on the 10 October, 1552, a ratification oia^^J"^'. 
 the Ongmal Grant, on the ground that his first grant was enregistered. 
 znsufficien\ (see P. 54 Mines et Minieees) ! The fact that this^nd why. 
 renewed g anc makes de Eoberval the sole judge of all mining 
 law-suits, and expressly prohibits the 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 Koberval's consent in 
 writing, would seem to imply that the insufficiency of the 
 nrst de Roherval-QuK^T arose less from ambiguity in its 
 language than from the hostility of the Parliaments and 
 Courts (see P. 72, 73 & 76 of Mines et Minieres). That 
 ratification of the de Poherval-GRAm 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. 56 
 of Mines et Minieres). 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 quo ce seroit chose trop difficile et prolixe icelles : enth6- 
 
 nner en tous les endroicts susdits, consider© la grandeur du Royaume et 
 
 6tenduedespaysdenostre subjection, voulons et entendons qr.e le seul 
 
 ^^ enth6rmeraent faict en nostre Grand Conseil tant des premieres Lectres 
 
 quu dua Prescnics (neanmoius que les premieres ne soient audict Uonseil 
 
 15 
 
— lid — 
 
 •OWMBtSBIP 
 OF MUIB. 
 
 Authoritiu. 
 
 Fourth at- 
 tempt of de 
 Robtrval 
 failed. 
 
 " sell." (See P. 86 of Mines et MiniSbbs). 
 
 Sec 101, Even that decisive declaration of the 
 
 O^rParlia- Sovereign did not induce the Parliaments to enregister the 
 •^*?y^* ™t8 and did >iot give to de Koberval poBseBsion of the 
 ^"^'''- Sines ;Sie only ParTiament that yielded at last was tliat 
 ^ GrenoWe! to which Letters-Patent were a third time 
 BDeciallv dM-ected (See P. 85 of Minks et MmiiREs); 
 'P Le^us hope th\t the Parliam<,nt of Grenoble pelde^^^^^^^ 
 none of those conmnaW arguments to which M.-Wi^^^^^^^ 
 late Manager of the de Lery-Comjpany, has threatened to 
 resort in this case I 
 
 Sec. 102. So little progress had de Eolervat 
 
 made towards having his grant recognized, ^Ji^* J^^^"!^^^^ 
 again obtaining, from the same Sovereign, « V>Vlo?-p ^ft of 
 1557, other Letters-Patent on the same subject (see P. bb ol 
 
 ""^ Forth^fonrr^^^^^ again, i. Hober^al failed ; and the 
 Sovereign who made, and Ae subject who received that 
 extraordinary grant, died without seeing it receive effect. 
 
 Sec. 103. On the advent of Franjois H to the 
 
 ihro^^, M.deSLJulien,^\iO appears t«3a^?.^f^^^^I^J'i^ 
 to de Jtobervah and to have been concerned with the latter in 
 helrlnt, deemed th^ moment propitious for another attempt 
 to h!ve the ds Rdberval- Grant recogmzed. M. deSt. Mien, 
 on thp 2.' July, 1560, obtained, from Fran§oi8 II, Zettera- 
 ktcnt, recitin^g the de IMerml-Grant^nd the seve^^al^ratifi. 
 cations of it hereinbefore adverted to (P. 95 ot MmES et 
 M nXes), and making, tr de St. Mun, the same gran as 
 He™ II had made to 0^6. J^/^aZ, and moreover assigning, 
 ^TstJuUen, the King's lioyalty of one-tenth on all fimes, 
 during four years. 
 
 «on 1 OA n^ Sf- -Tnlien annears to have had no 
 
 Thal'Scmpt. better^ruccesl Van de Boherval, since we find the former 
 
 Renewed 
 att»mpt by 
 de Si.'Julim. 
 
071 leur 
 icoux y 
 nd Coa- 
 
 of the 
 
 ter the 
 
 of the 
 
 as tliat 
 
 d time 
 
 jlded to 
 inchell, 
 ened to 
 
 ioberval 
 
 nd him 
 (temher, 
 P. 88 of 
 
 and the 
 ed, that 
 ect. 
 
 I to the 
 
 related 
 latter in 
 
 attempt 
 t. JuUerhj 
 
 Letters- 
 ral ratifi- 
 
 MlNES KT 
 
 grant as 
 Lssigning, 
 ill Mines, 
 
 7Q had no 
 le former 
 
 — 115 — 
 
 seeking and ohtaining, from Cuaeles IX, on the 6 Jnly, 1501 Owiebship 
 {Lame-Fleury, P, 48, note 1, eays, perhaps with reason, tho 11 °/ ¥'*•*■• 
 July 1561—860 P. 10& 01 Mines ct Mi-dRKs), Lette>8'Patent,°"^'"- 
 enjoining on all the Parliaments of Frajce to allow de St. jj^^ 
 Jiilien to take possession of the King's Royalties of one- attempt- this 
 tenth for tho space of four years, as se^ forth in the Letters- Haie a grant 
 Patent of Fuanjois II. This time de St. JuUen was fortunate ^^ *•** ^oyzx 
 enough to secure the enregistration, in the Parliament of ^^"^'^ °°'^" 
 Paris, of the Letters Patent of Charles IX, probably because 
 those Letters merely assigned to ds St. Julien the King's 
 Eoyalties, and the rarlia "nent conceived that the Sovereign 
 might be allo^/ed to do as he liked with his own ; but the Par- 
 liament of Paris and other Parlu.ments etill refused to 
 enregister tho Original Grant, which purported to confer on 
 de lioberval all the IMines in the Kingdom. 
 
 De St. Julien, after obtaining that ratification of the De St. Julien 
 
 Sant as to the Royalty, was sworn in (see P. 114, in fine of s'^o™ ^^ »8 
 iNES ET MiNiiiBEsJ as " General Superintendant «waj ^"P"'°**°" 
 Mynea du Royaume " before the Chancellor, on the 11 March tio" Incompa- 
 1562. The fact of his having been thus placed on a footing tibie with the 
 inconsistent with the idea of his having any proprietary rights '*^**"^ °^°" 
 in the Mines he was about to superintend, as an Otficer of *" P* 
 the Crown, may have powerfulljr influenced the Parliament 
 of Paris towards the enregistration of the Letter a- Patent of 
 Cj'aeles IX of July 1561, and of the Ze^^cTi' ^ ^Unt oiYnics- 
 §013 II, of July 1560. The- enregistration Iv/ojx place by an 
 arret of the 9 May 1562 (see P. 115 of Mines et Miniekes). 
 The Arret (see P. 48, note 1, of LameFleury) concludes 
 thus : " Pour jouir par le dit de St. Julien, imp6trant,, de 
 '' I'effet contenu en icelles, et par provision seulement, et 
 jusquea a ce que par le Roi ou la dite Chambke, autrement en 
 soit ordonne " (see also P. 121 of Minks et Mini^ibes). 
 Observe the mental reservation of the Parliament of Paris, as 
 hidden in that Arret of enregistration ; de St. Julien might 
 enjoy his grant provisionally, until the King, or the Parlia- 
 ment should order otherwise. On the very first complaint, 
 then, that might be brought before it, the Parliament reserved 
 the power of scrutinizing the grant more closely, and perhaps 
 of ordering otherwise. That the Parliament did afterwards 
 order otherwise, may be seen at section 107. It was, perhaps, 
 to turn aside the storm about to burst upon him from tiie 
 Parliaments, that within a month from the date of the Arret, 
 in the very next Letters-Patent, addressed to the Parliament 
 of Grenoble, de St. Julien was styled " Superintendant et 
 
— 116 
 
 OWMBBSHIP 
 
 or MiNBs. 
 Authorities. 
 
 The King and 
 de St. Julien 
 desiat from 
 claim to 
 minest 
 
 King merely 
 
 asserts right 
 to a royalty 
 of one-tenth. 
 
 Such also is 
 the exprefs 
 declaration 
 of ArrSt of 
 enregistra- 
 tion. 
 
 " G6n6ral !Kcformateiir, estably siir les Mynes de nostre 
 " Koyaume " (see next section). 
 
 SbC. 1 05. M. de St. Julien^ and the Sovereign 
 
 alike began to tire in their attempts to overcome the resistance 
 of the Parliaments and Courts to that bare-faced invasion of 
 private rights ; and we find Chaples IX, on the 1st June, 
 1562, with the assent of de St. JvXien, receding from ihe 
 position assumed by his two predecessors, Henry II, and 
 Fbanjois II, on this point. In Letters-Patent of that date, 
 we find Ohaeles IX, conforming to the Ordinance of his 
 ?3redeceesor Louis XI, from Montilz-les-Tours^ and, for the 
 first time, styling de St. Julitn merely as " Sujjerintendant et 
 General R&j ormatem\ estdbly sur les Mines de nostre Roy- 
 aume " and renewing the gift, for four years, of the one-tenth 
 Koyalty (see P. 115 of Mines et Miniekes). The Parliament 
 of Paris also enregistered those Letters, but still persisted 
 in refusing to enregister the Original Grant to de jRdberval 
 (See P, 122 of Mines et Minieres). 
 
 Sec. 106. At length the Sovereign and de St. 
 
 Julien seem to have resigned themselves to acquiescence in 
 the views manifested by the Parliaments and Courts of 
 France upon the question of Royal rights in Mines ; for, on 
 the 26 May 1563 (See P. 124 of Mines et Mini^kes, and 
 P. 52, note 1, oi Lame-Fleury), we find Charles IX, decla- 
 ring by Letters-Patent that he has been advised by his Council 
 that his rights in Mines consist in a Eoyalty of one-tenth on 
 all Mines theretofore discovered, or that might thereafter be 
 discovered, and reciting that certain persons contest his right 
 to any Eoyalty on the Mines theretofore discov( red. The 
 King reasserts his right to t^iat Eoyalty, but saves the rights 
 of those to whom his predecessors or He might have pre- 
 viously donated the Eoyalty (See P. 127 of Mines et 
 Minieres). 
 
 lil\\o%Q Lettet 8- Patent -v^Qre enregistered on the 1st Julv 
 1563 (see P. 59, note 1, of Lame-Fleury). The Arret of 
 enregistration is even more remarkable than that which 
 accompanied the Letters-Patent of 1560 and 1561 (see section 
 103) ; the Arret contains, by inference, a positive declaration 
 that the King's rights in Mines are restricted to the one-tenth 
 royalty ; the words are : *' Pour^'owzr par I'impotrant du don 
 
 4 
 
 u. 
 
 4 
 
 4- 
 
 (( 
 
 ■-^r 
 
117- 
 
 4 
 
 t 
 
 -4- 
 
 King's right 
 to the Royalty 
 even, on cer- 
 tain Mines, 
 disputed by 
 Parliaments. 
 
 " a lui fait dii dixicme, pour le temps ,et terme de quatre ans, Ownhcjhip 
 " pour le regard des droits au roi appartenant, et est conuu ^^ Minbs. 
 " lui concerncr et appartenir es mctanx et min6rales de son^"'^""'**** 
 " royaume." 
 
 At Icngtli the storm burst upon de St. Jidien, and lie 
 found Iiis claims repudiated by nearly every judicial Tribunal 
 in the country ; in that strait, he appealed 'to the Sovereign, 
 and obtained Letters- Patent noticed in the next section. 
 
 NeC. 107. Tlienceforth the struggle between de St. 
 
 Julic7i, as representing the Sovereign, on the one hand, 
 
 and the Parliaments and Courts of France, as the guardians 
 
 of private riglits, on the other hand, was removed to new 
 
 ground, the only question then being, whether certain Mines 
 
 theretofore opened were subject tothelloyalty even ; so much 
 
 so, indeed, that, on the 25th September, 1563 (see P. 128 of 
 
 Mines et Minieres), we find Chakles IX, in Letters -Patent, 
 
 reciting " that Fkan§oi8 II had appointed de St. Julien as 
 
 " Grand Maistre, Superintendant et General Keformateub 
 
 " DE8 Mines to collect the one tenth Royalty en all Mines of 
 
 " GOLD, SILVER, copper, tin, lead, Mercury, steel, iron, c&c, die, 
 
 " and that the Parliament of Paris had only provisionally 
 
 "invested de St. Julien, with the collection of the Royalty, 
 
 " and that recently, under colour of an Arret, the same f'arli'a- 
 
 " ment of Paris had prohibited de St. Jidien from collecting 
 
 " the Royalty from certain persons named in the Arret, and 
 
 " that the Parliameutof Grcroble had, in like manner, prohibi- 
 
 " ted de St. Julien, and that a similar prohibition to de St. 
 
 " Jidien had been made by the Courts of Beauiollais in refe- 
 
 " rence to the Mines of Jou." By those Letters-Patent the King 
 
 removed, from the ordinary 'tribunals, to His Council the 
 
 decision of appeals on all contestations between de St. .hdicn 
 
 and the subject as to the Royalty. Tlic Parliament of Paris 
 
 so far obeyed the King ;\3 to cause those Letters to bcpubli shed 
 
 by their lluissiers, but refused toenregister the Letters-Patent. 
 
 King appoints 
 de St. Julien, 
 Superinten- 
 dent of Mines. 
 
 NeC, lUo, Tlie struggle was too much ioY de St. ^'^ ^f- "Julien 
 
 Jkdien, Bincc^vG find by Letters-Patent of Charles IX, dated cMmeven to 
 the 28th September, 1508 (see P. 137 of ' ines et Minieres, royalty and 
 and P. CI of £a?7iS-Meury) tlmtde St. Julien resigned the '^.'^^ns office 
 oflSce of Suuerintendcnt ofMinng infn fl,o Tripr.'a "imTuia ^v °* ^"P^".'^- 
 tavor ol Maistre Antfmne Vidal, Seigneur de Mellesaigues. in^ror of Vidai. 
 
 **^ 
 
OWHSRBHIP 
 
 OP Minks. 
 Authorities. 
 
 Error of La- 
 me-Fleury in 
 Bupposing 
 VidaVa ap- 
 pointment to 
 have been 
 enrcgistered. 
 
 ~ 118 — 
 
 By those Letters, tl-c King »akcs the r^^.We decUration 
 that the position of de Soha^f' ^''^ 'Jf g. *"Xm»'s, that 
 
 the Kingdom, had "nKJ".^™',,^ '"l^f the King appoints 
 of " Sup^erintendent of Mines > ^^ to ^Mng^^p^^ ^^ 
 
 Tidal to the vacancy 1^' P/ '^^ Klines of all sorts, 
 ^«Km The K' ^ j]!'^''^' ^^ 'SrZ.Tkt Droict de 
 gold, nlver, etc., Sc, f, to be » g j ],^ eo far 
 " dixiesme demer JioyaV ^^"8'' '^^ "'I™ two of His Pre- 
 reeeded from the P^f't'^^'-^^^ ^^^'^SeC had claimed 
 
 Letters-Patent, api)omting ^'''-^^''JJ''^^. ^^C? Letters- Patent 
 Parliament of I^^^s, m coBsequcnce^^^^^^ ^^ 
 
 of tlic 28tli September }f\'''^}'ZmZm nevertheless, 
 enregister VidaVs ^PP^l^^/^^i?^ .^^^'^ux S de I'em- 
 adds^ " cet arret n'a Pf ^^ ^te tiouvG ^^f^^'],^,,^ the 
 u pire." Lame-Meury has tallen into eiioi ^^jy ^ ^^ ^^ 
 
 en?egistration to have taken P^^fv^^/f^^^fi^f (deferred to in 
 MimEKES, we find LetterM^r^fl^^^^ (reler ^^^^ 
 
 b:a-^f S^arini^n^vented V the 
 ""'ISS^f Il!,1n the Letters of the 21 October, 1574, 
 ^^^^^^ • HENEY, etc., c^c, etc. Salut. 
 
 .. S,avoir laisons, que pour la l^rvnc l^f IJ^.I^^SI^^SST^SSS 
 
 .. nous avon. de la^ I?T""NnA *^ * * Sonnons ?t o tro> .ns I'estat et 
 u * ^ ****** * ^ ice uy, NoLS „^^"^^^^^ ^^ Superintcndant de 
 
 ♦'office dc Grand-Maistre, Oeneral Rofomat^eurj^t^o P^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^^^_ 
 «' toutcs les Mines et Minieres do ce r.oyaumu ^^ ^.,^^^^ ^^^ 
 
 t< vAN-q u^ M VNDEMENT, par cef-ditcs prescnicb, a ""° ' , ******** 
 
 ic * * * de tout le contenu esdites Lcttres, denmre "» ^"^ y , ****** 
 
 Tf ;= -..l^in that if the first Letters appointing Vidal had 
 It IS p am, tiiai ii uic ^ j, » J ^^ ^ j^ ^.^ stat^, 
 
 been enregistercd m 15*0, Uenki iii woum 
 
— 110 — 
 
 in 1574, that they had not been enregistered. This acconnts Ownirship 
 for the fact stated by Lame-Fleury, P. 61, nolo 2, that the °/ f '"*?• 
 Arret of enregistration could not be found in the Archives of^"'^°"^"'' 
 the Empire. 
 
 1574, 
 
 Sec, 109, As Henky II and Franqois II had 
 
 died without seeing their efforts to invade private rights 
 crowned with success, so Charles IX failed in his attempt 
 to enforce even a Royalty on certain Mines of the Kingdom ; 
 and we find his Successor, Henry III, on the 21 October, 
 1574, issuing Letters-Patent confirming VidaVs appointment 
 as Superintendent of Mines, with jurisdiction to decide all 
 mining law-suits (See P. 143 of Mixes et Minieres). 
 
 The Parliaments would no more enregister those Letters- 
 Patent than they had enrolled the previous Letters ; and there 
 the matter rested until the promulgation, by Henry IV, in 
 June 1601, of that great Ordinance, which tlie Plaintiffs have 
 reproduced entire, at P. 103 et seq : of this Factum. It was 
 most probably the great abuses resulting from the jurisdiction 
 exercised in mining law-suits by the Superintendent of Mines 
 that led to the successful resistance by the Parliaments and 
 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 : 
 
 ^ " En ce que lesdicts officiers, deppendans enti^rement do lui, lui adju- 
 gerent plustot ce qu'il desiroit, que ce qui lui apparteno't, dont se seroient 
 ensuivies plusieurs plointes en nos Cours de Parlement." 
 
 Vidal's 
 appointment 
 coafirmed by 
 King. 
 
 Persistent 
 refusal of 
 Parliaments 
 to enregiater 
 those Let- 
 ters of the 
 Kings. 
 
 Probable 
 cause ot that 
 snccessful 
 resistance. 
 
 e Btatiid, 
 
 NeC, 1 lU, Such is the history of those two grants, 
 
 upon which the Defendants have laid so mucli stress, as establish- 
 ing the right of the King, not to a Royalty, 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 Lery- 
 ratent " prove the Defendants to be owners of the gold 
 and silver on the Plaintiffs' lands. Under the French system, 
 Edicts, Ordinances and Declarations alone defined the Law ; 
 ^tters-x atent uerc susceptible of oiposition, and had no 
 effect until they had been enregistered in the Parliaments, 
 
 Those two 
 grants so 
 much relied 
 on by the 
 Defendants 
 prove the con- 
 trary of their 
 pretensions. 
 
— 120 
 
 OWNKBSBIP 
 UF MiNBS. 
 
 Authorities, 
 
 patiies inUressees ouies, ou dument appeUes, as we 
 already shewn at P. 54 of this Factum. 
 
 have 
 
 Strange fea- 
 ture of those 
 
 ^eC, 111 . In laying stress, at P. 34 and 76 of 
 
 ^P^^'*^ slants their Factum, upon^ those abortive^attempts at granting awai! 
 
 thm not to 
 have been 
 declaratory 
 of the Law. 
 
 to de Rdbervaly de St, Julien and Vidal Mines on private lands, 
 the Defendants have sedulously kept from view a feature of the 
 Mining policy sought to be inaugurated by the raonarchs of 
 that time, a feature which shews conclusively that no one, not 
 even the monarchs themselves, believed those grants to be 
 declaratory of the Law of the Kingdom as to Mines. On the 
 10 May, 1562, the very next day after the enregistration by 
 the Parliament of Paris of de St. Julien's grant of the King's 
 royalty on all the Mines of the Kingdom, Chaeles IX, the 
 Sovereign who had confirmed de St. ./wZ^m's grant and caused, 
 its enregistration, issued other Letters-Patent, granting all the 
 Mines of the Kingdom, not then actually worked, with dona- 
 tion of the King's royalty on all the Mines without exception, 
 for the space of nine years, to Etienne de Lescot / that grant 
 is identical in its terms with, and refers to, the de Rdberval- 
 Granty and appoints Lescot successor to de Rdberval^ just as, 
 in de St. Julien^s grant, the latter is declared to be the 
 successor of de Rdberval (see P. 54 of Lame-Fleury). Under 
 the circumstances, of de St. Julien and de Lescot^ one or other 
 must have been the anti-Pope ! The Parliaments refused to 
 enregister de Lescot^s grant ; de Lescot contrived, nevertheless, 
 to obtain, on the 12 August, 1564, other Letters from CnAKLES 
 IX, specially requiring the Parliaments to enregister the 
 de Lescot-Quhiii'y:. The Parliament of Paris, on the 2 March, 
 1565, enregistered de Lescofs grant, with the proviso: " Pour 
 ^^ jouir par le dit de Leocot de I'effet contenu en icelles, en la 
 " meme forme et maniere et sous iQ^memes modifications que 
 " permis a etc a ceux qui ont par ci-devant obtenu pareillea 
 " tettres et par les arrets donnes sur icelles." 
 
 Here, again, the Parliament of Paris, as in the case of 
 the de St. Julien-QuKsi^ invested de Lescot provisonally only. 
 and reserved to itself the right, of revoking and setting aside 
 the grant, on the first opportunity that any judicial contesta- 
 tion of de Lescofs rights might ofier. I^o better * success 
 seems to have attended de LescoVs efibrts in that direction 
 than his rivals had met with ; for, on the 10 March, 1577, 
 while VidaVs grant still subsisted we find IIeney III, issuing 
 Letttrs-PaienCf reciting that de L&svoC's ~'' ' ----'•-- ^ ' 
 
 Minmg-works 
 
 had 
 
— 121 — 
 
 been demolished and ruined, and renewing de Zescofs grant for Owmibibip 
 ten years (See Lame-Fleury, P. 63). Tliis grant was enregis- jy^^^JJ, 
 tered by the Parliament of Paris with the remarkable proviso : 
 " Pour jouir par I'impetrant de I'eifet et contenu en icelles, 
 " par maniere de provision, pour le temps et terme de dix 
 " ans, aux memes charges et modifications appoeees en sembla- 
 " hies letireSf d la charge aussi que le dit Lescot ne pourra 
 " fouiller ^s tekees des sujets du roi, binon de GRfe a ge6." 
 (See Lame-J'leury^ P. 63, note 1). Here the Parliament dis- 
 tinctly forbids, de Lescot 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 
 Mines imbedded in his goil. Letters- Patent, oi the 28 February, 
 1688 (see Lame-Fleury, P. QQ, note 1), shew us the end of 
 poor de Lescot, and substitute Francois de Troyes Seigneur 
 de la Feraudiere to de Lescot in the office of Superintendent of 
 Mines, and to all de LescoHs privileges, and granting de Troyes 
 many further privileges. 
 
 While de Troyes was thus being substituted to de Lescot^ 
 we find on referring to Letter S' Patent of the 31 January, 
 1580, that de Lescoi had already received from the Sovereign 
 another successor in the person of Gohet dit AUonges, styled 
 Collonges in the Letters- Patent (see Lame-Fleury, P. QQ and 
 notes 1, 2 and 3), Golefs grant being also for the term of ten 
 years. 
 
 l^eC, 11 2, How, in the name of common sensOj xhe same 
 
 can it be maintained that those Letters-Patent of the French ^°^^"/l^ 
 Kings, some of them not enregistered at all, others of them i^iOobet!^ 
 enregistered par provision merely, until the Parliament 
 should order otherwise, and with the proviso that the 
 grantee should not enter on private lands against the 
 owner's will. Letters- Patent, that did not save de St. Julien 
 from being prohibited by the Parliaments of Paris, and of 
 Grenohle and by the Courts of Beaujollais (see Mines et 
 MiNiEREs, P. 128) from trespassing on private rights, Letters- 
 Patent, in fine, that professed (see LamA-Fieury, P. 54, note 1) to 
 make an independent grant of all the Mines in the Kingdom, 
 at the same time, not to tijoo series of concessionaires generaux, 
 as Lame-Fleury says, but to three difiierent sets of grantees, 
 how- in the name of common sense, asrain wo ask, can such 
 
 16 
 
 -^ --*---.. 
 
OWRIBSBIF 
 OF MiNBS. 
 
 Authorities. 
 
 — 122 — 
 
 Letters-Patent be viewed as declaratory of the Law, or 
 explanatory of any thing, save the extraordinary corruption 
 that surrounded the monarchs in those days. LameFleury^ 
 P. 54, note 1, qualifies those grants by saying : *' Cette sorte 
 " de parallelisrae entre deux series do concessionnaires g6ne- 
 " raux des Mines de France est fort singuliere-" At P. 61, 
 note 1, Lame-Flev/ry says again : " II est a reinarquer que ni 
 " CnABLEB IX, ni Henry III, bien que rappelant les charges 
 " dont avaient ete pourvus de Rdbervl et 8t. Julien^ ne font 
 " aucune allusion a Etienne Lcacot^ auquel le premier de ces 
 " souverains avait cependant confer6, le 10 Mai, 1562, des pr vi- 
 " leges analogues, dont celui-ci devait jouir apres de St. Julien. 
 " Inversement, on voit que Hene. Ill ne parle en aucune 
 " maniere de Rdberval ou de St. Julien^ lorsqu'il confirme ces 
 " privileges en faveur de Lescot^ de son associ6 ou de son suc- 
 " cesseur. On lit a ce sujet, dans la preface des " anciens 
 " miniralogiates " (by Gobet, Paris, 1779) : 11 ne parait point 
 " que ces surintendants aient en un graud succcs. . . .L'ambi- 
 " tion, I'avarice et I'intrigue des courtisans otaient la cause 
 ** secrete de tant de changements dans les chefs des Mines ; car 
 " Lescot fut pourvu pendant I'effet de la concession do Orip- 
 ^^ pon {de St. Julien). 
 
 N6C« 1 1 0» ^The necessity for such enregistration 
 
 Necessity of 
 
 enregistra* - 
 
 tion. of all Laws promulgated by the Sovereign is clearly esta- 
 
 blished by the following citations from the Nouveau D6ni- 
 ZAET, vbo. Enregistrement : 
 
 ♦' Dans I'usage, le mot enregistrement s'emploie par rapport aux loix 
 " pour signifler deux objets fort diff^rents." 
 
 " Suivant le sens litteral, I'enregistrement d'une loi est la transcription 
 " sur les registres destinfs 4 cet effet." 
 
 " Dans un autre sens, on appelle enregistrement Vexamcn et la vei'iji' 
 " cation (\n\ se fait d'une in nouvellef avant d'en ordonner la promulgation 
 " et I'execution." 
 
 " C'est dans I'histoire que Ton doit chercher I'origine de la verification 
 •* d'une loi ; elles noua presentent cjuatre epoques relativement k leur 
 " formation en France." 
 
 History of 
 sach enregiS' 
 tratioQ. 
 
 ^GC« 11 4, Denizart then proceeds to trace the 
 
 history of legislation in France, and shews that, originally 
 Laws were promulgated in great assemblies of the nation, 
 which were termed " Farlements et etats^^ ; but that, even- 
 tually, tiie consent oi the Parliamcuts vvas substituted for the 
 
— r3 — 
 
 assent of the Barons, Prelates and other great personages O^nkbship 
 of the Kingdom. Denizart sa/s : Author' 
 
 ** Les Publicistes ne sont pas d'accord sur le teraps oii a commence la 
 " forme de legislation qui suKsiste aujourd'hui. Quelques uns pretendent 
 " qu'elle remonte au temps de Philippe-le-Hardi, d'autres seulement au 
 " temps de la captivite du roi Jean." 
 
 " Suivant cette derniere forme, le roi adresse les lois aux Cours Souve- 
 " raines ; et ces Cours, si elles reconnoissent I'utilitS de la loi et sa conformite 
 ** avec les loix fondamentales, rendcnt un Arret pour en ordonner Fex^cu- 
 •' tion, soit purement et simplement, soit avec les modifications qu'ellas 
 "jugent necessaires. Dans le cas contraire, les Cours arr^tent qu'il sera 
 " fait des remontrances au roi, pour I'engager k retirer la loi proposee. 
 ** C'est ce que Ton appelle v^kification des loix." 
 
 Sec. llo%— Denizart then cites a number of in- Acquiesced 
 stances in which the Sovereigns themselves acquiesced in the g° ^^ *?^ *^® 
 necessity of such enregistration. The first example cited by °^®'®*8°s- 
 Denizart is that of Saint Louis, who thus addressed the King 
 of England : " Plut a Dieu que nous fussions amis ; mais 
 " je ne puis rien faire ni composer avec vons sans le consente- 
 " ment de mon haronage^ dont aucun Roi des Frangois ne 
 " PEUT SE PASSER." After citing the examples of Louis XI, Chancellor 
 Fean§oi8 I, and Heney I Y, Denizart cites an instance which neSy'dted 
 it is well to reproduce, since it shews the style of legislation before Pwlia- 
 affected by the Chancelier de VHopital^ who prepared the £?e ment for 
 St. Julien-gra.Tit, and whom the the Defendants, at P. 34 off.*J^°SP^^- 
 their Factum, are pleased to style the celehre Chancelier, '^g noi\ntQ^s- 
 de St. JulienGRANT was, no doubt, one of the many Letters- tered by Par- 
 Patent here referred to by Denizart : liaments. 
 
 " SeptUme exemple. — On trouve dans le journal de Pierre Brulard, 
 *• conseiller au Parleraent de Paris, que 
 
 " Au mois d'avril 1561, le Chancelier de VHopital ayant fait 
 " es villes et bailliages de ce royaume plusieurs publications de 
 " Lettres-Patentcs, et Edits, sans qu'ils eussent 6t6 aucunement 
 " revues ni verifies en la Oour de Parlement, centre toute forme 
 
 " de justice et les anciennes observances et ordonnances 
 
 ^*^ furent en i)ropos k\& QiQViV de Parlement de Paris de lui faire 
 •' donner o/joumement, pour repondre de la publication des dites 
 " Patentes et Edits, sans avoir 6te verifies, comme dit est en la 
 '* Cour de Parlement" 
 
 Sec» 116. When the opposition to such Letters- Hence Je 5r<. 
 
 Patent assumed so virulent a form, when the Parliament of ^"^^ J^g*°' 
 Paris went bo far as to propose impcaehing Chancellor claim to 
 
 Alines. 
 
 I 
 
— 124 — 
 
 OwNBBsaip L'Hopital, one can readily understand bow the Monarch, at 
 
 ^luui^ritUs ^^^S^^h receded from the position first taken up by him, and 
 
 Low de St. Julien also came to abandon all connection, as 
 
 Superintendent even, with Mines, which he had once fondly 
 
 hoped to control as exclusive owner thereof. 
 
 enr«giBtered, ^GC. 117. Dmizart^ after citing a number of 
 
 can be enfor- Qr^jinanccs and Edicts, which have remained a dead letter, 
 for want of enregistration, proceeds to say : 
 
 " Ces faits etablissent clairement deux conditions comme devant accom- 
 " pagner un enregistrement valable. II faut 1 ® que la loi soit envoy^e aux 
 *' Cours, pour y etre deliberle avant que d'etre publiee, 2 ° Que la dolibe- 
 " ration soit prise librement. Les mfimes faits annoncent que la transcrip- 
 " tion 8ur les registres, denude de ces conditions, eat incapable d'autoriaer 
 *' Vexecution de la hi." 
 
 So it is of 
 
 Letters-Pa 
 
 tent 
 
 real 
 
 ges. 
 
 Sec. 1 1 8, .Denizart, finally declares that Letters- 
 granting Patent, granting privileges savoring of the realty, also require 
 privile- ^^ ^g approved oy the Parliaments. He states : 
 
 ♦' Quant aux privileges qui tiennent de la r^alite, comme sont tous les 
 " privileges exclusifs, ils rentrent dans la regie ganerale, et doivent etre 
 *' enr6gisti'es par tous les Parlements dans le ressort desquels on pretend en 
 *' faire usage." 
 
 '* D'apres ce qui a ete dit sur la necessite de I'enregistrement, on sent 
 " que son effet est de manifester le consentemcnt, 8a7is lequel la loi ne pent 
 " recevoirune execution legale." 
 
 The doctrines thus enunciated by Denizart, as to the 
 necessity for the enregistration of all Laws promulgated by 
 the Sovereign, sufi'er no difficulty whatever ; the same opi- 
 nions are held by every F-ench author who has written on 
 the subject. 
 
 No distinction ScC. 1 19. It is moreover remarks ole that, in the 
 
 S8rlnd°)re' ^^"S ^®"^^ ^^ Letters-Patont by which Henkt II, Fkan^ois II, 
 
 Jfou^'^metals. Charles IX ana Henry HI thus vainly sought to exerciec the 
 
 right of disposiujf;, at will, of all the Mines in the Kingdom, no 
 
 QHQ ever dream^'jd of makinc the silly distinction souo'lit to be 
 
 made by some persons, between Royal Metals and uon-Eoyal 
 
 T 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
— 125 — 
 
 T 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 Metals ; throughout all those Letters-Patent, as throughout Owmibship 
 all the Ordinances, gold and silver are t»*"ated of, on the very®,*' ^""' 
 same footing, as the baser metals. W y the Defendants "* 
 
 to cite a single line from any Edict, Orai. . se. Declaration, 
 or Letters-Patent, drawing any such ridiculous aistinction. If 
 the DE LtnY-Fatent be held valid, then has the Crown a 
 ri^ht to dispose, at will, of all Mines, without distinction, on 
 private lands ; the very absurdity of such a supposition is a 
 strong argument against the Patent. 
 
 Sec, 13U« Before proceeding to shew that the Authors 
 
 provisions of the several Ordinances reproduced in their enti-*"*g\\°^^J.^^._ 
 rety in this Factum, were generally unknown in France, until de?into fi've' 
 after the fall of the First Napoleon, we purpose q noting, classes. 
 without abridgement^ the opinions of the several authorities 
 for and against the position assumed by the Plaintiffs. Those 
 authors may be divided into five classes, namely : 
 
 1 '^ Those, who hold, and say, in so many words, that, all 
 Mines, without distinction, belong to the owner of the £oil ; 
 they are 
 
 1. — Meklin, 10. — Peoudhon, 
 
 2. — Lefebvke de la Planche, 11. — Brixhe, 
 3. — DoMAT, 12. — Bosquet, 
 
 4. — Perez, 13. — Rendsso.*?, 
 
 5.^ — DemOLOMBE, 14. — PONTANUS, 
 
 6.'— Blanche, 15. — De Crouzeilhes, 
 
 7. — Du MoLiN, 16. — Favard dk Langlade, 
 
 8. — CoQUILLE, 17. COLLTEE. 
 
 9. — Paul de Castee, 
 
 2 ® Those, who, by implication, assign all Mines to the 
 owner of the soil ; they are 
 
 1. — PORTALIS, 11. — DalLOZ, 
 
 2. — Hennequin, 12. — Lam6-Fleuet, 
 
 3. — GuYOT, vbiSf Domaine, Marque desfers, Lezion. 
 
 4. — PiGEAu, 13. — Gaeault, 
 
 6. — Pothier, 14. — F'^uiY, 
 
 6. — Toulliee, 15. — Gi. . 
 
 7. — Duplessib, 16. — De Ooemis, 
 
 8. — dupont, 17. moenac, 
 
 ft. — Mtonkrotj, 18. — "VnET. 
 
 10. — Bouteillee, 19.— Heneys. 
 
OwiriiBSBip 
 OF Miwia. 
 Authoritiet. 
 
 LiFfiuVBB DB 
 LA PlAMOHB, 
 
 gives all 
 Mines, even 
 of gold and 
 silver, to 
 owner of eoil. 
 
 — 126 — 
 
 3 ® Those wlio give all Mines, without distinction to the 
 King ; they are 
 
 I.—Ferrieke, 4.— Troplono, 
 
 2— F^DOARD, 5.— GUENOIS. 
 
 3. — Delkbecque, 
 
 4® Those who give gold &nd silverMinQa only to f^o 
 King; they are 
 
 1- — POCQUET DE LiVONIERE, 6.— KebUFFE ? 
 
 2.--C110PPIN ? 6. — MmiER ? 
 
 3.— Lebret? 7.— LocrI: ? 
 
 4.— D'Argentr^: ? 8. — Brillon ? 
 
 5® Those, who give gold-Minea only to the King; 
 they are 
 
 1.— DfeNIZART, 3.— BOCRJON, 
 
 2.— Delhommbau, 4. — Loysel. 
 
 k5GC« i/^1. Of the authors who assign all Mines, 
 
 without distinction, to the owners of the soil, Lefebvre de la 
 Planch E, it we may except Merlin, appears to be the man 
 who has given the subject the ujost study. 
 
 3 LEFEBVRE DE LA PLANCIIE, Traite du Domalne, 
 Livre IX, Chapitre / F, § 1, 2, 3, 4 5, " ^ ^ " 
 
 says : 
 
 6, 7, 8 et 9. P. 1 et seq : 
 
 § 1. — '* On a 6tabli ailleurs que tout cc qui n'a point de maitre, et que 
 n'appartient a personne, appartient au premier occupant, c'est-A-dire, dans 
 les Etats polices, a celui qui exerce la puissance publique, auquel ont 6te 
 transforms les droits offerts par la nature au premier occupant ; et cette 
 maxime serable recevoir une juste application aux mines que la nature a 
 cachees dans les entrailles do la terre, et qu'elle n'a pas voulu laisser en la 
 disposition des particuliers ; cependant elles n'oni jamais ete regardeei 
 comme appartenantes au Souverain." 
 
 § 2. — " Par I'ancien Droit Romain, elles apparienaieni sans restriction 
 au proprietaire de I'Mritage^ oil elles se trouvaicnt, L. Fructus, 7, §13 et 14, 
 ff. Soluto mairim, W en disposait librement, comme des autres emoluments 
 de sa terre, 1. 13, § Indi qucesitum^ff. de ustifructii, et quern admodtlm quis 
 utatur fruatur ; et celui qui en faisait la decouverte n'y pouvait rien pr6- 
 tendre, si ce n'etait dans le cas dans lequel il avait tr( jve ces mines dans 
 des terres desertes et abandonnees." 
 
 § 3. — " Cette jurisprudence fut changee sous les Emp6re;'rs qui s'attri- 
 buerent des droits sur les mines, en quclques lieux qu'elles fussent trouvees 
 suivant les difFerents usages des lieux, pro varietate Provinciarum, comme 
 on le voit au titre du Code de Metallariis : il faut voir la note de Godefroy 
 sur la loi secoude de ce titre.'' 
 
i 
 
 — 127 — 
 
 § 4.— p" A regard dcs uaagos on no voit point que nos Rois aient jamais 
 pretendn la proprietfi des mines : on no pent en fournir une meiileuro preuve, 
 que VO. .onnanee de Cuaktes IX, du mois do Mai, I*' \ rapporteo par 
 Fontanon, t 2, P. 445, par laquollc, en declarant que " lo dixihne den mines 
 Lvi appartient," il ordonne que les proprietaires, et autres pr6tendan8 droit, 
 seront contraints au paiement: cette reserve du dixidme des mines, au profit 
 du Roi, est une imitation des constitutions des Empereurs." 
 
 § , •— " Les Ordonnancea, qui contiennent cette reserve, expriment que 
 ee droit s'ctend non seulement aur les mines d'or et d'argent, mais aussi 
 sur les mines de tons n. otaux et mineraiix, et en general de toutes substan- 
 ces torrestres: par VEditdu Roi Henri IV, du moisde Juin, 1601, rapportfi 
 nu Recueil d'Edits de la charaljre des Comptes, le droit du Boi a 6t6 ren- 
 f. nm AU DixiicvE des substances metalliques ; et les substances terrestrea 
 en ^nt 6te affranchies : en consequence, les mines de charbon ont 6t6 docla- 
 r6cs exemptes de ce droit, par deux Arrets des 20 Mai, 1698 et 26 Septembre 
 1724, Voyez s-ir cette mati^re, Chopin, de Dom: 1. 1, tit: 2, n. 6, 1. 16, 
 n. 16 ; Charondas, Paud. 1. 1, c. 18, p. 89." 
 
 ^ § 6.—" Lebret, de la Souverainctfi, 1. 8, ch : 6, p. 194, pretend que le 
 droit du dixidme que les premieres Ordonnances fitondnient k toutes les 
 mines en g6n6ral, a 6te restrcint, par h suite, par une Declaration du mois 
 de Novembre, 1583 ; mais cette Declaration n'est point connue, et aucun 
 autre auteur n'on a parle." 
 
 § 7.—" II est vrai que le droit de dixidrae ne se pcrfoit paa sur les 
 mines de fer ; mais c'est parceque le droit du Roi a 6te regl6, d'une autre 
 manidre, par les Ordonnances, et en particulier, par coUe des aides, de 
 rann6e 1630, au tUre des droits de marque sur lefer^ acier et mines deter 
 qui fixe, en I'article premier, les droits du Roi k 8. f. 4. den. par quintal de 
 mine de fer." 
 
 §. 8.—" Gu6nois, en ses notes sur le titre des mines et mctaux, qui est 
 le quatridme du onzidme livre de sa Conference des Ordonnances, souticnt 
 qu'il est permis k ceus qui travaillent aux mines, de faire ouvrir la terre en 
 quelques lieux qu'ilsjugent k propos, en contentant les proprietaires ; et il 
 cite plusieurs Ordonnrnces, qui leur donne cette facult6 : celle de Francois 
 II, du 29 Juillet, 1560, lo permit en particulier, au Sieur de St. Julien • 
 cependant la crainte qu'on n'abuse de cette facult6, semble exigcr qu'on ne 
 puisse en user, qu'en vertu d'une permission speciale, suivant la loi Nullam 
 Cod. Theod. de Metall & Metall. Voyez Lebret au lieu qu'on vient de citer 
 
 § 9.— "Iffautajouter une observation que cct auteur fait au mSme 
 endroit, que ce Droit gen6ral du Royaurae qui restreint le droit du Roi sur 
 les mines au dixidme, ne s'etend pas aux Coutumes qui en disposent autre- 
 nient, comme les coutumes d'Anjou, Art. 61; et celle du Maine Art. 
 70, qui decident que la fortune d'or, trouvee en mine, appartient au Roi et 
 que celle d'argent appartient au Comte, Vicomte et Baron. Boden, dans' sa 
 r6publique, 1. 6. c. 2, p. 648, edition de 157e, observe qu'il y a pen de mines, 
 ou minieres d'argent en France : ainsi, la decision de ces coutumes n'est pas 
 d'un grand usage." *^ 
 
 «' D'Argentrfi, sur Bretagne, 56, n. 40 & 41, met aussi les mines d'or au 
 rang des biens qui ne peuvent appartenir qu'au Roi." 
 
OwHiasnip 
 or MiNH. 
 AuthoTititi. 
 
 Distinction 
 between com< 
 moo Law, 
 and exce^« 
 ticnal Oq8> 
 toms. 
 
 Defendants, 
 following 
 Dalloz, attri 
 bate, to Lb- 
 
 riBVBBB DB 
 I.A PbAHOBB, 
 
 opinion of 
 
 obscure 
 
 Lorri, 
 
 — 128 — 
 
 ^eC. 1 42. Lefebvre de la Planche, in that article 
 
 draws the distinction between the Common Law of the Kin^- 
 dora and the Customs, such as those of Anjon, Maine and 
 Bretagne, which give gold and silver to the Kinr. and his 
 ifarons. As we are governed by the Custom of Paris, which 
 8.9 we shall presently 8hew, gives all Mines to the owner of 
 the soil, It 18 plain that the citations made by the Defen- 
 
 a^^Vto^^tr""^^^^^ theexceptionafcostoms, do not 
 
 ^eC, 123, Some notes on Lephyre de la Planche 
 are cited by the Defendants at P. 44, 45, 46 and 64 of their 
 Factum, ad evidence of the opinion of Lefehvre de la Planche 
 m their fayor ; now those notes are not by Lefebvre d^ la 
 Planche ; they are from the pen of Lorn, advolte of the 
 King at. Domame (see 2 Camus, P. 313 Ko. 1111) One 
 can, therefore, readily understand why it is, that Lorri in his 
 notes, would express a different opinion from LefSI^e de 
 
 ^n^lT"' f T^.^ ''^^^"' iov'^^mg gold-M nesTthe 
 Xmg, a reason founded not on Law, but oH the « Sd(Buu du 
 Tcyaume Tlie Defendants, at P. 47 and 48 of their FaJtum 
 copyiDg Dalloz, vol 31, R^p. de Leg. ; P. 606, in that re^S 
 erroneously attribute to LeWbe de la PlInche throoi' 
 mon so expressed by the obscure Lorri, "^""^^"^ ^^^ ^P^" 
 What a contrast between the obscure, the servile Lorri 
 anu Medm, of whom a-ii«, vol : 2, P. 20, Nos. 16 andl8 
 says ! 
 
 /'Merlin est un r^^^-tavant juriseomulte. Ses ouvrages n'ont ^t^ 
 critiques que par ceux qui n'aimaient point sa personne mais ils Jn? 
 danstoutes les blbliothdques ; on les cite dans tous ?es p'roTe tils ne 
 laissent pas que d'etre consult^s en secret et avbc frcit par ceux-S mfim! 
 qui leur rendent le moins de Justice en public." ^ '"^°'® 
 
 signs M?M8, ^eC. 1/44, Domat, another author entitled to the 
 
 SS.O, fXS: '"''^'"' ■"" *''' ^"""^S explicit parages on tiiis 
 to ovnef of 
 
 77 ^'"'i^'^' ~^^^ CiviLES, Choses, 1 Vol : Tiire IlL section 
 
 Ily ISO. 0,p. 18. 
 
 n^J&ZiV^^!' '"t""'®. ?" "orabre des fonds que les particuliers ne ptuvent 
 poss^derdeplein Droit, ceux oxi se trouvent des mines d'or d'areent ct 
 autres m«taui, ou matieres mr UtquelU, U Prince a sondroifi ^ ' 
 
 GontraBt be* 
 tween Merlin 
 and that 8er> 
 Tile nphold' 
 er of the 
 2?c ^ine. 
 
— 12D — 
 
 T)oM AT.— -Droit rcBuc, Puissance, Vol: ? Zivre L Titre OwNinsHip 
 //, section 11^ No. 19, p. 12. ' or MtMai. 
 
 Authoritiet. 
 " La n6cessit6 dcs motaux, non mdement pour le» monnaye», pour 2**"x '"• 
 usnge des armcs, et pour celui de rartillovie, mais pour uno inflnlto d'autrea *^^'''^- 
 besoina et cotnmodit6s, dont plusieurs regardent rintdrfit public, rend ccg 
 matidres et cellcs des autres min^raux, si utiles et si nficcsaaircs dans un 
 iitat, qu il est de I'ordre de la Police que lo Souverain ait sur les mines de 
 CCS matieres un droit indepcndant de celui des proprifitaires des lieux oil 
 elles se trouvent. Et d'ailleurs on peut dire, que leur droit dans son origine 
 a et6 born6 i 1 usage de leurs heritages pour y semer, planter et bAtir, ou 
 pour d autres semblables usages : et que leurs titrcs n'ont pas suppose un 
 droit sur les mines qui 6taient inconnuca, et dont la nature destine I'usaze au 
 public par le besoin que pput avoir un 6tat des mdtaux et autres mati^res 
 s:n^ulidres qu on tire dcs mines. Aii.si los lois ont r6gle I'usnge des mines 
 et laissant aux propriotaires des fonds ce qui a paru juste, elles y ont aussi 
 regie 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 Tiile 4 
 section 1, article 9, cited below. 
 
 DoMAT.— Droit Public, Finances, Zivre / Tiile 2V, 
 Section 7, Article 9, p. 42. 
 
 •' Op peut aussi comprendre dans les biens de cctte premidre esp^ce, les 
 revenus quo le Souverain tire des mines regl6s k un dixieme." 
 
 Domat's opinion is of tlio most decided form ; he declares 
 m tJie most exprees terms, that the owner of the soil is also 
 owner of the gold and silver Mines, hut not de plein droit^ as 
 he says,^ or to such an extent as to prevent the Sovereign 
 from insisting on tlie treasure not remaining profitless for the 
 state; the profitable interest of the So/ereign consisting, as 
 Domat states, in a fiscal burtlien merely, not a right of 
 pi-operty {revenus, regies a un dixieme). And yet Domat has 
 been cited by the Defendants ap favoring their views 
 
 1 
 
 Sec, 1 25. It is of Domat, that the great Chan- ^, , 
 
 ceiior JJ Aguesseau, in his " Instrdctwns propres d former un opinion of 
 magisirat ", Tom : 1, P. 389, says: Domat. 
 
 .. " 9" P?"* appeler Domat le jurisconsulte des ilagistrats ; -tquiconque 
 possederait bien son ouvrage, ne serait peut-^tre pas le plus irofond des 
 jurisconsultes, mais il serait lepluswUde et le plus stir dctou Icsjiujes." 
 
 What a contrast between that opinion as to Domat, and 
 tU opinion entcrt.aincd of Ferriire, by his own nephew, as 
 17 
 
OwNBSsnip 
 'OP Mines. 
 Authoritia. 
 PiBiz, 
 Choppin. 
 
 CCJAfl. 
 
 Peb^z holds 
 all Mines, 
 without dis- 
 tinction, to 
 belong to 
 ownsr of soil. 
 
 ~ 130 — 
 
 appears by the following citation from Camus, vol : 2, P. 
 101. Ko. 340 : 
 
 " Joseph de Ferriire a (Vtavecheaucoup de verit6 dans ses additions 
 
 ^^ aux vies des Jurisconsultis, par Taisand, qu'on souhaiterait dans les 
 
 ouvrages de Claude dk FERKiiRE beaucoup vioina de vitem et plus 
 
 " D EXACTITUDE." 
 
 ^eC, 126, Antonio Perez, a Spaniard, Professor 
 
 of Law atZouvain, coramentinff on the Code, L. de Metal : 
 has the following, at P. 424, edition of 1695 : 
 
 .. u,- P"™o qn^f'tur an fodinas ex quibus metalla promanant, sint juris 
 pubhciP et juris esse privati, ac in libero privatorura usu indicat 
 Ulpianus ml 7, § 13 jf. sol. matr. ubi marmor et alii lapides, qui renas- 
 cuntur, quales sunt m Itali4, Galli4 et AsiA, item cretifodinK>, argenti- 
 
 ^ fodinffi, vel awp vel alterius materiae, utique in usu esse censentur, atque 
 ideo SI in lundis dominorum inveniantur, eorum sunt prout qutevis aliae 
 res in illorum fundis natse, I 1 et Qff. de acq. rer. dom. et § 19 Inst de 
 rer. divw Cohserunt enim fodinre et vense fundo tanquara ejus partes, ita 
 ut qui est dorainus fundi censeatur quoque dominus partium coh^ren- 
 
 * tiuui, I. 44. ff. de rei mnd. 
 
 ********* 
 
 "Ex quibus locis concludit Cujacius, lib. 15, obs. 21, m /;i., etiam 
 pTiyB.tisaurt,argentt et fern fodinas possidere licere, quamvis ferrum 
 facere non Iiceat cuilibet sine perraissu Principis, I. ult. ni. ff. depuU. 
 ct vecttg." o a/ x- 
 
 The author's knowledge of the Code is not lessened by 
 by Lis ignorance of the Laws of Nature, an ignorance he 
 shared in common with all others of his age. He, moreover 
 backs up his opinion with that of the illustrious Cujas. After 
 citing poetry, and, as if to relieve the monotony of the study he 
 was then pursuing, the author speaks of the then known gold- 
 fields of the world, and of the extraordinary richness of some 
 of them, and he goes on to treat of the canon metallicua or share 
 (equivalent to our Royalty) then paid over to the State under 
 the Roman Law. He then proceeds to discuss the then 
 existing state of the Law of Mining in the various countritd of 
 the world, and proceeds, at P. 425, to say : 
 
 „ ." ^^^^^ divers* sunt consuetudines, et regnorum leges de fodinis in 
 private loco rcpertis, nam in publico, Principi reservari dixi, sup. N. 8." 
 
 He then states that, in Spain, M.ncs of gold and silver 
 belong to the King, even though they are found in private 
 lands, but that, after payment of the expense of mining, a 
 
 c „, .^....., ,.... ,^.„. viicv^uvcitr »jia iiuuuiur Biiare to ine 
 
 owner of the soil. 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
i 
 
 — 131 — 
 
 otC, J/47. The same author then states, that the ^^^"^^'^ 
 
 Law of Germany, as established by the Constitution of theX£"L 
 Mmperor iBEDEBic, assigns, to the Sovereign, all Mines P«b^z 
 without distinction, and wheresoever found. And in this ^"°''"''' 
 connection, it is fitting to notice the bad faith with which thecSB 
 Defendants have quoted authorities in their Factum. AtLorsK' 
 r. 46 and 47, ot their Factum, the Defendants quote Chovuin Choppih's 
 at a passage where he speaks of this very Constitution of thet^rlT^J *' 
 Emperor Fbedebio, i. e. of the Law of Germany, as evidenceof Gerrny on 
 what the Law of France was. Chomnnh own opinion, as we Mines mista- 
 shall presently shew, is to the effect that the King has a 5'° ^^^^ ^*J'''' 
 Royalty on all Mines, nothing more. dantsforhia 
 
 ' » opinion as to 
 
 ^eC. 1/^(S. Perh^ after stating the LawofGer-^®- 
 
 many on Mining, proceeds to state that, by the Law of Opinion of 
 -b ranee, the owner of the soil is owner of all Mines even of P*"8^z very 
 gold and silver, found upon his lands, except under speciar^'P""*- 
 Customs, such as that of ^mow, which giwea gold- Mines to 
 the bovereign ; he cites LeBret, in support of his opinion. 
 The language of Perez is so explicit, tliat there can bo no 
 doubt as to his opinion. He says at P. 426 : 
 
 " In Gallia vero servatur Regi decima vel alia portio, nisi consuetude 
 
 aujstatutum provinciae aliiid disponat, prout andegavensis constitutio 
 
 vult aun fodinas quovis loco repertas, fisco regie acquiri, reliquas dominis 
 
 locorum aut habentibus altam justitiam, ut vocant, Le BreL de la Souve- 
 
 " ramete du lioy. lib. 3, cap. 6." 
 
 Sec, 129. It seems strange that Perez and the cAqp;)m 
 
 the Defendants could have succeeded in citing LeBret for the ^''"^'■" "^"®" 
 purpose of establishing quite contrary propositions; the Qiio-nXl^'^^^' 
 tation of LeBret by tfie Defendants, in support of tldr'^''' 
 position, is in keeping with the way in which they tortured 
 unfortunate Mr. Chopping as we shall presently shew. 
 
 ^eC. J o\j, Here also Perez treats a question of 
 
 the highest importance in this case; it is the question, Jirht'o?^' 
 whether the Defendants could exercise the right of entry on in any case ■ 
 the I laiiitiffs' lands against their will. Perez, in so many 
 words, asserts that the right of entry does not exist. 
 
 ^ ,^y^^7" on .¥me«, P. 14, American Edition {V. Z oi so Ao Coiiyer 
 Lnghsh Edition) has the following : Loysei, * " 
 
 
 . ."^"v 5" njineials h not necessarily accompanied by the 
 
 right to work for them : indeed, except, where the owner of the fee'is in 
 
— 132 — 
 
 And Attorney 
 General, and 
 Solicitor Ge- 
 neral. 
 
 o^^Z'" IcSAoMy^^^^ "''' ^■^'^°"' '^^''''^''''^ prescription or custon,. 
 Authorities. ' 
 
 Law-Offi- Loysel, cited by the Defendants at P. 45 und 46 of their 
 
 DKMOI.01IBB. ^ actum, and in commenting on tlie very liule cited by tliem, 
 states : ./ ./ j 
 
 ■ ■ « 
 
 a 1 A ir-^ " P?"**^*, P^^ ^^^ paroles suivantes du §2 de I'article 35 du livre 
 
 1 du Miroir des Faxons, qu'on ne peut aussi ouvrir la tcrre d'un autre 
 sans son conscntement." 
 
 _ The Attorney General and the Soh'citor General of England, 
 m 1854, gave it as their opinion that the right of entry does 
 not exist to searcli for (/old or silve?' on peivate lands. Tliat 
 opinion is quoted by iiir Charles Gore in a report, dated the 
 3rd February 1854, and addressed by him as Commissioner 
 of Crown-lands-revenue to the Lords of the Treasury, in 
 reference to the gold- Mines of Australia. We quote Si?' 
 Charles Gore's words from the translation given by the 
 " Journal de Quebec,'' in its issue of the 5th December, 18G3 : 
 
 "Lyades difficultes a agir dans ces cas (octroi de licences pour 
 exploiter les mines d or ou d'argent), parce que les offlciers en loi ont sou- 
 tenu que la Oouronne n'avaitpas le droit d^entrer sur les terres qui apnar- 
 tiennent d des mdividus et qui sont en possession des minemux giCelles 
 conhennent dans le hut d'yrechercher des victaux precieux ; c'est nournuoi 
 le pouvoir confere par une licence de la Couronne no peut s'exercer qu'avec 
 le consentement du proprietaire du sol." 
 
 ?edare?'' ^^^* 1 3 1 .— Demolombe, in his Cours de Code 
 
 owuQt oi Boil ^^cipoleo?!., Traits de la distinction des hlens. Vol 1 Ko 645 
 "auw::;, ; /-^J^f No.6i7,hastliefollowing voiyoxplieit passages 
 Without die- P^ ^ * 
 
 tinction. ,, . • i i •. , ., . 
 
 Aussi le droit du proprietaire du sol a la proprieto du trefonds mine- 
 ral, n a-t-il pas toujours ete reconnu. 
 
 ." Un certain nombre de nos anciennes Coutumes declaraient les 
 Seigneurs proprietaires des biens renfcrn)6s dans I'intericur do la ter-e 
 del avoir en terre7ion extvaye (Mehlin, Questions de droit, vho. Jilines)''' 
 
 * * * * .jf -jf 
 
 * * 
 
 Mais rarticle 552 soumet formellement, le droit de propriety du sol aux 
 modifications resultant des lois et reglements relatifs aux Mines. 
 
 _ Nous yenons k I'instant de dire que les Mines appartiennent au proprie- 
 taire du sol dont elles forment Ic dessous. * 
 Oe principe 6tait inconteste chez les Remains (L. 7 ^U ff solut 
 
 "ueialU^' ^' ^ *^'"^^* '^^'*''^" '"'''' ^"* ""^ ^"^ ' ^- ^ '^ ^' ^'''^- '^'' ^^^f'^ii- «« 
 Notre ancien droit franfais I'avait, en general, aussi partout reconnu, gi 
 
 ^ 
 
 i 
 
 T 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
133 — 
 
 1^ 
 
 i 
 
 4- 
 r 
 
 I 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 T 
 
 on exccpte un petit nombre de coutumes qui pa :nssaient attribuer lesOwniBSHip 
 Mines au seigneur (Ordonnances de 1413 et de 1471 ; edit de 1601 • op Mines. 
 Ordonnance de 1G80; Merlin, Questions de droit. Vbo. Mines. § 1 : Proudhon Authorities, 
 du Domaine privo, T. II, Nos. 738 et suiv.) Zachabi^ 
 
 Bl&nchs. 
 
 It is clear from that passage of Dcmolomhe that the 
 Common Law of France regarded" tne owner of the soil as the 
 owner of the Mine. 
 
 NfiC„ Jo3» Zachaei^, Z>m^ Civil Frangais, \o\:'^'''^^^^^^ 
 
 2, P. 55, § 276, has the following, as to the form of the pSnUom 
 present action : of action. 
 
 1® Laproprieto n'a par elle-mdme d'autre limites que celles de la 
 nature. 
 
 2 '=' Cette puissance appartient au proprietaire e;jclusivement a toua 
 autres. 
 
 3 ® Cette puissance existe de plein droit : quiconque reclame un droit 
 sur la chose d'autrui doit done prouver sa pretention ; et, jusqu'a ce que 
 cette preuve soit faito, le proprietaire a pour lui la presoniption legale que 
 son droit est exclusif et illimit6. 
 
 And again at Page 118. § 300, the same author says : 
 
 En vertu de I'essence juridique de la propriete, le proprietaire d'une 
 chose est fondo a i. i user et k en jouir exclusivement V. § 277. 
 
 Le proprietaire d'une chose et en particulier le proprietaire d'un 
 immeublo ou celui qui a sur Timnieuble un droit d'usufruit, d'usage ou 
 d'habitation peut done former centre quiconque pretend a une servitude 
 ^retcndue, dfaire interdire au cUfendeur toute atteinte d la liberte de cet 
 immenile, et mems, axiivant lea circonstances, d lefaire condamner d dea 
 dommnges et iiiterSts. 
 
 Cette action qualijiee d'acs'ion n£gatoire, et qui doit Stre apprectee 
 d'apris Vanalog)e qii'ellepresente aveclarcvendication a cependant ceci de 
 particulier, que lorsque la propriete est reconnue ou etahlie par le deman- 
 deur, il incomle nonpas d celui-ci de prouver la franchise ou la liberte de 
 ton immeuhle, mais au ofiFENDECR de fouknik la preuvi de la servitude 
 
 QU'lL PRETEND AVOIR ACQUISE SUR LE BIEN-FONDS. 
 
 ^eC. loo, Alfred Blanche, in hia I) Iciionnaire Aimto Bias. 
 
 General d' Admimstration, xho. Mines, P. 1282, has the mILTIo' ^^ 
 toliownig conclusive evidence as to the owner of the soil being owner of soU 
 owner of the Mines : • 
 
 ^ Flmieurs auteurs ont PRfixENDU que les anciens rois de France conside- 
 ratent le produit des Mines comme line veritahle portion de leur domaine, 
 comme une propriete de la couronne,\ et que les concessions par eux 
 
 ACCOKDfiES n'£taIENT AUTRE CHOSE QUE DES DONS PROPREMENT DITS. Cette 
 
 opinion paraiterronnee. Quand on consulte les edits, les ordonnances 
 rendus a ce sujet, on trouvc quo les Eois, loin d'envieager ies Mines wuiuitt 
 
 I 
 
- 134 — 
 
 OWNMSHIP 
 
 OF Mines. 
 Authorities. 
 
 PORTALIB. 
 FaTJiRD DI 
 
 Langladb. 
 
 PoRTAIiIS, 
 
 opinion in- 
 consistent 
 with idea of 
 sovereign 
 being owner 
 of any mines. 
 
 une propnete domaniale et dependant de la couronne avait soin, au contraire 
 d e abhr : 1 o i e droit du proprietaire du sol sur tout ou partio du produit 
 de la Mine : 2 « un droit inherent A la personne du roi de choisir tel ou tcl 
 de ses sujets pour exploiter les Mines, genre de propriety qui exige une 
 surveillance particulidre de la part du chefde I'Etat, et dont les interets 
 sont lies mtirnement a ceux de I'industrie et de la richesse nationale. 
 
 Le premier acte reglementaire emane du Souverain eat du 80 Mai ]41S 
 Un a enejfet recomm aujourdlmi l'ekreuk de ceux qui mentionnaient 
 comme point de depart denotre legislation sur cctte matiere nne ordo7inanc6 
 des'MinTs "^ '' ^^^^' ^"""^ ordonnance ne s'occupe pas 
 
 ^eC, lo4. — PoKTALis, in presenting to the Corps 
 Legislatif i]iQ project of tlie Napoleon-Code, and in commen- 
 ting on Art: 652 of that Code, identical in its terms, with 
 art : 4U of the Canadian Code, is thus reported at P. 34 and 
 seq : of Vol : 4 of the Code Civil et Motifs, by Favard de 
 Langlade, edition of 1820 : 
 
 L6gislateurs, 
 
 Vous vous empresserez de consacrer par vos suffrages Ic grand principe 
 de la propriete, presente dans le projet de loi comino le droit de jouir et de 
 disposer des choses de la manidre la plus absolue. 
 
 * * ^- * * * 
 
 Au citoyen appartient la vixovm&tt, et au Souverain l'empire Telle 
 est la maxime de tous 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 I'on possede 
 est le droit essentiel de tout peuplo qui n'est point esclave ; que chaque 
 citoyen doit garder sa propriete sans trouble ; que cette propriete ne doit 
 jamais receyoir d'attemte, et qu'elle doit dtre assur^e comme la constitution 
 meme de 1 etat. 
 
 r empire, qui est le partake du souverain ne raiferme aucune idee de 
 domame propremeiit dit. 11 consiste uniquement 'dans la puissance de 
 gouverner. II n est que le droit de prescrire et d'ordonner ce qu'il faut 
 pour le bien general et de diriger en consequence les choses et les personnes. 
 
 * * * * * * * 
 
 En France et vers le milieu du dernier siecle, nous avons vu paraitre 
 des ecrivazm dont les opinions systematiques 6taient vraienicnt capables de 
 compromettre les antiques maximes de Fordre naturel et social. Ces ecrivains 
 substituaient au droit iri con testable qu'a I'etat ou le souverain de lever des 
 subsides, un pretendu droit de propriete sur le tiers du produit des biens. 
 
 -Les honimes qui prechaient cette doctrine se proposaient de remplacer 
 toutes les lois fondaraentales des nations par la pretendue force de I'evidcnce 
 morale presque toujours obscurcie par les interets et les passions, et toutes 
 les formes connues de gouvernement par un despotisme legal, qui imnli. 
 querait contradiction j usque dans les termes ; car le mot despotisme, qui 
 annonce le fleau de I'humanite devait-il jamais etro Dlac6 k c6t6 du mot 
 legal, qui caracttsnse ie regne bienfaisant des lois '( 
 
 Ileure 
 consacrSs j 
 que les rai 
 propriete, 
 n'est pas si 
 
 Se 
 
 Sovereig 
 incompal 
 " qui est 
 " domair 
 from all < 
 that groa 
 his nnfai] 
 opinion 
 Napoleoi 
 to let slij 
 cessors, t 
 the debal 
 beion w tc 
 des biens, 
 
 Sei 
 
 LIN (as he 
 Vol : 1, 
 Custom 
 for the ap 
 Article of 
 
 " 0n .S 
 •' ou hrandc 
 *' cens ou fo 
 
 111 
 
 CO 
 
 •' No. 4 
 *' nedum sol 
 " impediri p 
 
 •' Idem 
 •' in f undo e 
 " riae extras 
 *' materiarur 
 
 Accol 
 History o 
 t/urisis, OE 
 
135 
 
 a contraire 
 Ju produit 
 r tel ou tcl 
 exige une 
 es interets 
 ale. 
 
 Mai 1418. 
 
 tionnaient 
 rdonnance 
 ccupe pas 
 
 e Corps 
 
 loramen- 
 118, with 
 . 34 and 
 ,vard de 
 
 1 principe 
 ouir et de 
 
 RE. Telle 
 lit dire au 
 n possede 
 ae chaque 
 6 ne doit 
 nstitution 
 
 e idee de 
 3sanco de 
 qu'il faut 
 lersonncs. 
 
 1 paraitre 
 pables de 
 ecrivains 
 lever dea 
 3 biens. 
 •emplacer 
 'evidence 
 et toutes 
 [ui impli- 
 isrne, qui 
 6 du mot 
 
 Ileureusement toutes ces erreurs viennent 6chouer centre les principes Owuirship 
 consacrfis par le droit naturel et public des nations. II est reconnu partout op Minks. 
 que les raisons qui motivent pour les particuliers la n6cessit6 du droit de ^"<Aori<iM 
 propnete, sont dtrangfercs k I'^tat ou au souverain, dont la vie politique Pobtau8 
 n est pas sujette aux mSraes besoins que la vie naturelle des individus. Dd-Molw. 
 
 Sec, 1 3o, 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'empire 
 " qui est le partage du Souverain, ne renferme aucune idee de 
 " domaine proprement dit ? " Such is the opinion of the man 
 from all others selected to 6U))port 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 
 opinion derives untold weight from the circumstance that 
 JNapoleon, himself a man of most despotic will, one not likely 
 to let 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, 
 beion* to the owner of the soil (see Demolombe, Diatinction 
 dea biena, t : 1, No. 645). 
 
 Sec. 136. Charles DuMoulin, or rather DuMo- dcMoum 
 
 LIN (as he wrote his name), in the Edition of 1681 of his works- Ki^ea gold 
 Vol: 1, TUle 2, gloss: 1, de censive, on Article 74 of Our^lJeftT 
 Custom of I'aris, has, on this subject, a very explicit passage, owner of soil 
 lor the appreciation of which it is necessary to reproduce that 
 Article of Our Custom ; that Article reads thus : 
 
 *' 0n Seigneur censier peut proceder ou faire proceder jaar voie d!Arrit 
 •' ou hrandon sur \cs fruits pendam en VUritage a lui redevable d'aucun 
 " cens ou fond de terre pour les arrerages qui lui sont de6s." 
 
 Ill commenting on that Article, DuMolin says : 
 
 •' No. 47. Idem dlco de vivariis vel leporariis, in terra censuali • ut 
 pedum solum, sed etiam Venatio ferarum sive vagantium sive inclusarum 
 impediri possit." 
 
 ''Idemde columhario, cretifodind, AVni aut AmEtmfodind existcnte 
 %njundo censuali^ qui, non soluto censu, impediri poterunt ; etiac mate- 
 riae extractse In fundo existentes, ned^m solum ipsum, et extractio 
 matenarum." ^ > 
 
 According, then, to DuMolin, whom Ferriere, in hia 
 History of the Koman Law, P. 422. stvles the PrinoA nf 
 Junsia^ one, for unpaid ccns^ could seize, not only the land, but 
 
— 136 — 
 
 OWNBBSHIP 
 OF MlNBB. 
 
 Authorittet. 
 
 DcMoLiN. 
 
 CoQUii:ii.B. 
 
 Esteem ia 
 
 which 
 
 DcMouN. 
 
 hc' ; U-, 
 
 Cam,; J. 
 
 but (as fruits of the land) gold and STVYEU-Mines ; gold and 
 silver-mines, then, in the opinion of DuMolin, \vere fruits of 
 the soil, and were seizable as sncli 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 
 tlie^reat learning of DuMolin has been Ik Id by French 
 Jurists. Suffic'i it to say that he commented almost every 
 Custom in France ; but his Master-piece is his Commentary 
 on the Fiefa^ under the very Vustom that governs us, and 
 from which we have just quoted. Camus, 'ool : 1, P. 63 and 
 64, has said of DtiMolin : 
 
 " La Coutume de Park a eu beaucoup de commentateurs : 11 n'est pas 
 " necessaire de les etudier tous ; niais 11 faut en reunir plusieurs, parce- 
 " qu'ils ont des parties qui Icur sont personnelles, et qu'll n'est pas possible 
 ** de negliger. Du Moulin, le premier cfentr^eux, est au droit frangais ce 
 " que Cujas est au droit romain. Son coramentaire sur les fiefs et les 
 '* censives 7ioti8 fera d jamais regretter ceiix qu'll avait, dit-on, earitssur les 
 •' autres titrea de laeoutume : il ne nous rcste a cet egard que ses apostilles, 
 " qui formaient un ouvrage s6par6, dans le plan duquel toutes les coutumea 
 " sont comprises. Au reste, le coramentaire sur le titre des fiefs, en meme 
 " temps, qu'il rend la perte du surplus de I'ouvrage plus sensible, .ous 
 *' en dedommage en partie. Ce traite est si profo7id, qu'il contient tons les 
 *^ principes du droitfrangais : c'est une mine inepuisable, qui devient plus 
 *' I'iche, k mesure qu'on la fouille ; et, des difFerents auteurs que j'ai k indi- 
 " quer sur le droit franpais, je consentirais presqu'on oubliat les deux tiers, 
 ^^ pourvu que le temps destine a leur lecture /<2* employe d mkllter le traite 
 " des fiefs de Dumoulin.''^ 
 
 ************ 
 
 '* Ce profond jurisconsulte, instruit de toutes les parties de notre droit, 
 " ne concevait pas un principe, sans apercevoir en m^rae temps les restric- 
 " tions auxquelled il est sujet. 
 
 D'Aauetseau. Chancellor D'Aguesseau, at vol : 4, P. 619 of his works, 
 
 says of DuMolin : 
 
 " Par la profondeur de son jugemcnt, il aurait ii^Hte de naitre dans le 
 •' sidcle des Papinien et des Afrkain. 
 
 GOQblLLI 
 
 gives all 
 minea to 
 owner of 
 ■oil. 
 
 ^eC, lo7. CoQUiLLE, is no less explicit than DuMo^ 
 
 Un ; in his Commentaries on the Custom of Nivernois^ Art : 
 2, De Justice^ P. 8, Edition of 1703, Coqidlle says. 
 
 " Les miniires d^argent, de fer, de cuivre, d'estain et autres matierea 
 " j?B sont PAS de !a condition du trhor. Car le tresor est mis en soa lieu 
 •' par main d'homme : Les miniires font portion de la terre naturellement, 
 
~ 137 — 
 
 et sont produites par la terre, partant la propri6t6 d'ioelles appartient au Ownir8hip 
 proprietairede la terre, l.in lege fundi, ff. de eontrah. empt. I. fructus vel. I. op Minis. 
 divortio, §. si vir. ff. soluto matrix et ne sont au Seigneur haut-justi- Co<jcr.Li. 
 cier, si ce n'etaient en terre vacante. Bien voudrois-je que le ddtempteur ^^^^ d« 
 bordelier de la terre n'aurait le droit de ces minieres, parcequ'il est Cabtbb. 
 seulement superficiaire, ayant la concession de la terre pour percevoir les 
 fruits que la saperficie produit, et selon la face qui etait lors de la conces- 
 sion : aussi il n'est pas proprietaire, I. 3, §, penult, ff. de novi oper. nunt. 
 I. si domus, §. ult.ff. de legn. 1. Le detempteur (V heritage d titre de cens, 
 a plus ample droit, il est vrai foncier : pourquoy a lui appaktiennent les 
 entrailles de la terre, etjusqiCau centre. 
 
 " Quand k la propriety de ces minieres, je ne puis consentir k I'opinion 
 de Paul de Giutre, in consil. 330, vol : 2, quand il dit que celui qui a 
 ouvcrt la miniere en son heritage pent suivre la veine, sous terre, etiam en 
 et sous I'hdritage d'autruy. Car le proprietaire de la superficie est pro- 
 pri6taire du dedans etjusques au centre, I. ciim mumfructum, ff. quib. 
 mod. usmf. amitt.^^ 
 
 ^GC» Joo. That quotation from Coquille makes 
 
 no mention of gold, for the reason, probably, that no gold 
 mines were then supposed to exist in France (see Chopping 
 vol : 2, livre 2, titre 5, P. 215, Edition of 1662) see also 
 Lorri'snotQ to P. 35 of vol : III, Lefehvre de la Planche ; but 
 the reason assigned by Coquille as to the other mines, applies 
 equally well to gold-mines, namely, that the owner of the 
 soil owns every thing in the bowels of the earth from surface 
 to center. Coquille quotes the opinion ot Paul de Castre^ as 
 being in conformity with his own, as to the ownership of the 
 Mines, but disagrees with him as to the Miner's right to 
 follow the vein isto neighboring lands. Moreover the opinion 
 of Coquille is based upon the Roman Law imd upon the 
 Common Law of the Kingdom. Coquille, again, in his 
 Qu'stions et Reponses, No. 7, P. 132 of same Edition, " dea 
 " espaves et autres choses qui se disent selon le droit des 
 
 " has the following clear 
 
 Coquille does 
 not mention 
 gold, proba- 
 bly because 
 no gold mines 
 known then ; 
 but arga- 
 ments of 
 CoqutUe 
 apply to 
 gold. Opinion 
 of Paul de 
 Castre in 
 same sense. 
 
 u 
 
 " Homains in ndllius bonis esse, 
 expression of his opinion : 
 
 (( 
 
 " Quant aux minieres qui se trouvent en terre ; parceque naturellement 
 *' elles font portion de la terre, je crois qo^elles appartiennent aux Seigneurs 
 *^ proprietaires de la terre, et non aux Seigneurs Haut-Justiciers. Car n'y 
 '• ayant point de terme et proportion jusques a quelle profondeur la terre 
 " appartienne au possesseur, il faut dire qu'elle lui appartient jusques au 
 " centre ; sinon qu'il fut possesseur superficiaire, comme bordelier ou 
 " cmphyteute, qui a le seul droit des fruits et de la superficie." 
 
 Such is the opinion of Coquille, whom Pothier has ^tat,-P<''^««' 
 styled " le judicieux Coquille,'' and whom Camus^ vol : 2, ^hougiSrS 
 
 18 Coquille, 
 
— 138 — 
 
 orS^" S^' ^-^' §^' ^^y^^^ a "fort k ,ijuri8cmisulte, hardlet prof and:' 
 PuooDHON. ^^ unhesitatingly assigns all Mines to the owner of the soil. 
 
 Defendants 
 falsify quota- 
 tion from 
 Protidhon, 
 His opinion 
 favors Tiewa 
 of Plaintiffs. 
 
 The same. 
 
 Sec. J 39. At. p. 35 of their Factum, the Defend- 
 
 ants, in quoting Pboudhon, Domaine de Propriete, P. 282, 
 No. 753, have fallen into an error, unintentional, we hope, 
 but quite usual with them ; we allude to the habii of suppress- 
 ing a part of the quotation, so as to completely disfii -e the 
 sense. The Defendants quote the passage thus : " 11 laut se 
 " rappeler. . . que le droit coraraun en France est tel qu'on 
 " pent, an moyen des formalitos prescrites par la loi, faire 
 " partout des recherches de mines, et en obtenir la concession, 
 " dans les lieux ou clles se trouvent, sans le consentement et 
 " meme malgre les ojipositions du proprictaire de rh6ritage 
 " ou 1 on fait la docouverte." Now, let us see what those 
 ttwee dots stand for I In the unmitilated passage, we read in 
 Pumdhon: "II faut se rappeler, comme nous l'avons dit 
 " PLUS HATiT, que le droit coraraun en Fiance est tel, etc., etc., 
 " etc. The words omitted are " comme nous Vavons dit plus 
 *' haut. 
 
 Why this oraission of Proudhon's, reference to the prece- 
 ding number ? 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, but ^all it) 
 suppression, he has been made to say. In numbers 748, 749 
 750, 751, 752, 753 and seq : of his work, Proudhon is com- 
 menting, piecemeal, on article 10 of the French Imperial Law 
 of 1810, the present Law of France on Mines; at number 
 753 (the ouoted number) of his work, Proudhon reaches the 
 words " du proprietaire de la surface " of article 10, of the 
 Law of 1810, and he heads his number 753 with those five 
 words in italics ; and, then, he gives the quotation, which has 
 thus been truncated by the Defendants. So that, by an artful 
 suppression of Proudhon's reference to preceding numbers 
 the Defendants have endeavored to palm off, upon this Court' 
 Proudhon's appreciation of the existing state of things in 
 France for a statement of what the Law of Mining formerly 
 was in France, and still is in Lower Canada. So much for 
 the skilful use oi dots ! Oh ! those three lying little dots! ! 
 
 ^eC, 140. If Proudhon had written no more 
 
 upon the subject, this detection of the use of dots might not 
 perhaps, have been so overwhelming; but, luckily ' for us-J 
 
 m nun 
 Praud) 
 738 he 
 " point 
 " appai 
 " trcsoi 
 739, Ih, 
 old Fn 
 Kings : 
 " Romt 
 " prodi 
 old Ore 
 May li 
 thus ; 
 
 <( 
 
 "Nc 
 nous a\ 
 " des Mil 
 " reinpiri 
 " proprio 
 " des em I 
 *' le dixie 
 '■'■ un droi 
 " doute, 1 
 '* domain 
 " par la i 
 " trouve < 
 
 prude7iCi 
 Custom 
 part of t 
 soil ; he 
 
 "Cep 
 " abandon 
 " terre ren 
 
 Wh: 
 ing from 
 by the pi 
 gift of til 
 their Rul 
 gift ratifi 
 speaking, 
 argumen 
 Ordinjiiic 
 
— 139 — 
 
 in numbers 738, 739 and 740 P o-ra «^ +> 
 
 Pm^^A^n l.^aves no room to donht 'i,TJ. • -^ 8am g work, Own«.h.p 
 Tqs h^ o ci T ^^"* to aouDt nis opmion. In numhor*" Mima. 
 
 738 he says: " Les Emp^rours Romains ne coD^dTraient ^T ''•^^''• 
 " point les mines comme ctant dos nrnr.ri^f/^ ^i • i . ^^"'ZiBx. 
 
 " aDDartirmsoTif ."i I'Ffnf • «C8 propn^tC's domaniales qui 
 
 ;«;s'i f ^:' sfsitrpSi "Kit 
 
 "prodmt annuel dos mines." yV.^/^A.n ^t^en retotrtho 
 May^SeS XV/ll^ after quoting from the OrdTnrnce of 26 
 thuJ; ^"'^^^^'^ «f ^^^« ^^«tum), /Vo.e^A.;^ conchides 
 
 des Mines, et dire que dans Tancicnne mon«r?h;IT'''"' • '"' ^* P'-"P"et6 
 I'ernpiro remain, la propri^tfr corpsTes Min?"^''''f -f "'^^ *^^"« 
 propriete doinaniale, puis^jue nor^cS nrlncofr^ "■ ^'* ^P.'"* ""^ 
 des emp^reurs romains. percevoir su" ce Renrede £«''"' * ^^'*'™P^" 
 le dixi^me du produit, comme auiourd'hui^, Ir^l II ""^''^ '=^°«« ^"« 
 un droit annuel et fixe surleprodCt 1 ch^aue Si'"J'^'-.Pr^"'*.?^'-« 
 doute, mais qui nVmp^che pas que la pronSe d^^^^ '^°'"^"'.^' '^"« 
 
 domaine prive de ceu'x qui fa possed^n't • T/;J:J^?7.\X«X.''/""' ^' 
 par la seule assise d'un impot fonder I^XttI^I ^^J^udratt dire que 
 
 ^3eC. 141. Denizart, in his Collection de Juris m ■ , 
 
 iuM&iomoiJSivernois, to tJie eiiect that JVIines naturallv form "^f«°<J*'^t8, 
 part of the earth, and therefore belong to the owner ^^^^^^ 
 soil ; he then goes on to sav • owner ot tlie opinion con- 
 
 ° '' ' sidered, and 
 
 "terrerenfermaitdeplusprecieux." ^ Pr^ciput, ce que leur 
 
 What silliness in the reason ffiven bv Denipnr^^f fn,. .i;. ,. 
 ingfrom the opinion ot CoauilU^! When, we ask 1^^^ 
 by the people of France, a/id where do CiinTr^corde^' he 
 gift of tiiat extraordinary ^^..'o^>^^^! by the people of France to 
 their Ruler ? In what great assembly of Vnation'?as the 
 gift ratified by the laronage spoken ot' by St. Louis IseXsl v 
 speakmg one IS tempted to suppose, from the sllLessofZ 
 arguments in that article nnrl fmm f^e .va- i -^ ] ? 
 Ordinances referred to are juinbled^ip, and from'thrabsenc. 
 
 refuted. 
 
- 140 — 
 
 OWVIRBBIP 
 OP MiMEB. 
 DillZABT. 
 
 The same. 
 
 of any thing like clironological order in the discussion of 
 them, that tlie f^cnerally acute Dmizart must have allowed 
 some tyro to hold the pen for him. Listen again to the 
 process of reasoning, by wnich, in the same article, he arrives 
 at the conclusion, that gold-mines belong to the King. Ho 
 had evidently seen somewhere the Ordinance of 1413, and he 
 was compelled to admit that all the mines referred to by 
 Charles vI belong to the owner of the soil. JJciiizart says : 
 
 " Parmi nous la permission de chcrcher des Mines est un droit purc- 
 mont royal ; mais la propriete dos Mines n'appartiont point au Roi. 
 
 *' Cettc ordonnance (Chaules VI. of 1418) qiwlifie Ics particuliers Mai- 
 tres des ires-fundt et ProprUtairea des mines " : et c'est uno preuve bicti 
 constante que le Roi ne s'en pretend point proprietaire par droit dc souvc- 
 rainet6." 
 
 " II faut pourtant exceptor les mine» d'or de cette maxime ; il est bien 
 constant que celles-ci appartiennent h ros Rois comnio un appanage du 
 Domaine Roj^al ; et c'est la raison pour laquelle la Declaration de 1413 ne 
 parle point de cette esp^ce de mines." 
 
 •' Le droit de dixidmo forme done le Preciput de nos Rois sur les Mines 
 du Royaume, etc.. etc. 
 
 When Denizart states, as the reason why Charles VI 
 makes no mention of gold-mines, the hypotlicsis of their being 
 the property of the Crown, he manifests an obtusencss 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 ; Chnppin, vol : 2, livrc 2, titre 5, P. 215, Kdition 
 1662, states as a fact, that whicli is the true reason, no doubt, 
 namely : that there were no gold-mines in France ; and the 
 game thing is said by Lorri in his notes on Lcfebvre (h la 
 Flunche, vol : 3, P. 35, and, although he was so struck by the 
 fact that, in that Ordinance, the " JJaistrcs des t ^afonds^' and 
 " Maistres des mynes " are convertible terms, and althougli 
 Denizart is thereby forced to the conclusion that all ^rines 
 specified in that Ordinance belong to the owners of the so. 
 yet Denizart has overlooked the fact tliat Charles VI has 
 app^* ^ his Law to the mines therein referred to " et auHres 
 " Q. jvyNQUES estant en nostredict royaume (see P. 81, line 
 11 of tuis Factum). Surely that must include gold mines. 
 How came he also to omit all refere; ce to the Ordinauce of 
 Louis XI of 1471 ? That Law speaks of goldmines. How 
 came he to be ignorant of the fact stated by Guyot^ vbo. 
 Irlarque des fers, P. 396, col : 1, that the Ordinance of 1601 
 •was rendered in consequence of reports made to the Covem- 
 
 I 
 
— 141 — 
 
 4- 
 4 
 
 ment of the existence of gold, silver and other mines, which Ownbbship 
 were then tliought to be more valuable than thev really were ? JjJfifJJ; 
 Denizart seems also to have had no knowledge of *he fact 
 stated by Fbanjois Gakault in his " Sommaire dea edits et 
 ordonnancea royaux concernant la cour des monnaiea (see 
 Lame-Fteury^ P. 113, note 2) that Charles VI had issued, in 
 1414, an Ordinance respecting gold and aileer-mmGi,^ a textual 
 reproduction of his Ordinance of 1413, which, as Denizart 
 himself admits, confers silver and other mines tiian 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 Oarault must gi": gold 
 mines also to tht subject. 
 
 Had Denizart 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. Denizart, in his 
 Aciea de Notoriete du C'hdtelet, almost copies the article of 
 his Collections de deciaions. 
 
 Sec, 142, — ^The 
 
 silence of Denizart (usually m Dinizart ax^^ 
 
 well informed) as to the existence of the Ordinance of 1471,^r?ter8not 
 naturally leads one to enquire the reason of that silence. We aware of 
 have already incidentally (at P. 90 and 91 of this Factum) "^^^^^ o^ 
 touched upon the reason. The Ordinances of the French ^^jj.°f J^^'^.'^ 
 Kings were generally as little known to the Inhabitants of ted here. 
 France as our own Ordinances were known to the inhabitants of 
 Canada, until the publication of the first volume of the Edits 
 et Ordonnances. We need not be, at all, surprised at such 
 ignorance, when we reflect that an Ordinance, ccmceived 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 mining-fever had subsided, 
 to be in turn succeeded by some other Ordinance destined to 
 meet a like fate. Even the veneration of the Fi-ench for their 
 Saint Louis did not preserve the knowledge of his Capitulaire 
 on treasure-trove, since we find jurists denying its existence, 
 Le^ebvre de la Planche asserting (vol : 3, P. 344) that an 
 eminent lawyer in Court had denied its existence (see Bacquet, 
 Droits de Justice, eh : 32, No. 15, P. 350), and Loisel, Pocquet 
 de Livoniere and others making it ch : 88, instead of ch : 90 
 of the Eiablissemens. In like manner we find Begnaidt 
 d'Ej)ercy, in proposing the Law of 1791, stating that Pbilippe- 
 LE-Lowa issued in 1321 (when the Lord had called that 
 
— 142 — 
 
 OwNiasHiP 
 or Minis. 
 Odyot. 
 
 monarch to himself, we trust) an Ordinance declaring all 
 mines to be " proprietia royales et domanialcs " ; even Merlin 
 was misled for a whilo by that Htrttoment oi (VEperq/ ; bnt he 
 corrected the error in his article on Mines, reproduced at 
 length at P. 59 of this Factum. UEpcrcyh historical and legal 
 blunder has been well ventilated by modern French-writers, 
 who have had the adva^'age of perusing the exliaustive 
 Collections of those Laws emco the days of Louis XIV", when 
 they were begun by de / aune>e / on this bead see the autho- 
 rities cited at § 146 of this Factum to shew that no such 
 Ordinance as the pretended Edict of Philippk-le-Lono ever 
 had an existence ; and one hat, only to glance at the several 
 Collections of Ordinances pr,blished, prior to the reign of 
 Louis XIY, and to compare them with the Laws contained in 
 the Collection da Louvre^ in order to see that not one in a 
 hundred of the French Ordinances were known before the 
 publication, (begun in 1723) of the Ordonnances du Louvre. 
 
 The same 
 Guyot's histo 
 
 u«yor«ui«vu. J^eC, 143. GuYOT, vio. Ordonnances,] after rdiT 
 
 ry of publica- j.jjjg ^^ ^j^q y^ry incomplete Collec' .ons of Ordinances, publislied 
 tionof Ordi- .^ . . of Louis XIV, proceeds to say at P. 454 of 
 
 nances. 
 
 ■ 
 
 prior to the reign of Louis XIV, proceeds to say at P. 454 of 
 that article : 
 
 " Cea difterents recueils d'ordonnanccs n'etant pas complets ou .. ;tant 
 •• pas dans I'ordre chronoijgique, Louis XIV resolut do fairu fairc une 
 «• une nouvelle collection dcs Ordorn::iices plus ample, plus correcte et 
 " mieux or Jonn6e que toutes celles qui avaient paru jusqu'alors ; il fut 
 '* regie pu'on ne remonterait qu'i Hugues Capet, soit parceque Ics Ordon- 
 «' nances antorieures conviennent pcu k nos mccurs, soit parcc qu'on ne 
 *' pouvait rien ajouter aux recueils imprimes qui ont 6te donnea sous le litre 
 " de code des lois antiques et des capitulaires des rois de France." 
 
 Guyot then proceeds to state that Chancellor Pontchar- 
 train, whom the King had entrusted with the work, employed 
 Messrs. Berroyer, de Lauriere and Loger to collect those 
 Laws, under the Chaneellor'B 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 Louv/e) was published in 1723 ; the second 
 volume was published in 1728, after de Lauriere's death, 
 from his notes, by iSecousse, who was then entrusted with the 
 continuation of the work, and who pubhsbed six more volumes. 
 Four more volumes, making twelve volumes in all, and 
 bringing the Collection from the year 1051 to 1420 were 
 published by de Villi nuU and de Brequ^gny. That collec- 
 tion, (jruyot tells us, at P. 454 of the article on Ordonnances) 
 
— 143 — 
 
 was the only complete Collection extant when lie wro(o, A. D. OwiminH!* 
 1785. The Collection was not resumed until aftorthe Revolu-g' ^"'■'* 
 tion. Ip it therefv, nirprising' that the Ordinance of Louis XI, d'AmIly. 
 of 1471, should ha/c been unknown to the authc-s, who 
 preceded theRevolut' .u, and should have been unnoticed by 
 them ? Hence it is that, on mining-questions, mduy of them 
 have uttered such nonsense in connection with Royal rights 
 in Mines. Merlin, 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 de Carondelet va Schuytener, win the c" e, and, 
 with success, achieve a lasting fame. It was only ,1820, 
 <<fter the restoration, that the Ordinance of 1471 was pi .lished 
 
 J ■ length, for the first time, although Merlin had previously 
 ., 3ught it under tl notice of the Courts. The only author, 
 
 .nterior to the Revolution Avho noticed tL. Ordinance of 1471, 
 is Eianchard ; and he only gave the title and date of the Ordi- 
 nance, with the date of enregistration. 
 
 -An additional, and perhaps a stronger, ;^dditional 
 
 reason why the Ordmance of Louis XI, of 1471 was unknown some of the 
 in France, may perhaps be gleaned from that extraordinary Mining Ordi- 
 chain of vain attempts made by Henry II, and his successors naacea not 
 down to Henry III inclusively, to lay claim to all the mines £wn. 
 m the Kmgdom, 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 li^ht, would have destroyed their chances 
 of jobbing- Hence it is, perhaps, that, with ore exception in 
 1562, we find no mention of that great Ordinance in any of 
 the Letters-Patent granting those monopolies ; hence, perhaps, 
 also is it, that, at a later period of the Monarchy, when the 
 same jobbing spirit was abroad among he King's surround- 
 ings, we find no mention of the Ordinance of Loms, XI, of 
 1471, made in the celebrated Arret du Oonseil of the 22 June, 
 1728, which recites almost all the Ordimnances et Declara- 
 tions on mining that had theretofore been rendered, as remarked 
 by Lame-Fleury^ P. 3, note 1. For that Arret see Lajne- 
 Fkury, P. 97. 
 
 ^ 1 J /^ Erroneonfl 
 
 •Sec. 145. Bkixhe, in his Legislation de.B Mines, ""^ly^f 
 
 conclusively estabiishes that the Kings of France never claimed d'Angciy 
 
— 144 — 
 
 OWNBBSHIP 
 OF Hl!IBS. 
 
 Bbixbk. 
 St. Jban 
 d'Anqklt. 
 
 refated- 
 
 to be owners of the mines, in the sense pretended by the 
 Defendants. He quotes at length the opinion of Le ComU 
 Regnaud de St. Jean d'Angely in presenting the Law of 1810. 
 The Count to whom the Ordinances of the French Kings 
 appear to have then been a sealed book, as we shall presently 
 snew, expresses the following erroneous opinion : 
 
 " En France, jusqu'en 1791, la legislation sur les Mines n'ajamaisete 
 
 •' ni bien solennelle, ni bien regulidre, parceque les tribunaux^ n'ont jamais 
 
 " pris connaissance des affaires de Mines exclusiveraent traitees au Conseil 
 
 " du Roi." 
 
 ****** 
 
 " Toutefois on tenait pour constant, avakt 1791, que les Mines en 
 ** France etaient une propriete domaniaW 
 
 Sec, 146, ^The error, into which the Count thus 
 
 fell, is due to his having followed Regnault d^Epercy^ who 
 introduced the Law of 1791, and who labored under the 
 impression that, in 1321, Philippe-le-Long had issued an Ordi- 
 nance declaring all mines to be ^^ proprietes r&yales et doma- 
 " niales,^' and further to the fact that the provisions of the 
 three great Ordinances of 1413, 1471 and 1601 were then 
 w ^mown to the Count as they were to the rest ot France, and 
 t it the existence, oven, of the Ordinance of 1471 was not as 
 much as suspjcted by the Count and his co-legislators of that 
 day. For evidence that no such Law was made by Philippe- 
 LK-LoNG, who had died before April, 1321, or by his successor 
 Chaeles-le-Bel, see 31 Dalloz, Repertoire de Jurisprudence, 
 vho- Mines., ch : 1, No. 8, P. 605, LAMt-FLEtnsY, Legist (tion 
 minerale, P. 3, note 1, Delebecque, Legislation des mines, 
 vol : 1, P. 255, DuPONT, Jurisprudmce des mines, vol : 1, 
 P. 21, note 1, Alfred BlajicuE; Biotionniire general d'ad- 
 rninistraiion, P. 1282, vho. Mines, and Richard, Legislation 
 sur les Mines, t. 1, § 4, P 7, note 2. 
 
 Abundant evidence of the error of the Count m supposmg 
 that raining suits had never occupied the Ordinary Tribunals, 
 but were invariably decided b^ 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 mining suits in France had been determined by the ordi- 
 nary Tribunals. The Letters-Patent of Charles IX, of 25th 
 September, 1563, are the best evidence on that point ; the 
 King complains therein (see § 107 of this Factum) that the 
 Parliaments of Paris and ul Grenoble, and the Court of 
 Beaujollais had prohibited de St. Julien from collecting the 
 
 ^' 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
— 145 
 
 ^' 
 
 Royalty on certain Mines specified in the Arrets ; § 115 Ownbbship 
 shews the threat of impeachment held ont by the Parliament „' ^'^'■■' 
 of Paris against Chancellor L'llopital for endeavoring to ^'^°"' 
 supersede the jurisdiction of that Court in those matters ; and 
 §148, 194, 195, 196 and 197 of this Factum ^ive the history 
 of that successful resistance made by the Parliament of Paris 
 
 creation of the Superior Council liere, that the Grand Monar- 
 gue, that man of iron-will and despotic sway, by Arrets du 
 Conseil that produced no cliange in the Jurisprudence here, 
 because they were not enregistercd here, contrived to alter 
 the Jurisprudence in France, and evoked the decision of 
 Mining law-suits to the King in Council. 
 
 ^GC, 147. That the existence of the Ordinance of Evidence of 
 
 1471 was then unknown in France, is evident from the fact '6°°''®°*^^ 9^ 
 that neither the Eeport of the J^ye committees which drafted ^JJordinAn- 
 the Law of 1791 (see P. 13 and seq. of Brixub;, Legislation des ces. 
 Mines, vol : 2) nor J/r*. llertault-Lamerville, who opposed the 
 Report, makes any mention of that Ordinance. Miraheau, 
 even, seems to have had no knowledge of its existence. But 
 no better proof can be given of the error into which Le Comte 
 Regnaud de St. Jean (D Angely has fallen, than the following 
 quotation from the joint Report of \\\^jine committees on the 
 Law of 1791 ; after stating, as the reason why all Mines 
 should be declared " a la disposition de la nation,^'' the fact 
 that : " quant anx mines metalliqucs jamais les proprietairea 
 " de la superficie ne se sont avisos de vouloir les exploiter," 
 the Report proceeds to state (see P. 20 of vol : 2, JBrixhe, 
 Legislation des Mines) . 
 
 " A I'dgard des substances fossiles, telles que les charbons de terre, 
 " plusieurs particuliers ontentrepris de !es fouiller, et vous avez meme vu, 
 *• Messieurs, qu'un de nos Rois, Henki IV, determine par des con»ideratwns 
 ** qui lui parurent puissantes, pennit par grace sp^ciale, I'exploitation de 
 " ces sortes de Mines ; qu'avant cette epof/ue on avail donne une liberti 
 " indifinie de les exploiter ; " 
 
 '• Le pr6ambule de I'arrot de regloment de 1744, auquel nous devong 
 " une exploitation avantaeeuse nous ofifre la preuve de cette verito. 
 " Voici comment il s explique : 
 
 " Sa Majeste etant inform^e que les dispositions de I'urrdt de 
 "1698, sont presque demeur6es sans effet, soit par lau^jligencc 
 
 i 
 i 
 
146 — 
 
 Ownership 
 
 OP MiNBS. 
 
 DaixuB. 
 
 Error of 
 d'Angely 
 refuted. 
 
 " des propri6taires a faire la recherche et I'exploitation des dites 
 *' Mines, soit par le pen do facultos et connaissances dc la part de 
 " ceux qui ont tente dc faire sur cela quelques cnlrcprises ; que 
 " d'ailleurs la liberte indoflnie laissoe aux proprietaires par le dit 
 " arret de 1698, a fait naitre o,n plusicurs occasions une concur- 
 " rence entr'eux egalement nuisible k leurs entreprises respectives, 
 " le Iloi a ordonn6, et ordonne etc., etc., etc/' 
 
 ScCu 14o. How then could Count Rcgnaud, with 
 
 that Report before his eyes, assert, that prior to 1791 Mines 
 liad always been considered thn property of the Crown. 
 To tliose Vvlio w^ill take the trouble of readinfr the Ordinance 
 of IIknky IV, of 1601, thus adverted to by the committees, it 
 is plain that, in respect of i\\?ii liherte indeiinie dhxploitation 
 which the Comittees admit to have been allowed the owner of 
 the soil in Mines of matters not metallic, the very same 
 right is given for Mines of all metals without distinction ; 
 the only diiforence being that the King remitted his one- 
 tenth royalty on the non-metallic substances. That report 
 is furtlier defective in asserting that Piiilippe-le-Long, 
 in 1321, declared all Mines de droit royal et domanial^ and 
 that his successors followed his example. Sec : 146 of this 
 Factum establishes the inaccuracy ot that statement as to 
 P hill ppe-U- Long ; and a perusal of the Ordinances of 1413, 
 1471 and 1601 will readily disprove the other. 
 
 BnixHB favors 
 Plaintifif'8 
 
 Sec, 149. In a foot note at Page 33 of Vol : 2 of 
 
 view?. that work, Brixhe has the following : 
 
 " 1 ° . Les lois romaincs laissaicnt la propricto des Mines aux proprie- 
 " taires des heritages ou elles se trouvaient. Constantin, qui avait tant de 
 " facilitos a trouver juste cc qui lui etait profitable, n'a jamais regarde les 
 " Mines comme une propriete qui lui appartint h. titre de Souverain. 
 " Seneque, qu'il faut citer toutes les fois qu'on veut connaitre la verite, 
 " Seneque disait, dans le siecle d'esclavage et de corruption oii il vivait, 
 " dans le siecle de N6ron, qui avait usurpo tous les droits do la republique: 
 
 " Ad reges pertinet omnium potestas, ad singulos proprictas." 
 " 2 ® . Dans les Conferences de Guenois, t. 2, 1. 2, tit : 4, p : 121, i! est 
 *• dit qu'a I'exemple des Romains, les Franfais, peuple libre, disposerent 
 '' des Mines de Icur heritage, comme des autros productions do la terre. II 
 ••njoute, que ce furent des compagnics privilegiaires qui obtinrent du 
 »' Gouvernement les premiers ordres qui porterent des attcintes considera- 
 »' bles a ce droit do propriete. 
 
 " 3 ® . Lefebvrc, t. 1, P. 8, et t. H, P. 32, dit : qui a le sol a le dessous ; 
 " la Mine qui so trouvc au fnnds do. !a terre n'est pas plus au souyeraiu que 
 «' la for^t que la superficie prodait." 
 
— 147 — 
 
 And after stating what, in his opinion, the Law ofOwNKBSHip 
 
 Jingland is, the author, in tliat foot note, i)roceed8 to sav • «^ ^'''^^• 
 
 ' -^ ■ Brixhr. 
 
 " 5 o . CiiAHLEE IX mit un droit de dixieme sav les Mines de fer • 11 H«''«*'i^'«- 
 est c air, que ce droit etait un impot feodal et non un droit de propriote. 
 Charles ou son nunistrcnauiait pas mis un in.pot Mir sa profriete ; 11 
 "laura.taflermeo; a declaration, a ce relative, reconnait n. erne, par ses 
 
 2 of 
 
 „ T . , 1 r, ' '^ '" ■■""° voyons dans le Repertoire ae 
 
 Jurisprudence de Guyot quo la marque des fers n'est que rep.^sentatlve 
 du dixienic, ou droit feodal sur le mincrai." 
 
 "6°. L'esprit des lois, la bibliotheque de I'homme d'etat et du 
 citoyen et d aiitres autorites, ne n.ottunt point en donte que les Mines 
 n appartiennont individuellement aux particuiiers." 
 
 ^eC. iOU, Bkixue observes, witli great propriety, The same. 
 
 that the tenth claimed by Chaklks IX was nn {m.pdt feodal, a 
 leudal burtlien or duty, and not a right of i)roperty : that 
 author remarks conclusively that the King and his Minister 
 would not have placed a burthen on the royal property • 
 '\%llauraionffermee:' The author at R 7 ^mlseij /of vol -.2 
 cites with approbation, the opinion and arguments of Mrrlirl 
 already quoted at P. 61 and seq : of this Factum ; and at 
 r. 1«6 and sc-q ol the same volume, B/ixAe quotes the deci- 
 sion of the Cour de Cassation, (referied to at P. 61 of this 
 Factum) declaring all claims to an enirecens for a Mining- 
 hcence to have been abolished with the feudal tenure. 
 
 ^PC. J 1 . IIennequin, who is cited by the Defend- Hbnnkqdin, 
 
 antj at P. 64 of their Factum, as supporting the views of thccSbf 
 JJetendants is m reality against them ; lie .haws no sillv dis-DefendJnta, 
 tinction between the precious and the baser metals. He merely '^ agi^inst 
 asserts that by the old jurisprudence of Fiance, no Mine could *^^°.°° 
 be opened without the permission of the Sovereign ; and where *°^'°''^^"^" 
 the jDufendants cite with approval his statement : " Mais il 
 *' suffit d'ouvrir le Code Theodosien pour reconnaitte que dan's 
 '{ le milieu du quatiieme siecle le droit regalien otait en vigueur 
 " a Rome et dans tout Tempire," we know that the meanino- 
 assigned by the writer to the words : " droit reyalien " is no*t 
 the ownership, in any sense, of the Mines, but tlie mere fiscal 
 burthen, heretofore ; cferred to as the Roniau canon metaUicus 
 (equivalent to the l^'rcuch dixieme denier) and the ri^-ht of 
 Police as exercised by the Sovereign. ^ 
 
— 148 — 
 
 OWNBBSHir 
 07 MlNBg. 
 EBHMBgUIM. 
 
 Hbnbys. 
 DbCobuis. 
 
 MOBNAO. 
 
 D'Abobntb^, 
 
 GuYor. 
 
 80 also of 
 Decormii, 
 Mornac, 
 CoquUle and 
 D'Argentri. 
 
 QOTOT, 
 
 although 
 cited by 
 Defendants, 
 is against 
 them. 
 
 >^eC. J O^. 111 fact Hennequjn and Meelin hold 
 
 precisely the same views, as to the preferential right of the 
 owner of the soil to work the Mine, subject however to the 
 authorisation of the Sovereign and \\\& surveillance. IIknne- 
 QUiN, vol : 2, P. 308, combats the opinion of II'^nrys (1. 4, 
 ch : 6, quest. 45, edition of 1772), of Decokmis (vol : 1, col ; 
 773), of CoQUiLLE, {Coutumes du Nivernai!^^ litre des justioeft^ 
 art : 2), of d'Argkntre, {Coutumes de Bretagne, litre des 
 I})'oit8dii I*nnce, a.vt : 5r>, note 1, no. 40), and of Moknac 
 {sur la loi 67, de rei vindicatione)^ 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 : " droit regalien" Hennp:quin meiely means the 
 riglit of the State, to sec that the mineral wealth of the nation 
 should not remain profitless, is quite clear from the two 
 following passages of that author, at P. 307 and 309 of the 
 second volume of his work : 
 
 " A la v6rite, sous la Itigislation romaine, la suzeraiiiete imporiale ne 
 
 '* s'exerfait, en cette matiere, que dans un inte^et pukement fiscal ; mais 
 
 ** dans cet int^rSt raeLiie, et pour donner k Vimpot toute son importance, 
 
 '• I'intervention du domaine ne dut pas etre sans influence sur les progres 
 
 •» do la motallurgie. 
 
 ************ 
 
 •' II est du reste inutile de dire que dans un pays o-\ le droit regalien 
 " etait un des elements du Doraaine, toute exploitation, quelque fut d'ail- 
 " leurs le titre de I'exploitant, se trouvait subordonneo k la double condition 
 " de I'autorisation royale, et de la surveillance des delegues du prince." 
 
 Why it is that tienneqnins article has not the slightest 
 allusion to the Ordinances of 1471 and 1601, is a matter of 
 some surprise. It seems hardly possible that he could have 
 been unaware of their existence, since Pa4oret\<i Collection 
 had been published then ; and yet from the fact that he 
 merely refers to that imperfect Collection of Mathieu '* Le 
 " Code, des Mines '', for the Ordinances on Mining, one is 
 tempted to conclude that IIenneqcin did not know of the 
 existence of the Ordinance of Louis XI, of 1471. So much 
 for the opinion of Jlennequin^ on whom the Defendants rely 
 60 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. 
 
 S6C. loo. GuYOT, vho. Mines, has the following : 
 
 in his Repertoire de Jurisprudence : 
 
 *' Mine. Lieu ou sc torment ies metaux, mineraux etquolqucs pierres 
 " precieuses." 
 
 t 
 
— 149 — 
 
 t 
 
 " Tout ce qu'on peut tirer des Mines fait partie du Domaine du Roi, et Ownirbhip 
 " apparUent a Sa Majeste tant dans les terres du Domaine que dans celles op Mihm. 
 " des particuliers." Quyot. 
 
 BOSQCIT. 
 
 The textual agreement of that article with the opening Mizkbat. 
 sentences of Bosquet's article on Mines, in the Dictionnaire 
 dea Domaines, quoted elsewhere in this Factum, would lead to 
 the belief that tne article in Guyot is from the pen of Bosquet^ 
 and was written by the latter before the servility of his 
 writings had secured for him the post of Director of Corres- 
 pondence in the Hegie des Domaines. One could not complain, 
 of course, if, in the later Edition ot Giiyot^ the modified views 
 of Bosquet had also found their way into the Repertoire. 
 How much Bosquet subsequently modified his views, we 
 ahall shew hereafter. Happily, however, for us, the reader is 
 referred, from Guy of s article on Mines, to an article on the 
 Mai'mies dea Fers in the Repertoire for further information on 
 the Law of mining. Let us examine that article. 
 
 NbC, 1o4. — Guyot, -vSo. Marque <^a /er,', P. 395, The same. 
 has an article in which ho cites Lefebvre de la Planche and 
 other writers to shew that Mines do not helong to the Sovereign ; 
 l;ut the most interesting paragraph of the article, in this 
 connection, is at P. 396, where he shews conclusively that the 
 Ordinance of Henry IV", of June, 1601, contemplated gold 
 and silver-mum^. Guyot says : 
 
 " On donna, sous Henrt IV, avis au gouvernement de quelques mines g^ shews that 
 " d'oVy d^argent, de cuivre et d'etain, qu'on faisait plus abondantes qu'elles Ordinance of 
 " n'etaient ; ce prince, par un Edit du mois de Juin 1601, confirma k son igoi applies 
 " profit le droit de dixieme sur les mines et minieres, etc., etc., etc., etc." to gold- 
 
 Moreover Mezeray, in his Histoire de France^ vol : 3, '"'^^s* 
 P. 1243, says : 
 
 " L'annee 1601 trouva toute la Cour en rejouissance : ce n'estoit 
 •• que festins, balets, parties de chasse et grand jeu. D'ailleura les courti- 
 " sans se promettoient un siecle d'or, par la decouverte de quelques r/izTzf* 
 *' d'or, (Vargenty de cuivre et d'etain, qu'on faisoit bien plus abondantes 
 '* qu'e'les n'estoicnt. Tellement que par un Edict, qui pourtant ne fut 
 " verifie 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 
 Guyot to convince one that gold is ci>ntemplated by Xhe Mezercey. 
 Ordinance of 1601, since the " de JA&y- Patent.,^'' itself, refers 
 to that Ordinance as authority for its issue ; but the opinion of 
 Guyotf in that article, based, as it apj^ears to be, upon 
 
— 160 
 
 OWNEBNSHIP 
 
 OP Mines. 
 
 GOYOT. 
 POTHIEB. 
 
 GuYOT, by 
 implication, 
 assigns all 
 luinea to 
 owner of 
 soil. 
 
 I 
 
 So do 
 
 POTHIKB 
 
 research, is precious in respect of the fact that it showt; mines 
 of all sorts to bo 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 sf me footing, and then do they 
 
 also belong to the owner of the soil. 
 
 k^C^C, \^0» If any thing further were needed to 
 
 shew us what GuyoCs opinion is, we have only to refer to his 
 article, intituled Dornaine de la Couronne^ § 3, P. 82 et seq : 
 where find a most minute enumeration of all those things, 
 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 sur Us Mines^'' his royalty, in 
 fact. GuYOT does hot say : " droit aux Mines, lie 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 Fera^ Domaine^ and 
 also on Lezion, hereinafter referred to, show conclusively the 
 absurdity of the doctrine laid down in Guyot under the word 
 Mines, and still further strengthen the beliei' that Guyot^s 
 article " Mines " was written by Bosquet. 
 
 Moreover, in the article Lesion, P. 464:, col : 2, Guyot 
 says : 
 
 " Nous avons dit que pour connoitre s'il y a lesion dans la vente d'un 
 " heritage, on ne doit considerer que la valour qu'il avait au temps du 
 " contrat : ainsi on ne doit i as, dans I'estimation de cet heritage, avoir 
 " egard a la decouverte que I'acquereur a pu faire d'un tresor ou d''une 
 *' mine dejiuis le contrat. Cette decouverte est une honne foi'ttme sur 
 •' laquelle le vendeur rCa 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 ])urchascr profit 
 by it 5 It seems to us that nothing can be clearer. The very 
 same opinion is held by Pothier and by Pigeau. 
 
 Sec, 156, Potuier, vente, Part : 5, ch : 2, § 2, 
 
 No. 344 and 345. 
 
 " No. 344. Pour connoitre si le contrat renferme unc lesion suffi- 
 
— 151 — 
 
 sante pour donner lieu k la rescission, on ne doit pas avoir ^gard a i'etat Ownsrship 
 ni h la valcur presente de I'h^ritage. op Minbs. 
 
 ********* POTHIBR. 
 
 PiSBAC. 
 
 " No. 345. II suit-deli, que dans V estimation de I'heritage, on ne doit Bosquet. 
 PAS amir egard k la decouverte d'un tresor, ou d'une mine faite depuis 
 lecontrat; car jiisquW cette decouverte, VMritage n^en a pas eteplm 
 precieux. Lorsque I'acheteur a achete rh6ritage ce qu'il valoit avant la 
 decouverte et au temps du contrat, le vendeur n'a rien a pretendre. La 
 decouverte est unehonne fortune dont l'acheteur doit prc^iter suivant la 
 regie cnjus est periculumrei, eum et commodum sequi debet.'' 
 
 Pothier, therefore, thinks that the discovery of a Mine 
 makes the property more precious, and is a piece of good 
 luck for tlie purchaser. How could that be, unless the pur- 
 chaser were the owner of the Mine ? 
 
 ^eC, lOl. PiGEAU, in his Procedure civile <?« ^^^ puj,^^^ 
 
 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«hose, a laquelle I'usufruitier no doit point toucher) ; la raison est que, 
 " soJt que la carriere ou mine soit exploitee par le proprietaire, soit qu'elle 
 " le soit par vn Stranger a qui le pnopiufiTAiRE en cede l'expi.oitation, la 
 " substance n'en sera pas moins diminu6 ; que dans I'un et dans I'autre cas, 
 " la substance detachee de la carriere ou de la Mine est 6galement perdue 
 " pour la famille, etn'est pas susceptible de cot attachement et de cette con- 
 " servation qui a fait etablir le retrait, puisqu'clle devient fongible." 
 
 In that paragraph, Pigeau distinctly recognizes the r^ight 
 of the OM^ner of the soil, not only to work a Mine discovered 
 on his land, but also the right to sell the Mine to a stranger ! 
 Moreover, not one of those authors makes any distinction 
 between gold and the other mf^tals. 
 
 ^- GC« lOo. Bosquet, in his Pictionnaire raisonne Boscivet 
 
 du Pomaine, has an article of the most contradictory nature "^"^^ ^° ^" 
 on the subject of Mines. After statiny: that alt Mines, terms!^ 
 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 Lorri's notes on Lefebvre de la Planche. Most probably 
 
OWNBBBHIP 
 
 OF Mims. 
 
 BOSQDIT. 
 
 Tacitub. 
 Dallos. 
 
 I 
 
 — 152 -« 
 
 he was led to modifv hh former absurd views, as enunciated 
 in OuyoVs article, voo. Mines^ by that more intimate acquaint- 
 ance with Mining laAV which his position, as Director of the 
 correspondence in the '* Jiegie des Domaines,^^ enabled him to 
 attain. Bosquet^ in that work, vho. Mines et Mimeres, says : 
 
 *' Les mfitaux et toutes les matidres profltables, qui peuvent se tirer du 
 " sein de la terre, font partie du domaine des Souverains, et appartiennent 
 " au Roi, tant dans les terres du Domaine que dans celles des particuliers ; 
 " Noa Rois se sont reduits au dixi&mk d Vexemple de ce qui se pratiquoit 
 " dans Pempire romain^ qui avoit fixe son droit a dix pour cent, sur ce qui 
 " se tiroit des carridres de raar^res 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 Bosq^ieVa 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 object to induce tne Court to believe 
 that Bosquet, in his Dictionnaire du Domaine favors the 
 view that Mines are the property of the King. Kevertheless 
 the conduct of the Defendants, in this particular, is open to 
 grave suspicion. 
 Bosquet's Bosquet then falls into the error, well rt^iuted by Dupont^ 
 
 Slman^aw^ ^^^^ § '^^^ ^^ ^^^^ Factum) of stating, that the Komun Emperors 
 *^ had reserved to themselves aL other minerals and metals and 
 worked, on their own account, all mines of gold, silver and 
 other precious substances. So little, indeed, is that the case, 
 that the most despotic, as he was, perhaps, one of the most 
 infamous, of the Roman Emperors, Tiberius^ found himself 
 obliged to invent a pretext to put Sextus-Marius to death, 
 when he wished to become possessed of gold-mines owned by 
 that citizen in Spain, (see the Annals of Tacitus, lib : 6, 
 §19. 
 
 After the gold-mines of the unfortunate Spaniard had 
 Sextut-Marius i^^^^n thus confiscated to the State, Tiberius withdrew those 
 raxsmdmtood.-^^^^^ from the control of the State, and appropriated them to 
 his own private use, making them his own private property. 
 That passage shews conclusively that gold mines were not, 
 under the Roman Law, the property of the State, but formed 
 part of what French writers call the Domaine privS, since 
 those gold-mines were private property, as well in the hands 
 of Tiberius as they had been in the hands of Sextus-Marius^ 
 Dalloz, vol : 31, Repertoire de Jurisprudence^ following 
 Chonnin. erroneous! v qnotes ch \ 4; as containing' this ■nassao'e 
 and further erroneously states that Tiberius reserved to himself 
 
 on the sub 
 ject. 
 
 Case of 
 
— W3 — 
 
 the mines in the lands of Sextus-Marius^ as it' those two O^J^^^hip * 
 authors liad desired to lead one to believe that Tiberius^ in the gggQu^"* 
 exercise of some si.pjjosed reealian right over minoB, had been 
 desirous of shewing that gold-raitit'S belonged to the Sovereign ; 
 the very reverse is the case. The distortion of the incident is 
 not surprising in Chopping that zele defemeur des droits du 
 Uoi ; but it can only be accounted for in Dallozhj supposing 
 that great accuracy cannot be expected from those vsrho write 
 as much as Ferric re and Dalloz have done. 
 
 Sec . 1 59. To revert to the article of Bosquet Bobquit'b 
 
 ■,■,.-, later opinions 
 
 that author contmues thus : support views 
 
 . of Plaiatiffis. 
 " Par rOrdonnanoo de Charles IX, donn6e k Paris au mois do Mai 
 '• 1563, il est dit " que le droit de dixieme des mines, mini^res, metaux et 
 " autres substances terrestres, qui se tirent, et ise pourront tirer par toutes 
 ^' lesterres du Royaume, soit or, argent^ cuivre, etain, etc., etc., appartient 
 " au roi, par droit de Souverainet6, sur toutes les mines ouvertes dans le 
 " royaume*" 
 
 On comparing Bosquefa statement that the Kings had * 
 restricted themselves to one-tenth of the metals and his citation 
 of Charles' assertion of right to one-tenth of all the gold, 
 silver^ tin^ and other mines in the Kingdom, with that 
 other doctrine found in Guyot, vho. Mines^ and supposed 
 to be one of BosqueVa earliest productions (see § 153 of this 
 Factum), declaring the King to be the owner of all the mines 
 in the Kingdom, it becomes quite plain that Bosqiict 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 sec much difference, 
 at bottom, between the later opinions of Bosquet and Merlin^s 
 views as already set forth at 1*. 61 of this Factum; and we 
 therefore class Bosquet, in his latter and more learned days, 
 among the authors who assign all mines, even of gold and 
 silver, to the owner of the soil. 
 
 Sec. 160. After referring to the Ordinance of The same. 
 
 Heney IY, of 1601, for the purpose of shewing that the King 
 had remitted his Rovaltv on certain substances, Bosouet 
 states, in five lines, wliat the whole Law of France was, and 
 20 
 
— 154 — 
 
 Inalienabi> 
 lify of Crown' 
 Domain pro- 
 ves owner 
 
 0WNIR8HIP ^vhat the Law of this country still is, in reference to mines. 
 BosQci"' -Bosquet, loco cUato, says : 
 
 " L'on ne peut absolument, sans una permission du Roi, ouvrir aucunea 
 *' mines (Vor, d argent, m6taux, et autrcs substances terrestres que ce puisse 
 *' ctre, conform6ment aux difierentcs Ordonnances." 
 
 That very prohibition, in respect of opening Mines without 
 the Royal Permission, distinctly negatives the supposition of 
 the King's right being aught than one of Police or Supervision ; 
 it coniirms the view of Seneca, as reproduced by Brixhe 
 (see § 149 of this Factum) " Ad reoks pertinet omnium poteatasy 
 ad siNGULOS proprietas." 
 
 o6C, J 1 • Bosquet, on attaining tlie post of Direc- 
 tor of correspondence in the i?e^ie des Domaines must have 
 8hrp"of"mine8 ^^'^^ Struck with the reflexion, thrust every day before his 
 not to be in eyes, that the Domaine du lioi, in France, was inalienable ; 
 •^'I'g- and he must have felt that the inalienability of the domain is 
 an unanswerable argument, in connection with the text of 
 every French Ordinance, against tlie supposition that mines, 
 of any sort, should belong to the King, or, in other words, 
 form part of the royal domain. It must have been some such 
 observation on the part of Bosquet, which led him to modify 
 his views on the subject of mines. For instance, Bosqditt, in 
 the Dictionnaire des Domaines, vho. Domaine, § 2, tells us : 
 
 " Le domaine de la Couronne et les droits en dependants sent inaliena- 
 " bles; cette inalienabilite est une suite necessaire de la substitution perpS- 
 " tuelle de ,'a Couronne, et de la destination du Domaine k I'usage du 
 " Prince, qui, comme greve de substitution, est oblige de transmettre k son 
 " sucocsseur tons ces domaines et droits qui sont spocialement affectes au 
 " bien de l'6tat ct a I'utilite publique." 
 
 Bosquet then assures us that each King, at his Corona- 
 tion, swore to maintain the inalienability of the domain ; and 
 the author proceeds to say : 
 
 " Charles VI suivit I'exemple de ses predecesseurs ; ilfit serment, 
 " lors de son sacre en 1380, de ne point aliener son domaine (Dcpuy, traitd 
 " des droits du Hoi, P, 501). II parait memo que ce Prince eut des vuea 
 " plus etendues pour la conservation du domaine ; en efet, M. de la Guesls 
 •' (Remont. P. 181) rapporte que sous son r^gne, il se fit une Ordonnance 
 '' solemnelle, en forme de pragmatique, jwrec et promise sur les Saints Evan- 
 '• giles, par le Roi, les princes et les Officiers de la Couronne, laquelle prohi- 
 *' boit, cassoit et annulloit les dons du domaine soit de I'ancien que le Roi 
 " tenoit alors, soitdece qui pouvoit lui ecbeoir et avcnir par dons achats 
 " successions, forfaitures et confiscations. BlancJiard, comp. ekron cite 
 " une Ordonnance du meme Roi^ du 1-5 Octobre, 1400, portantque les' dons 
 " .qui seront faits sur le domaine seront nuls." 
 
— 165 — 
 
 After^ giving, from Brillon, a moro detailed account of Owhibship 
 the enrogistratioii and verification by Parliament of that***" ""*■•• 
 solemn Ordinance, in form of pragmatic sauction, sworn to by ^^'^"" 
 the King Royal rrinces of the States-general assembled at 
 Pans, m February, 1401, Bosquet proceeds to state : 
 
 *• /bn<a«o», torn ; 4, P. 1320 cite une autre Ordonnance, quHl date 
 yHmoudeMai, 1413, par I'article 90 de laquelle Cuaules VI r6voqua 
 
 IIow then could the Kmg-worshipper, Bosquet, long The same, 
 remam of the opinion that mmes, of any sort, belonged to the 
 Domam, when his intimate relations with the Domaine as 
 Director of Correspondence, revealed to him the fact that 
 CnARLES VI, who had half a dozen times sworn, and once 
 even, by form oi pragmatic sa7iction (/) not to alienate the 
 domarne, and who, in the very month when he declared that 
 his rights 111 mines of all sorts {mynes d'argent, etc., et autres 
 quelzconqucs en nostredict royaume) consisted merely of the 
 one-tenth ro}'alty, also published the Ordinance so cited bv 
 Fontanon as declaring null and void all gifts and grants of 
 the domain. It is quite plain that Charles VI never consi- 
 dered himself the owner of mines found in private lands, Buice 
 he mere y laid claim to the one-tenth royalty, and that, even 
 if he or his advisers had considered mines to belong to the 
 domain, ho never would have been allowed, without remon- 
 strance from the Etats Generaux, or from the Parliaments, to 
 have so far departed from his oatti, as to alienate the domaine 
 by issuing his mining Ordinance of 1413, which merely claims 
 not the mines, but the one-tenth royalty only, and thus to 
 renounce, in less than a year from liis oath, a part of his 
 Domaine, i. e, the other nine-tenths of the mines. Every 
 principle, every argument, that goes to establish the inaliena- 
 bility of the domain tends also to shew the absurdity of the 
 doctrine that mines, of any sort, should belong to the King. 
 
 Sec, 162, 
 
 cite 
 
 -The doctrine of the inalienability of so The same, 
 much of the domaine as is figurative of the Sovereignty of 
 the monarch is a doctrine upheld in every civilized country • 
 although some there are, who held that what is called the 
 petits domaines may he farmed out by the Prince; but the 
 fact, that Charles V I, whose claim to a royalty was the Urst 
 
— 166 — 
 
 OWVIBIHIP 
 
 or M1MR8. 
 
 DUPIUIS. 
 
 HnsioN. 
 
 FiRBlfeBB. 
 
 Lb OAiiva. 
 
 FSBBliRB'S 
 
 opinion 
 analjsed ; 
 
 authentic case of the kind, araon^ the French Kings, has put 
 the source and origin of his claim to that royalty, upon such 
 a footing as to place the droit regalien, as modern writers 
 term it, m the opinion of every writer, among those things 
 that arc utteriT inalienahle. Chaelks VI, in his Ordinance 
 of 1413, (see 1'. 88 of this Factum) says that tUp royalt)^ 
 belongs to him : "a cause de nost/e douveraineie et Mageste 
 royal. 
 
 The doctrine as to the inalienability of the domain is 
 well treated of by Berroyer and de Lauriere^ in their note s, 
 to DuPLESSis, 1. 2, ch : 3, Prescriptions^ P. 522, and in the 
 Memoir of Maitte IIusson, already referred to at P. 56 and 57 
 of this Factum. See also Gutot, vbo. Domainey DiNizARX 
 {Ancien et JSlouveau) vbo. Dornaine. 
 
 Sec, 163. FERBiiRE, in his Grand Coulumiery 
 
 vol : 2, title 9, commenting on art-.le 187 of the Custom of 
 Paris, P. 1547, no. 10, has the following : 
 
 " Ccs tennes : " doit avoir le desms et le deasom de son sol,^^ p'enten- 
 " dent du droit particulier et non du droit public a l'6gard da £oy, quia 
 * seul le droit de faire fouillcr les heritages de ses sujets pour en tirer Vor, 
 ^'■Vargent et les mines; lesquelles lui appartiennent privativement a 
 ' " Tous AUTSES, suivant I'Ordonnance du Roy, Charles IX, donnee a Paris, 
 •• le 6 raai 1563, du Roy, Henry IV, du mois de Juin 1601, et de Louis 
 " XIII, au mois de Mai 1635 ; de sorte qu'il n'est pas mdrae perinis aux 
 " seigneurs de contraindre leurs sujets de leurs vendre leurs heritages pour 
 " cet effet, commc il a ete juge par arrftt, rapporte par Mornac, sur la loi 
 '' 15 ff ad exhibend." 
 
 Eis egregions 
 blunders 
 admitted by 
 his own 
 nephevr, 
 
 and \rther 
 ehewj up 
 here. 
 
 Sec, 1 64. Le Camtis, m imerpreting the same arti- 
 cle P. 1575, vol : 2, of the Grand Coutumier, places no restric- 
 tion whatever upon the rights of the owner of the soil in Mines. 
 Apart from that circumstance, we shall soon see how much 
 truth there is in the observation forced from the nephew by 
 the blunders of the uncle (see § 125 of this Factum) ; we shall 
 soon have evidence that : 
 
 " On souhaiterait, dans lea ouvrages de Claude Ferri^re, beaucoup 
 " moins de vitesse et plu., d'exactitude." 
 
 Fcf the broad and srweeping assertion thns made by 
 Ferriere, to the ciiect, that gold, silver and all other mines 
 belong solely and exclusively to the King, Ferrier^ refers us 
 to w^hat ho calls three Ordinances, i. e. of Chaklks IX, dated 
 from Paris, on the 6 May, 1563, of Henry I\ , in June 1601, 
 
 4{ 
 
-*.tll 
 
 — 157 — 
 
 and of Louis XIII, in May, 1635. Let us now test the extent ^^^^^^' 
 of /VWeV* knowledge of those Ingtrnments. FsBaiftRK, 
 
 NowiiKBE, is to he found an Ordinance of Chakles IX, 
 under date of the 6 May, 1563 ; we have searched the Ordon- 
 nances du Louvre, Isamherty Decrusy and Taillandier « Col- 
 lection, Blanchard'a Compilation ; but nowhere is an Ordi- 
 nance of that date to be found, not even in F^n'^'^re's own 
 Fdition, in 1720, of I^&ron and Girard's Collection, oo 
 much for Fennere's want of accuracy True it is, that under 
 da^cj of the twenhj sixth ot May 1563, there is an Ordinance 
 of Chaeles IX ; but, if that be the Law cited by Ferriere m 
 support of his opinion, we think it shews how utterly unfound- 
 ed the oi)inion of Ferriere is. That Law is reproduced ^t 
 length by Fontanon, tome 2, livre 2, title 13, P. 337 ; -' > ' 
 also found at length at P. 59 of LiLuk-FhE\JUY's Legidalion 
 Minerale, and at P. 140, jf volume XIV of Jsamlerfs Collec- 
 tion ; it is very brief, and it runa thus : 
 
 " Chakles, etc., etc., k tous ccux qui ces pr6sentes lettrcs vcrront, 
 •• salut. Nousavona fait,cr66et comrais nostre cher et am6 C aude de 
 ♦« Gruippon, Escuyer Sieur de Sainct Julian, pour grund Maistie, bt "inten- 
 " dat et general r6formatcur sur le fait des mines, minidrea, lu, ' .ax, et 
 " toutes substances tcrrestres qui se tirent et pourront tirer par U'<ites les 
 " terres de nostre Royaume et obeyssance, soit or, argent, cuyvrt'; estam, 
 »« f 'omb, argent vif, acier, fer, alun, vitriol, coperos, salpestre, sei gemine, 
 *« ..I nitre, charbon, ou autre substance desditcs mines. Et pour luy donner 
 ♦' tnoyen de I'entretenir audit estat, et satisfaire aux charges porlies par scs 
 " lettres de prouision, mus lay avonsfait don puur quatroannees des Di.oiTa 
 " DB DixiESME A NOUS appartenauts sur les chases susdites, et autres 
 " substances, et ^ li nous sont denes sur toutes les mines de nostrr 
 " lioyaume." , ^^ ^. , . . 
 
 " Et combien que Icdit droit de dixtesme Nous appartienne, de toutc 
 " disposition comme cstans vrais droits de S"uuerainete, et qui regardcntlo 
 «• droit de la couronne, qui ne peut estre vsurpe par personne qui sou : 
 " toutesfois plusieurs personnes qui ont des mines, et qui par ygurpation 
 " ont receu ces droits, pretfidans que ce n'est droit qui nous apMartienne, 
 «« pour les avoir vsurpez sur Nous, et quo ledit de Sainct Julian ne leur on 
 «« ptut rien dem^der, voulans rcstraindre ledit don par nous fait audit iv« 
 " Sainct Julid aux mines qu'il ieha ouurik, et non celles qui sont de long 
 •' temps ouuertes : et encore d'autres qui ont achete de nostre domaine, 
 ** pretddant que ces droits leur ont este vendus, sans ou'il en soit fait 
 " aucune mention en leurs contracts : et toutes ces difflcukez redondent h 
 " nostre prand interest, pour ce qu'apreslesquatreanspassez les dits droicts 
 •* doyvent demeurer reunis k nostre doraaine : dont pour oster les doutes. 
 
 '* S9AV01B faisons, que de l\,dui8 de nostre conseil, nous avons dit et 
 <' declare, disons et declar 6:, que Iq droit de dixies^ne nous appartient par 
 •' droit de Souuerainete mr toctes les mines qui ont este par cy deuanty 
 •' ou qui seront cy apres ouuertes, de quelques temps, ou par quelquos mains 
 " qr'alles soyent tenues en nostre Koyaume, pays, terres et scignourieSj 
 " ausquelles on trayaille de present, ou travuillera k Tadvenir ; et quo si 
 
— 158 
 
 OwnBBSHiP " par ci deuant les droits ne nous ont este payez, nous les declarons ysurpcz, 
 Of Mines " 5t comme tcls, pouuoir estre poursuiyis, et sans quo les acheteurs ou 
 F8BR iR«. '• autres tenanciers de nostre domaine puissent protendre lesdits droits Icur 
 W.Fi.«oav u avoir este vedus ou baiUez, s'il n'en est fait exrresso motion en leurs 
 «' contracts, onioignant a nos procureurs generaux, ou leurs ^substituts, de 
 " faire la poursuite desdits droits, sans aucune disr imulation. 
 
 " Si donnons en mandement, etc., etc., etc. Donne a Pans, le vmgt- 
 «« sixiesme iour de May, I'an de grace rail cinq cens soixante trois : ct de 
 " nostre regne le troisiesine. Ainsi signe sur le reply, par le Roy en son 
 •' conseil." 
 
 " BVRGENSIS. 
 
 The same. 
 
 Sec. 165. It is surprising how Ferriere could 
 
 The same. 
 
 of one-tenth on all mir.es oi gold, silver, etc., real y made the 
 E.no- proprietor " privativeinent a torn autres ot ail the 
 minSs in the Kingdom. Such ignorance shews how well he 
 deserved the 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'estirae dans son livve que co qui n'est pas de lui." 
 
 The Ordinance, referred to by Ferriere, expressly names 
 
 Qold and silver-mm.^, and asserts no greater right on them, 
 
 than ou other mines ; it merely claims a royalty otone-tentn. 
 
 It was not until the Ist July, 1563, that the Farliament 
 
 of Paris en egietered that Ordinance, with a modihcation 
 
 which clea: iy defines and limits the King's ri^/nts, m mines ol 
 
 all sorts, and without distinction, to the royalty ot one-tenth. 
 
 The modification, by the Parliament, is in these words (see 
 
 P. 59, note 1, of Lame-Fleuky, Legislation Mmerale) : 
 
 "Powrjowir par l'irap6trant(Zw don ^ lui ^oM A\x6M Aroiidu dixUme, 
 «' pour le temps et terrae de quatre ans, rouii le begakd des droits _ au roi 
 " apimrtenant, et eat eonnu lui concermr et appartenir k metaux et minerales 
 •' de son royaume." 
 
 The Parliament declares that, having regard to_ the 
 King's rights in mines, the petitioner may take the King s 
 o-ift of the royal rights in mines; the Arret may be said to 
 declare that the gift includes, for a limited t.me, all the 
 King's mining rights, that is to say his royalty of one-tenth 
 {droit du dixienie). 
 
 Sec. 166, AVe have already conclusively esta- 
 blished, at P. 110 and seq_ : of this Factum, that the Ordinance 
 
 parac 
 
— 159 — 
 
 of 1601 provesthe very reverse of the sweeping doctrine laid Owkbbship 
 down hy I^erriere ; let us bow examine the third and last ^ ^'f"' 
 anthority referred to hy Ferriere in support of his inconsider- Sohnac"- 
 ate assertion, 1. e. th. Ordinance of'^touis XIII, of May,SrMoLiH. 
 163o ; tliat Law is found at lengtli at P. 175 of Laue-Fleu- 
 RY 8 Legulation mtnerale, and at P. 441 of Volume XVI of 
 /.«7;i5.,.^. Collection. That Law was not registered by the 
 Parhameut of Pans, and cannot therefore be referred to, as 
 Law here (see § 118 and seq : of this Factum). But supposing 
 even that it had been so enregistered, what does it amount to ? 
 
 thp^ K.!n? «r?/"'^ ""^ *'''^ paragraphs, tlie King recites 
 the vantages that have accrued from his father's Ordinance . 
 Ox IbOl, and that he (Louis XIII) had, by his Edict of 1626, 
 mWr ' TT^ Bot of Treasurers and Kecd vers general of the 
 mines ; and Louis XIII then proceeds, in a decree of one 
 paragraph to ap;)oint another set of such Officers, i. e. " deux 
 conseillers et controlleurs generaux, alteknatif tt triknkal." 
 
 sought to build up the doctine that all mines belong to the 
 King In a foot-note, at P. 175 of the same work^ZaW- 
 il^Il f/'^f.r ^^'? ^''T !?. t^^'>s« extraordinary appoiutments ; 
 iL^^V f ^ ^^'' sale of offices had then reached the utfrmost 
 imit of abuse, and that, m order to create offices for sa'e, as 
 ffi7.f ' A I' ^^^"Pf ^t.s were appointed to the same office to 
 tulhl the duties yearly in turn ; tlio first was called Vordhmire, 
 --he second, laltemaUJ- ,-i\,^ third, le Lie^mal^^ the 
 ponted ^^"'^^^^^'^^'^^-^l^e fourth being but seldom ap- 
 
 to the 
 
 J>ec. lo7. The only remaining reference made by 
 ^^errureh to a-. Arrtt cited by i)l.>ma« ; that Arret estab- 
 lishes he ver, reverse of Ferrieres doctrine as to the 
 o^yners nj, ot the mines ; the Arret u'as in reference, not to 
 mmes, but to a demand made by a seignior upon \x\^ cemitaire 
 to compel the ccnsitah-o to sell to the Seignior a portion of 
 
 ^.r^f '''''"' ^T'^' ^^i^l^^'^'b^J to finable the Sdgnior to 
 enlarge his inanor-lunise. Mines may hr vc been at the bottom 
 
 VlltvTKV.^T^'^'^'^ ^^''^^*'' P^'''^''^P^' '^' ^«^o stated by 
 f eiriLie ; but it does not appear to be so by the Arret. 
 
 \i J^ernere had only referred to DuMolln, whose opinion 
 we give elsewhere and for whom Ferrien, at P. 422 of his 
 
 Jlistoire da droit Romnrp a^Vy.fs fi.- hWc^^ - - -'u Z 
 
 J?u31ohn the Pkince of Jurists ", he might have eipressed 
 
 The same ; 
 the reason 
 probably 
 beinfi: that 
 Ferriire drew 
 his inspira- 
 tion from the 
 Code Henry . 
 
OWMBBBtP 
 OF M1MS8. 
 
 Febbi^rb. 
 CODH Hbnbt, 
 D'Aguessbac 
 Camus. 
 
 GOYOT. 
 
 COBBIN. 
 DCPOHT. 
 
 — 160 — 
 
 a different opinion as to s^old and silver-mines ; but we feay, 
 from the frequent references to the Code Henry to be found m 
 Ferviere, that he drew his knowledge of the Ordmances from 
 that tainted source, of which we find the foUowmg candid 
 opinion in the 
 
 I (EuvEES DE D'Aguesseau, p. 397. 
 " On fera blen de s'aider dans ce travail de co qu»on appelle le C^e 
 
 Code Henry 
 distorts sense ' 
 of Ordinan- 
 ces. 
 
 n6crs?aTrl^dV?oird"re I'^udc'drt^^^^ oVdonnances ^osterieures qui ont 
 
 6tabU de 'rdsl s sur quelques mati^res du Droit Remain, du Droit Ecclesms- 
 «que ou du Droit Fransais. Nous n'en avons pas encore de recueil complet, 
 mais il sera aise de les indiquer k notre futur avocat du Koi. 
 
 Camus, vol : 2, P. 167, and Guyot, vbo. Ordonnancea, 
 B. 473, speak in the very same terms of the «?a^ ^?,7' 
 
 Ddpost 
 entirely in 
 agreement 
 with Plain- 
 tiffs' viewB. 
 
 « e? uouvean" laniaie que I'on esporait faire passer corame 
 « nouvelles Ordonnances, et les faire verifier an nouveau 
 « Parlement ; ce qui r'i pas ete fait." With i;egard to another 
 Edition, published m 1611 and called tbe Code Henry I V, 
 CorUn sa\^ of it, that it does not contain a smgle text ot the 
 Ordinances. 
 
 Sec. 168. A very recent author, Etienne Dupont, 
 
 writing under date of 1862, with all the lights that a host of 
 the ablest of modern writers have thrown upon tbe 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, volmne I of l^^^/"'^^'^^^^^^ 
 dcs Mmcs, arrives, tliougli in different words at the very 
 eame conclusion as that formed by the Plaintiffs, m 1862, 
 when in their Declaration hi this cause, as reasons tor voiding 
 the "'de LEKY-Fatentr 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 rights of the Crown, m 
 .. prkate lands, wore, and are, restric^d to lilO of the metals extracted. ^^^ 
 
 " VI The Mines belong to the Plaintiffs as owners ""tr'^L'T N" T"Z 
 •• lands and tcnemcrts, no pa° t of which ever belonged to the Defendants as 
 
 "t- 
 
161 — 
 
 the 
 in 
 
 " owners of the soil ; and that the Patent issued without notice to the Owmirship 
 " Plaintiffs' auteurs, as owners of the soil, and without the Plaintiffs' auteurs or Minis. 
 " having been called on to work the mines." Dupont. 
 
 "VII. A Royal Permission to work amine could only issue on the Mignbbow. 
 " refusal 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." 
 
 DuroNT, loco citato, says : 
 
 " De tout ce qui precede il rosulte : " 
 
 " Que la propriete des Mines ne saurait 6trc attribuee, (rune mdniire 
 " ahsoliie, aux proprietaires individuels de la surface, ou a dss syndicats de 
 *' proprietaires limitrophes." 
 
 " Que cette propriete ne saurait non plus etre necessairement donnfie 
 " aux inventeurs." 
 
 " Que les mines doivent etre concedees de mani^re k embrasser, comme 
 " champ d'exploitation, une etendue proportionnee a la nature du gite et 
 " aux circonstances locales. Or qui distribuera ainsi les mines de la manidro 
 " la plus appropriee k la bonne exploitation des gites, et par suite A rint6rSt 
 " general V Co ne saurait 6tre que I'Etat, arbitre naturel des iuterets gen6- 
 " raux." 
 
 " No s arrivons ainsi, par une de^Adction tiree de la nature des choses, 
 k conclure que les mines doivent 6tre distributes par I'Etat, qu'elles sont 
 de droit regalien, comme on disait k I'epoque ou le roi representait I'etat.' 
 " D'autre part, quoique la nature des gites mineraux et I'interet gene- 
 ral s'opposent a ce que la propri6t6 des mines suive necessairement la 
 propriete de la surface, il est juste de reeonnaitre le dkoit incontes- 
 table du proprietaire d'cntdiller le sol pour rechercher une mine nouvelle, 
 AINSI Qu'uN titre vague de dkoit de tk^fonds sur les mines situees dans 
 sa 2)roprietS.^^ 
 
 ->■****-»*** -X- * * 
 
 " P. 7. Selon I'iincicn Droit Remain, le proprietaire de la surface Tetait 
 " 6galement de toutes les matieres metalliques renfermees dans son trefonds. 
 
 " P. 8. Les mines d'or ou d'argent et de tout autre metal, trouvces dans 
 " un fonds, sont regardees comme les produits du tfrrain. Digeste, livre 
 
 XXIV, t. 3, 1. 7, § 14. Plus tard, le droit civil 
 *' lien se (it jour, sans etre encore absolu." 
 
 ea, et Ic droit rega- 
 
 S'H*. lot/. At P. 10, .Z>w/>o?i^, quotes the conclu- The same. 
 
 sion arrived at by Merlin, in the article reproduced at P. 59 
 ct scq : of this Faetuiii, Duponi, tlicn proceeds to state his 
 dissent from Merlin, and ags'i. os as that the last Roman 
 Emperors did something more tlian impose a mere fiscal 
 burthen on the working of Mines. No doubt, they did ; and 
 Dupont, in tlie next page, quotes the opinion of Merlin^ to 
 that effect. In fact l)upont has drawn, between his opinion 
 and that of Merlin, a distniction without adiffercacu. l«it us 
 21 
 
 I 
 
162 — 
 
 OWMKRSHIP 
 
 or Minis. 
 
 DCPOHT. 
 MiaNBBON. 
 
 The same. 
 
 hope that Dupont, tlic layman, was not influenced by the 
 desire of plucking a feather from the wing of the celebre 
 Ugiste, as he otherwise justly styles Merlin. If Dupont had 
 glanced at the (quotation from Merliri's Repertoire^ P. 193, 
 ^iven by us at P. 59 of this Factum, he mis^ht have seen that 
 Merlin and he are in perfect agreement ; Merlin there states : 
 
 " Tout ce qu'on peut tircr des mines appartient au Domaine du roi." 
 " Telle etait du moins avant la loi du 12 JuiUet 1791, la doctrine d'une 
 " foule d'auteurs ; maisj'ai demontre dans mon Recueil de Questions de 
 *' Droits article Mines, qu'elle n'avait pour base qu'une interpretation 
 " erronee des lois romaines et des anciennes Ordonnances, et une confcsiop 
 " dxi droit de propriete, avec le droit dHnspectiori et la faculty de dispo- 
 *' ser en indemnisant." 
 
 What is this faculte de disposer en indemnisantj but the 
 droit regalien, as understood by Dupont f 
 
 SgC« llU, Dupont., satisfied with his apparent 
 
 triumph over the celebre legiate. Merlin, then proceeds, at 
 P. 14, to demolish, in the most absolute manner, the preten- 
 sions of the Defendants, as to the Stute being the owner of the 
 mines, in the following incisive language : 
 
 " Le droit r^galien sur les mines n'impliquc pas la propri6t6 absolue de 
 " ces mines de la part de I'Etat." 
 
 MiGNKBON of Sec, 1 T 1 • Dupont then quotes Migneron's defini- 
 
 trvupontr ^ion of the riulits of the State or Sovereign, or droit regalien, 
 
 and favorable without reference to the rights of the owner of the soil. We 
 
 to Plaintiffs. gj^^U presently see what corresponding riyhts flow, in the 
 
 o^imorx of Dupont And of Migneron, from ownership of the 
 
 soil. Here are Migneroti's words, as quoted by Dupont at 
 
 P. 1-1 of the same work : 
 
 *' M. Migneron resume le droit regalien dans la triple attribution qu'il 
 " confere au prince : 
 
 " lo De regler la destination de la propriety souterraine, en d'autres 
 " tcrmes de pourvoir du privilege de I'cxploiter, les personnes qui peuvent 
 " le micux la mettre en valeur." 
 
 " 2o D'en surveiller I'exploitation dans ses rapports avec I'ordre public, 
 '• avec la conservation du sol et avec la s6rete des ouvriers mineurs." 
 
 '• 3o De perccvoir un certain tribut sur les produits qu'en obtient 
 •• I'cxploitant." 
 
 The same. SeC, 1 72. Dupont then cites the opinion of Deni- 
 
 zart. noticed hereafter ; and, after berating Regnaud d'Epercy 
 
— 163 
 
 for his historical blunder in asserting that Philippe-le-long, Owkihbhip 
 ill 1321, had declared all mines to bQ proprieies domaniales, JJIjjJUi."'' 
 DuPONT proceeds to trace the history of legislation in France Miqmbhon. 
 upon the^ subject of mines, much as it has been described 
 by Merlin^ in the article already quoted in this Factum ; 
 H.nd it becomes unnecessary to follow that historical sketch 
 beyond the year 1663, date of the establishment of the Conaeil 
 Superieur in this country, eince we purpose examining 
 aeriatim all the Ordinances relating to mining, enregistered in 
 this Colony after that date. 
 
 JDupont quotes the Ordinance of Chakles VI, of 1413, 
 with precisely the same result as that arrived at by Merlin ; 
 and he then gives a synopsis of the Ordinance of Louis XI, of 
 14Y1, reproduced at length at P. 93 and seq : of this Factum. 
 We give the conclusions he draws from it, to shew that they 
 litterally and abeolutely agree with our own. At P. 22, 
 Dupont says : 
 
 *' Get 6dit de Lcuis XI institua un grand maitre superintendant des 
 mines, ayant pouvoir d'ouvrir et d'exploiter, par lui et ses lieutenants ou 
 commis toutes les mines existantes en France soit dans les lieux apparte- 
 nant, en propre, au roi, soit dans ceux qui appartenaient k ses sujets, 
 sail/ VindemniU des proprietairesy 
 
 " On est heureux de voir ce principo de Vindemnite due au projme' 
 taire 6crit dans I'ordonnance d'un roi 4e France ; mais la mention meme 
 de ce droit exclut toute idee de proprieie absolue des mines par les tre- 
 fonciers, et le droit regalien apparait, en ce sens que I'ordonnance donne 
 au grand-maitre le droit de regler cette indemnite, et de statuer sur tons 
 les differends en rc-ati^re de mines. II faut le dire, h, ce sujet, que les 
 Parlements moditierent I'Ordonnance de Louis XI, en dficlarant que I'in- 
 demnite due aux proprietaires serait reglee, non par le grand maitre seul, 
 mais par le procureur du roi, et le maitre general." 
 
 •' Pour interesser les propr:4taires du sol k rechercher et exploiter 
 eux-memes les mines existant dans leurs fonds, I'Ordonnance de Louis XI 
 lour donnait un delai de 40 jours pour declarer s'ils avaient des mines 
 dans leurs fonds, et s'ils entendaient les exploiter : passe ce dolai, et a 
 dSfaut de declaration, le grand Maitre pouvait les faire exploiter par 
 d'autres, le propri6taire du sol etait prive de toute indemnite pendant 
 10 ans, et il pouvait meme, suivant les cas, etre condamno au paiement 
 d'une amende. 
 
 " Dans le cas de la d6couvertc des mines par un agent du grand 
 " Maitre, le proprietairo du sol etait mis en demeure de I'exploiter lui-meme 
 " dans un delai de 6 mois : 4 son defaut, le droit d'exploitation etait donne 
 "4 son Seigneur immediat ; au defau.t de ce dernier, au Seigneur suze- 
 ** rain ; et au d6faut do tous, au grand maitre." 
 
 " Cette PRfirlKENCE accord6e par I'Ordonnance de Louis XI au pro- 
 *' prietaire du sol, pour Vexploitation des mines, rappeUo certaines disposi- 
 " tions dc la loi uu 23 juiilut 1731 ; mais i'Ordonnance de Louis XI etait 
 *' plus sage, 4 certains egards, que cette loi, car elle autorisait le grand 
 
— 164 — 
 
 OwSIBSfflP 
 
 or M1MI8. 
 
 DUPOHT. 
 
 MiSRIBOH. 
 
 The same. 
 
 " raaitre k confercr k d'autres qu'au propri^taire fonder le droit d'exploiter 
 " les mines, lorsque celui-ci etait repute incapable." 
 
 •' D'autre part, si Ton songc que le principe de I'indemnite due au pro- 
 " prietairo etait ecrit dans I'Ordonnance de Louis XT, que cette indemnity 
 " 6tpH reglee par le grand Maitre et un magistrat, et qu'une jurisdiction 
 •• sp6ciale etait confer6e au grand Maitre avec le droit de permission, on 
 ♦' "econnaitra une grande analogie de principes entre la legislation des mines 
 •' sous Louis XI, et la legislation existante, consacree par la loi du 21 
 
 •« avril, 1810." 
 
 " Cette conformit6 de dispositions, dans la 16gislation des mines, i plus 
 " de trois siecles et derai d'intervalle, a 6t6 signalee, pour la prcmidre fois, 
 •' par M. Migneron." 
 
 SgC- 173. Dupont and Migneron^ in the last 
 
 quotation have viewed the droit regalien more from the 
 stand-point of the owner of the soil than they had liitherto 
 done ; and neither of them dreams of making the absurd 
 distinction between royal mines and other mines ; after quo- 
 tin ff a few of the various other subsequent Ordinances herein 
 before noticed, Dupont takes up the Ordinance of Henry 
 IV c-f" 1601 : he quotes it as a mere exercise, by the King, of 
 the droit regalien ; and then, in the following remarkable 
 admission, at P. 27, the author concedes that Ordinance to 
 have been' a great relaxation of the droit regalien. He says : 
 
 ♦' Ainsi I'edit de 1601 ne supprima point le droit regalien, comnie on a 
 " pu le croire ; il ne fit qu'en modifier I'exercice par grdce speciale du roi, 
 *' et Henry IV, comme le fait observer M. Migneron, en renon?ant k son 
 ♦' droit du dixi'eme, par grace speciale, sur les mines de houille et de for, m 
 " renonca ni a la faculte de conceder les gites des substances minerales que 
 " leurs dispositions rendaient susceptibles d'etre concedee, ni a celle de fairc 
 " surveiller Vexploitation de ces substances." 
 
 Notwithstanding the great weight due to DupoiiCti 
 opinion in that respect, it is hard to conceive what interest 
 could remain to the Sovereign in mines, wherein, whatever 
 his motive, he had ceased to claim a royalty ; and that view 
 of the matter is etrengthencd by the fact, that, for upwards of 
 a century afterwards, no royal permission to work either coal 
 or iron mines appears to have been asked, or given, in France ; 
 and one is inclined to infer from Merlin^s argument in the 
 I)aou3t and Lefebvre cas ', that such was the main considera- 
 tion of the Arret in that case. 
 
 Ordinances ScC, 173 (6is). A feature in the Ordinance of 
 
 of 1471 and j^.,y| ^j^j^^ geems to have escaped Jjuponos attention, is 
 iJefefinceto conl^tincd in article 22 of the Ordinance which clearly gives, 
 owner of Boil. 
 
— 165 — 
 
 to the owner of the soil, the same preferenoe as tliat set out in 
 the Ordinance of 1471. 
 
 o 
 
 n 
 
 rf 
 
 to 
 
 on 
 nc 
 uc 
 ire 
 
 !3t 
 er 
 
 ie 
 
 ra- 
 
 OwerERBHip 
 OF Minis. 
 
 DCPONT. 
 
 MlONEHON. 
 
 DCPI.KS3II. 
 
 Some extra- 
 ordinary 
 Arrtts meu- 
 tioned by 
 Dupont. 
 
 15 
 
 K^^eC. 174. Dupont next cites at P. 33, 34, 35 and 
 
 36, a number of the most contradictory Arrets en Conseil, in 
 reference to mines near Alais, for the purpose of shewing the 
 inconveniences arising from the absence of fixed rules in 
 determining questions of mining grants. 
 
 Tliose Arrets^ which, in more respects than one, may be 
 likened to our Canadian Orders in Council, alternately ousted 
 two rival claimants of the mines, six times in 10 years ; 
 finally the King in Council, shortly before the Eevolution, 
 administered substantial justice by ousting both claimants 
 and by granting the mines to his own l)rother ! The old fuble 
 of the oyster ! ! Dupont states the matter without cofliment ; 
 he was, at the date of his writing, Ingenieur en chef au corps 
 imperial des mines ; and while he states that, under the old 
 monarchy such things were done, he forgets to remind us that 
 those abuses existed only at the decline of the monarchy in 
 France and after this Country had been happily severed from 
 France,— that such acts of injustice were seldom thought of 
 by Kings, and never tolerated by those grand old Parlia- 
 ments of France, who watched over the interests of the 
 pcoi^le, in the times when France implanted her Laws here. 
 
 No such iniquities could assuredly have taken i3laco under 
 the Ordinance of 14T1, as modified' by the Parliaments of 
 Paris, which, by article 10, left to the ordinary tribunals the 
 determination of all such questions (see P. 97 & 100 of this 
 Factum). Dupont is mistaken in supposing that the Arrets 
 he condemns so mildly were at all influenced by the absence 
 of fixed rules ; nothing else than jobbery could have been 
 expected from confiding the decision of such questions to needy 
 Councillors of State. What happened on that occasion in 
 France, is said to have happened quite recently in Canada, in 
 reference to mining lands m the Chaudiere. Human nature is 
 the same every where. The early history of the " De Leky- 
 Fatenf' might perhaps, also prove highly interesting m 
 this connection. 
 
 Sec. 175, DuPLESsis. 1. 2, ch : 2, P. 123, has, inDcPLisBis 
 
 thid connection, some interesting comments on the lS7th Jj7^[^.^J*^3 
 
 I 
 
OWMBBSHir 
 
 or MiMBS. 
 
 DUPIiKSSIS. 
 
 — 166 — 
 
 article of the Custom of Paris, which is Law in Lower-Canada. 
 Tlie article runs thus : 
 
 " Quiconque a le sol, appelo rez-de-chauss6c, d'aucun heritage, ilpeut 
 *' etdoit avoir le dessus et le dessous de son sol ; et peut odifier par dcssus 
 *' et par dessous, et y faire puits, aisoments et autres choscs licites, s'il n'y a 
 *' titre au contraire." 
 
 The comments of Duplessis are as follows : 
 
 " Que la propriete du sol emporte le dessus et le dessous.''^ 
 " Geprincipe est de duoit ; etil est do plus etabli par I'article 187 do 
 *' cette Coutume." 
 
 " II a trois effets." 
 
 *• Le second qu'/7 (the owner of the m\\) pent faire sous son sol ce qui 
 " lui plait, et autant avant en terre qu'il veut." 
 
 " Le troisieme est, quo tout ce qui est inklifie au dessus et au dkssous 
 •' dt Sun sol lui appartient, sans autre titke que celui de son sol." 
 
 Duplessis places no restriction whatever on the rights of 
 the owner of the soil above and below the surface ; he says it 
 is a " principe de droit" a principle of Common Law. Can 
 any words more clearly express the opinion that the mines 
 belong to the owner of the soil ? If gold, even, formed an 
 exception to the rulcj surely Duplessis would have noticed it ; 
 in any case Berroyer and de Lauriere^ who are the commen- 
 tators of Duplessis' text, and who had then (in 1726) 
 Eublished the first volume of the Ordonnances du Louvre^ and 
 ad the materials all ready for the publication of the second, 
 containing the Ordinance of 1413, would have inserted, in 
 their commentaries on Duplessis, Eome note, as they have 
 done in other matters, contradicting or qualifying Duplessis^ 
 assertion. 
 
 Sec. 176.- 
 
 L'StSf ^^^* ^ ''^* ^^orcover, is not the supposition of the 
 
 belongs to King, or any other person than tlie owner of the soil, having 
 
 owner of soil any proprietary rights whatever in the soil and its products, 
 
 with'^efend- bitterly at variance with the feudal tenure which prevailed in 
 
 aata' views. France, and was thence transplanted here ? Does not such a 
 
 supposition vest in the King, the Seiyneur Suzerain, above all 
 
 others, and in the last instance, some portion of that domaine 
 
 utile, which bv Law was exclusive! v vested in the vassal or 
 
 owner of the soil ? 
 
OwifiBiBir 
 or Minis. 
 Two ARBtra- 
 PocguBT. 
 
 The 8 ame ; 
 and royal 
 Permission 
 not neces- 
 eary. 
 
 — 167 — 
 
 Sec, 177. That principle of the Common Law 
 
 prevailed, : even in the despotic reign of Louis XIV, and 
 underlies a decision of the King in Council, upon a claim 
 made by the King's officers, not to the mine, hut to the 
 payment of the Royalty of one-tenth, on a coal mine. 
 
 Recueil Jddiciaike, Vol : 6, P. 597 & 589. 
 
 Contains an Arret du Conseil d'Etat (26 January 1744), which 
 referrinRto the Edict of 1601 and proceding Ordinances, Edicts, Letters- 
 Patent, confirms them, and says: " Les mines de Charbon de terre 
 6taient, comme les mines de mitmtx et mineraux^ supttcs au meme droxt 
 dependant du Domaine de sa Couronne et souverainet6 du droit Koyal du 
 dixieme. (See also P. 143 hKM^-Fleury, Legidatwn mvierale). 
 
 The Arret declares the KingV rights to be a royalty only 
 on ALL Mines ; it is precious as haviuir been made m that 
 very corrupt place, the Council of a King, under the old 
 regime; it draws no distinction between the precious and 
 the baser metals, and asserts no other claim than the King s 
 right to a fiscal burthen on the mine. 
 
 Sec. 1 78. An Arret, of more importance still, as The same. 
 
 having been rendered by the King's Council, in times of 
 perhaps still greater corruption, and applying to excavations 
 made in quarrying in the environs of Pa.is, was rendered on 
 the 14 September, 1776, and shews that no royal permission 
 was then considered necessary to quarry beneath the surface 
 (see P. 199 of Lame-Fleury) 
 
 Sec. 179. The value of Focquat de Livoniere' s ^^^^^„ ^.^ 
 
 opinion is not increased by the fact that he wrote on thoLKoxiia-^^ 
 exceptional Custom of Anjm ; and lucky it is for the 1 lain- ^p^.^^^j 
 tiffs that he o-ives the sources from which he draws that custom of 
 opinion; at P. 138 of his " lieyUs du Droit Frangois, Anjou. 
 ch : lY, art : 4, he says : 
 
 " Les Mines d'or appartiennent au Roi ; les Mines d^ argent aux Comtes, 
 " Vicomtes et Barons ; le Roi s'est reservfi le dixieme sur les substances 
 '* metalliques ; les substances terrestres sont exceptees de ce droit. 
 
 " EtaUissements de St. Louis, art : 88. 
 
 *' LoYSEL, livre 2, tit : 2, Regie 52. 
 
 " Anjou, Art : 61.— Cuoppin, ibid. 
 
 " LeBket, Souverainete, livre 3, ch : des Mines. 
 
 ^^ Ordonnance de Jain IQOl. 
 
 " Bclhommcau, livre 1, Mas : 18." 
 
OWNEBBBIP 
 OP MlNII. 
 POCQUM. 
 
 Analysis of 
 h'lH opinion. 
 
 — 168 — 
 
 S(iC. 180. A part from the fact that, in the same 
 
 chapter,thc author enunciates doctrines utterly at variance 
 with the Law of this country, as settled by the Scignounal 
 Court, on tlic subject of riverB not navigable, Epaves, Bdtar- 
 disc, and DhUrence &c., &c., &c., there is, about Focquetde 
 Livoniere, the remarkable feature that, from his own indirect 
 avowal, he appears to have had .«ome d'.)ubt as to the soundness 
 of his opinion. For instance, in his Preface to that work, he 
 says, at P. VII. 
 
 •* Du tout j'en ai fait un abreg6 suivi de notre Jurispniclencc Fran?aise, 
 ♦' en marquant Ics principalcs sources d'oii chaque rdgle a 6t6 puisne, mna 
 " trop mvltiflier les citations, si ce n'est sur cektains points plu» suscep- 
 " tihlea de doute." 
 
 Now, while Pocquct de Livoniere has given, ag a general 
 thing, but one or two quotations in support of the rule ho laid 
 down, he has thought tit to back up tliis particular rule as to 
 mines by no less than seven references to supposed authority 
 on the point. We must presume that, in thus multiplying the 
 quotations on that ruU>, he felt it was, in his own words, one 
 of those : " certains points plus sitsceptibles de doute " 
 
 tl 
 n 
 
 V 
 
 \ 
 3 
 
 t 
 
 ( 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 The same. 
 
 Sec. 181. Let us now examine the references 
 
 which Pocquet de Livoniere has given us, and see whether 
 tliey bear his opinion out. 
 
 The Ordinance of St. Louis, which Pecquet de Livoniere^ 
 copying Zo?>/, places as the 88th Chapter of t\\QEtahhsse- 
 ments,\ in reality, chapter 90 of that code, and is found at 
 lemnh at P. 180 of volume I of the" Ordonnances des lioisde 
 " France " {de Laurieres Collection) The text of that Law 
 runs thus : 
 
 '• Nus n'a fortune d'or, se il n'est Eois, et les fortunes d'argent sont 
 " aus Barons et £l ceux qui out crand Jmtice en leur terra. Et so il avenoit 
 '• que auc-uns hons qui n\mt voiere en sa terre, trouvast sous terre aucune 
 » trouvaille, elle seroit au Vavasor, a qui la wiere de la terro scroit, on la 
 " trouvaille fu trouvee ; Et se cil venoit avant qui Vauroit perdue, il 1 aurait 
 ♦' a son serrement, se il etoit de bonne rencmuiee ; Et se li hons defoyla 
 " reccloit k son Seigneur, et il li eust dcmandeo, il en perdroit son mueble, 
 *• etse il disoit, Sire, je ne s^flvois mie queje la rovs deusse rendre, il en 
 " seroit quitte par son serrement, et si reudroit la trouvaille au Baron, 
 ♦' FORTUNE SI EST quand elle est vrouv£e dedans teere, et tekbe en 
 " EST EFFONDREE." 
 
169 — 
 
 >- 
 
 ,1 
 
 OWNERSUIP 
 
 IF Minks 
 
 LCISIL. 
 LlTONlilRl. 
 
 St. Louis. 
 
 DlCTIONMAIBK 
 
 OK Tafivoux. 
 
 LBFi>.DVRK 01 
 LA PlAKCHK. 
 
 St. Louis 
 re'ers to treft- 
 Buro-trove 
 only. 
 
 Sec. 1 82. It is evident that Loysel, Livonierenn^ 
 
 their followers had never seen the complete text of the Ordi- 
 nanee of St. Louib, sinee they a I place it f 'J0"-.f ^ f^^^^^^^^ ]^; 
 inHto'id of ch • 00 of the EtaUiMeinenta ; and it iccpi its no 
 ::^;l:nt^^^ Ordinance to pere--^^^^^^^ 
 
 Kin.r speaks only of a thimi lost hy man, and 7^ ot any 
 S^^'l^Wlinthebowelsoftheearthby the 
 
 of the^Creator ; for the Kinj,. says : " ei .e ^^^r^^^lXe Khi^ 
 " l'auroit I'KBDUF, il I'auroit a Bon .errement. But the King 
 left misapprehension as to hi. meaning, y^J^^ ^e .aid^ 
 « FoRTDN^ d ,'M quand die ed trouvee dedans terre, et te>reen 
 " ..sU KFFONDKEE."' Iniho Action nazvo de 2^ 'TAw 'word 
 P. 553, vlo. Efrondrer, we find the meamng of that word 
 effondrer to be : 
 
 chartre, d'orJo, ordre." 
 
 Spp 1 83. Fortune d'w^ then, is that wliich, after The same 
 
 ►J7\yV/. A v-j"?^. m. ^ . , •{ t JP 1 ' stated by 
 
 havino- been lost by its former owner, has sunk (^#(?n6i(;'<j, ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ 
 enfonce) Into tlie earth, something, in fine, that has lam mthe.A Planchk 
 eSi {dedans UTie\ not i.nbedded in the solid rock, as mines 
 are and that has lain in the earth so long, as to have left no 
 See of its former owner ; it is, in fact, the c.. to ahjgnotu 
 dlminis mcunia of the Roman Law, that Law to wjich St. 
 Lou.s conformed so much in framing Yh^^^.LefeUrede 
 Tpianohe, vol : 3, livre XI, ch : 10, § 11, P. 344, m laying 
 down the regie partimliere ^our les tresors d or, says . 
 
 «' II ne s'agit pas ici (dcs mines), de ces trfisors que la terre produit, 
 «' qu'on no pent ufre etrc, eondita ab ignotis dormms, vetrtsUorz tempore 
 
 »' nipriinia ' on en a parle ailleurs. . , , 
 
 ^ "ll s'agk uniquernent des tr6sors caches en terre, cuen monnoye, ou 
 " en lingot, ou en quelqu'ouvragc monnoyfi. 
 
 Lefehvre de la Planche then cites the Ordinance oiSt. 
 Louis Lovsel and Bouteiller. In like nianncr Coqmlle, 
 vol • 2 P 8, Edition of 1703, thus declares that treasure-trove 
 and Jsiines are governed by different Laws ; he says : 
 
 " Les miniercs d!argent, de fer, de cuivre, d'estain, et autres niatieres 
 .« ne soiTiTdeU condition du tresor. Car U trkor est vm en sm Ueu 
 *<■ par main d'homme." 
 22 
 
 DK 
 
OWNHBSHIP 
 
 OP Minis. 
 CogoiLLB. 
 Cuttoma of 
 Anjou and 
 Mainb. 
 
 Lam£ Fledrt 
 and by 
 
 COQDILLB, 
 
 and Customs 
 ot Anjou and 
 Maine, 
 
 I 
 
 — 170 — 
 
 of i.y S,' Lou 8 Tn li^ A> )7"'''' /<"■<»««-•''•■ »<, spoken 
 
 ro«so^, C7«iSr„cttet1t,f:rX^i":.M:'^r'^ "^ 
 So much 18 that tho passo fl.of iw'^ e ^^'*'^ ' '; \e8. 
 
 tional C„sto,„s o." i«>r «r "eo LeT'^? *r'''TT 
 Ootdum er General\ anH ^V Tir • ^^ce r i . , ^ol : IV, 
 
 cnbraoo mines, to say 7 "^kXL </W 't?'''''' -'" "'■"^"'' '» 
 apparent an limj'' h !« ,117 ?i • ' ^''^K"' m* mine, 
 eminent men, wlS^ft-amed tlmr^wn r "'/" ^H "P''°'™ "^ "'^ 
 
 than s. ifr^:s^,,'^z.i;Ar:^^it:2^:'i """^ 
 
 erronoons snpposi^o^ fi'^S "?/ '^"'^T^' ""'"■ <>» «>« 
 it is no wonier t at til Zfi • *" 'T"* '^'^ '"ea"t mines, 
 
 unfounded Hmvover'^J-ltlfU^r/""'' P':™'»'=^ *»"« »>« 
 upon the/<XTX: IrVf b7s?T°" "?? ''^P''"'^' 
 no donbt as to the .n:.an ngof Cu^U\YZ , "? ^% 
 siLVEE by name, and ti.en treats of n^^. ' ' ''® ^P"''''^ of 
 QUEs, (see bis Orfinance of ills af P sf'f^ir l"'^""'- 
 nor is there any anibi.-nitv In ,1,1 . *^ "'^^''''^ Faetum) ; 
 be spealcs of Zn S «!^ WW •''"""?*^" ?^ I*'"^ ^L ^^ 
 liTl at P. 93 TSFZiT^r'm^l' ^"^ """i Ojdinane'e of 
 
 preten. that tl:e Ordina, ^'if Hh."v V"of ' PnVf "'''''''^ 
 apply 10 gold, since tho " t.„ I * n . '„ "* ■""'1' does not 
 
 cfain( .be goW, rofes OS to bavTr"''"'' ""''?' ^"'"""^ "'^y 
 
 that OrdinLee yeeraV* WSrf&fetult ""' ™'" "' 
 
 "'-°°'- to dS^Ut^i f forlre'st'r ^'^"'*'"'' '"'■"^™''^" -" 1-lP 
 
 ne pormct pas d> voir autre chose que lei i/lX et d W " ''°°' 
 says f "'' "" ""'"' ""*'"'' "' P- "^' "<"« 2, of the s°amc work. 
 
— 171 — 
 
 " nant la Cow iles monnoyes , de Francois Garrault, goiicro,! ilc !a Ownbwiip 
 
 ••Courdesr mnoyes, quo Ciiakles VI aurait rendu, en 1414, uiie ordon- op Mixia. 
 " nanco sur Ics Mines d'or ct d'argcnt. JCllr n'est que la reproduction Custom of 
 •* A PBU pr48 textuelle (Ic V Ordonnaiiee lU 1413." Pabis. 
 
 ^CC. I oO. It is, therefore, clear that the opinion LivoNifcBi'a 
 
 oi Pocquet de LivotAerc^ and of Loisel, is not borne out byop'^'on not 
 the OnMnauce of St. Louis. But M'hat of the Custom'^ of hrq'uot"a.^ 
 uiryoi* and il/rt/;}^ ? We answer that they n re merely exccp-tiona. 
 tions to the Common Law of the Kingdom, and, like all 
 exceptious, thej prove the rule to he the other way. 
 
 Sec, 18(>, But, say the Defendants, .it P. 40 Cuitoms of 
 
 41 and 42 of their Factum, this country is governed by the gng'llt °°but 
 
 Custom of Paris, an I the Jurisprudence is, that, Avhere a gives mines to 
 
 Custom is silent on any particular question, that question "^^'^fofso'i 
 
 mu'it be solved by the light of the Roman Law, or by the 
 
 light of a neighbouring Custom, according as the quet-tion is 
 
 one of written or of customary Law. To that we reply that we 
 
 have already shewn by the unanswerable arguments of Merlin, 
 
 at P. 59 and j : of this Factum, that the Roman Law is 
 
 with us. As for Customary Law, we hold that the Ci stom 
 
 of Paris is not silent, since article 187 of that Custom says : 
 
 " Quiconque a lesol, appelle rez-de-chausp' d'aucun heritage, il pcut 
 ** et doit avoir le dessus et le dessous de son sol ; ct peut edifier par dessua 
 " et par dessous, et y liiiro puits, aiscmcnts et autres choses licites, s'il n'y 
 " titre au contrairc." (For the explanation nf this article, as we understand 
 it, see § 175, 17«, 177 and 178 of this Factum). 
 
 But even supposing the Custom of Paris were silent, Decision of 
 what of it ? Shall we be told that the Customs of Anjou and '^'"f"' <^« f ''«- 
 of JWai'ne are not excel itional ? Do they not, like all excep- g,[^g^y ^^^^^ 
 tions, prove the rule of the C'onnnon Law to be that ownership torn of Lit9» 
 of the soil involves ownership of the Mine ? More conclusive siiews what 
 evidence of what the Common Law is cannot be found than ^^"""^^ ^^^ 
 in the decisioji of the Cour de Oassaiiori of France, referred 
 to by DupoNT, Jurisprudence des mines, vol : 1, P. 17 and 
 qiToted at length by Merlin, Questions de droit, vho. Mines, 
 in his article already noticed at P. 59 et seq of this Factum. 
 
 The Arret was between Daouf<t and Lefehvre, and is also 
 reported at length by Siiey, t. III-I, P. 520. The Custom of 
 Liege has not one word, one way or the other on the subject of 
 mines ; yet the Cour de Cassation held that, under that 
 Custom, the ovrner of the soil could, without molestation from 
 
 was. 
 
 B 
 
— 172 - 
 
 Ow..asH:r any one, and witliont paying royalty to ^^ ^^IdCon 'IlS 
 
 OK Mines. ^/hs ands. That decision can only oc "plijld upon c 
 
 -"«"^''- suDi osition that, by the Common Lw of tlio Kingdom, the 
 
 "'''^"- owTr of the soil is also owner of the Mine. 
 
 Ckoppiji and 
 LhBuit 
 
 against 
 Defendants' 
 
 views. 
 
 Tiie 3ame. 
 
 The same. 
 
 Sec 187. Having disposed of the rotercnces made 
 
 nrt • 61 and to Choppin's commentary on that Custom, u t 
 Tave alVea^^^^^^ Custom of A.joa to be exceptiona 
 
 it only rei/ains for us to .Lew that lie is, if possible, .uU 
 less supported by Choppin and LeBret. , . ^ . 
 
 With regard to the opinion of LeBket, it is as strong in 
 sumiort of fhe Plaintiffs' views as language can make t. 
 Xr i^ilatin- hosv the Kings of Persia, the Emperor ot the 
 t! fars u d t^ of B?snaga laid claim to all precious 
 
 JubsLace fo nd\vi&nn their realms, how the Roman &npe- 
 rnr levied on all gold and silvei-mmes, a tribute, Mhich 
 Volpnth i-m ha callS Krusdmous, and ho^v Hie learned arc 
 liv ded in ^^^^^^^^^^^ to whether the Emperor, Frederic, ot 
 
 dividca 11 ^F°'?^ ;^ ^^^ ^oid mines in his enumeration ot 
 Germany, has 1^^' ^f ^J^^^i^^ ^^^ declarati^m 
 
 StTiet at Pf lo" ^\tLuc d^ iJ Sor.erainete du 
 Boy, 1. 3, ch. 6, Edition of 1680 : 
 
 ^ . ■ It. iifflr.nU''. rloit cesser iiarmi nous, d'autant que 7?o.y 
 
 u dans les Ordonnanccs de Cbarl IJs d 1 n^ loGJ, a^^^ ^^ .^^. ,^ I 
 
 " queles .1 ^'•^^"ri^"'! nurmf unc declaration posterieuve que I'on fit a 
 'Medixieme: «t 1 on voit que imi unc oecu i ^^h^^^^ ^^ ^^^^. 
 
 *' St. Germain, en novembre lob6, c. urou lu.. 
 
 " 1' Argent." , 
 
 Tt is to be observed, in relation to the reference ,diich 
 /.^'^./makes to an Ordinance of Nove.nber 1583, res riptn.g 
 ;^u K nXroyalty of one-tenth to mines of gold and silver, 
 't^o fueh^S^^^^^ as that of 1583 has been noticed by 
 
 Inv othe aitlor, asren-.arked by Lefehvrede la PM loco 
 S^r but with reference to the Ordinance of 1563, we^liave 
 moteci it at length, in refuting Fernery's opmion (see ^ VA 
 Zffcf^ill factum) ; and.Z^..^ very properl, makes 
 Tlmt brdhiance serve as the basis oi his uriniuu taao the xvm«, .- 
 
 r 
 
 1 
 
— 173 — 
 
 ridits consist in a mere royalty of one-tenth on all metals, Oj^^^^sm. 
 GOLD, SILVER, &c., &c. LeBvefs words are: '' Nos Onion- ^,^^„,^^ 
 nances ccmprennent clatrement toutes sorter de mctaux ; lbBbbt. 
 savoir est, l'Or, l' Argent, etc, etc." Can an^^hing more 
 clearly express the Plaihtiffs' views ? And, yet, the Plaintitts 
 were 'about to take it on trust from the Defendants, that 
 LeBret is authority against us. We would have done so, had 
 we not had the good fortune to obtain a look at that rare 
 work of LeBret. 
 
 In commenting on the Custom of Aoijou, which is an 
 exceptional Custom, Ciioppin, vol 1, livre 1, art: 61, P. S66, 
 states that treasure-trove and mines are very dilterent tlimgs : 
 
 " Car," says he, " Ics mines apparticnnent au Roy scul, et lo tresor k 
 " tous Seigneurs haut-justiciers qui ont jurisdiction." 
 
 That is in direct, contradiction with the Ordinance of The same, 
 
 St Louis, which gives gold-treasure to the Kinsr; it is, 
 
 howt^ver, an answer to ihe sophistries of JLotsel, quoted by Uie 
 
 Defendanls at P. 50 of their Factum. But the language of 
 
 Choiwin shews conclusively that, although the Custoni ot 
 
 aJJu ])V the express words '* fortune (Vor en mine gives 
 
 gold-mhas to the King, yet, in the rest of the Kingdom, 1 »oso 
 
 mines like all others, belong to the owner ot the soil, andthe 
 
 Soveivi>nvs rights in mines of all sorts, without distinction, 
 
 consist of the one-tenth royalty only. Observe the language 
 
 of (Jhoiyjjin : 
 
 " Les Roix de France s'attribuent la dime de toutes sobtes de m£taux 
 " dans leRo/aumo do France par le droict de Souvcrainete. Et dc ce y u 
 - Stres-Putentes de May 1563, et de septembre 1570, desquelles j'ay traite 
 " au livTe 1 ti?re 2, art. (5, du ])omaine de France. Oe qui doit fan-o trou- 
 '' TJmoim !Zi si en nostre Constnmo la .nne d.^or est attnbuee an Boy 
 " i-cKEMENT ET siMi'LEMENT, comuie plus augustc ct plus rclevee. 
 
 Lancruage could not express more clearly that, wluit ever 
 8trangeii%s there might be in liis disposition of that Custom, 
 it disappears on comparison with the Common Law ot the 
 Kingdom, as established by the King's own Letters-Patent, 
 whiSi gives the King a royalty of one-tenth on all eorts ot 
 minos, gold and silver not even excepted. 
 
 Sec. .1 88. True it is, that, from a variety of exam- The sam-. 
 
 f pies as 'to what certain Sovereigns of Egypt, Eome and 
 
 ■ 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
OWSEBSHIP 
 OP MlNBE. 
 
 Choppin 
 
 — 174 — 
 
 Poland Uavc done, he Bays, not ..., logically if he means 
 the early Kings of France : ...... 
 
 ^=: ^ ^^ DO cola ie co,,ecturo ^^ ^-j- ^J^ ^i^l^l^r^tn 
 
 ^rre< of 1295.. I,, tresors, non Pas. po'r Pren^^^^ 
 
 " par hazard, ma., les '"\"^^^ J «' ' i InzaJd a cou^stuinc d'estre adjugee av, 
 " ment la monnoye d'or ^^ouv^ par hazard a co ^ p.^^jnces la Coustuoie 
 
 .. ReUg^ux de 1' Abbaye do St. Uenys, pros Pans. 
 
 AN^ith Ic. Of logic, Still, a PP^n^^ ST m 
 
 " droit- du Roi 
 
 "'n'V'i •^' V.Upq tint Arret "au profit des Eoligieux de 
 1ms (.ill3d lum, cites^that Ai . ct |^ .^^ ^^^^^_ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ 
 
 )glC, sua, o/^ ^^/"", "^ p ^,.Q : 
 
 ;.s Poc*-KT im I'>voNi™j Fief. 1 . oJ» , 
 
 CliOPPIN of 
 
 opinion that, 
 even, under 
 Custom of 
 ANJotJ, owner 
 of soil to be 
 
 indemoiiied 
 
 for mine. 
 
 1 . ^t D(-nis Drc'S Par:s," in order as ne says, to 
 " I'abhaye do bt ^;^^!;f ' 1 \'" ^ ^j^J ^id mines, since trea- 
 
 shew that the e<>rJ^ ^ ^^' wVr.lod to the Smqneur haut-justi- 
 3,.e t--as n;.tnahl3^a.. ^^, 
 
 'r^. Withn hclimilofthe Justice haute ct te of the 
 Arret. )\)thm ic im ^^^^^^^^^^. ^^^^.^^^^^ ^^. ^,^t, 
 
 Monks ot fet. Ucny&, a lump ui ^^ , f,,,,,,.! ivuiii upon 
 
 behave not beoa aUc *» -«"''7' ^.^fted ed ia iTo sdl. 
 the surface of the KVO,.n , ^^^^^'J S the «old to 
 Tl.o Parliament gave ilieu ^J^u^^^xya S " ^^„^ ^^^^ 
 
 t,e Monks ^ -« J^rfa^l^To't as { treasure, but 
 %nventam. inc gom ^,^ ijv.dv • no doubt the fact ot 
 
 as a thing found an ^"f ™"^ . .^.^^^ ^f™J Kronnd, and not 
 its luning been found ..n tl e 6>ii ■ t^ ol "^ r j. 'j,,^ ^.^j,;. 
 i„,.«idod in tl>e sod, to^k^.t o t of t. o ^^ ^^^^^^ ^ 
 
 ^,.„-« is, tlu,tU eertandy f"*^^" "«' V "™,f \SinJder, tlie 
 
 Por the /Ir/d^ see Butllon, vbo. rnines. 
 
 Sec 1 89,— CnorriN, Uc. citato, is a variance with 
 that he conntients, ^vhen he sayf' 
 
 »' rjrt«i'''« /"■' f'" s"«c'>'«"^- ^. ^ „„,,^7. ^it nue Drcs«i"c tons les Francois 
 
 i 
 
 '''■-•**' 7-Si»J 
 
— 175 — 
 
 leans 
 
 t tous 
 
 Irouve 
 
 autre - 
 
 istuoie 
 orte un 
 otit des 
 
 iir des 
 '. 599, 
 eux de 
 ays, to 
 ;e trea- 
 it-justi- 
 
 of the 
 e of the 
 
 or not, 
 g upon 
 he soil. 
 ;2;old to 
 
 im REM 
 
 lire, but 
 ) fact of 
 and not 
 lie Capi 
 )Out that 
 pretends, 
 der, the 
 the Xing 
 ;d to the 
 
 found. 
 
 ance with 
 of Anjoic 
 
 Hoy PAR LA 
 
 1 paVticulier, 
 argument dc 
 largitioiiibus 
 
 les Francois 
 
 *' avoient une Coustume pareille, selon I'ancien vsage dc la Franre : car il Ownership 
 •' parle ainsi, " La fortune d'argent appart nt au Baron ou au Bcr," titrcOF Minks. 
 '^ du Droict au Baron oil an Ber." Choppin. 
 
 Dblibgcqub. 
 
 A remarkable feattire about the writings of this seU 
 Defenseur des droits du Roi, is tlie silence he observes about 
 the grounds of Bouteiller\^ opinion : not one word does 
 Choppin pay of the Cap tulaire de St. Louit^, pro])ably because 
 that Law speaks oi Xho fortune d^or purely and simply, and 
 not of {\\Q fortune d''or en mine, as does ^li' Cuf^toin of Anjou, 
 and because probably, Choppi7h felt that such a reference 
 to the language of St Louis, on which Bouteiller\)ii%<i's>)A& 
 opinion, would Lave shewn that St. Louis and Bouteiller 
 both t^peak of treasui'e-trove. 
 
 Sec, 1 90. Such is ihe passage, from which I^kle- J*J=^';J«J°^- j^ 
 
 BTCQUE, Legislation des Mines, voi : 1, P. 25-1:, (quoted at written, ae he 
 P, 63 of Uefendante' Factum), infers that gold-mines b-longed states, with 
 to the King. We have gi-en Choppin' s wo-ls at length, and ^[^^^^^^P'^^^^gj^ 
 we have alt^o given Bouteiller s words at length. Delehecq- ebiuudere. 
 need not have told us, in the preface to his book, that his work 
 had been written with gr^at precipitation : " cetto precipitation 
 " fera excnser plus d'une n gligence qu'on pourra y di'cou- 
 «< vrir ; '' wl^ see strong evidence of tlia^ haste, fo little con- 
 ducive to accuracy, in the fact of his having mistaken 
 Choppin''s words " Seigneur d"*!, territoire " as meaning the 
 owner of the soil v '"'' pr^pietaire da fonds, " says Ddeheeque) 
 BeleheciputK erj'or in the less excusahle that he quotes the 
 Arret as a specimen of the dog- Latin "^hen in vogue, without 
 perceiving tiiat the Arr'^t awards the lump of gold to the 
 monks a^i \\^y\\\^^' omnlinodauL iMrnvn^i,^ altavi ethaxsam, 
 over the land whereon the gold was found. "We have further 
 shewn how much Ch ; "'-i must have drav ii apon his imagi- 
 nation in order to intci that /»i ideiller spoke of gold or silver- 
 mines, foi' the iatter's words merely r> fer to treasure-trove ; 
 now Ddebecque, who appears to have had no time to consult 
 BouteUler, gives us i-^ understau'i that, in so many words, 
 Bouicider states Hiat the Custom almost universally through- 
 out France was to award gold-mines to the King, and 
 silver-mines to the Baron. We subjoin side by side the 
 Ip-^guage 0*' B .'!'teiUer, Choppin and Dthhecque, for rhe 
 jose of sl'ewing how mucli each one of the two latter has 
 
 X.f '- 
 
— 176 
 
 OWNKRSHir 
 
 OK Mines. 
 booteilleb. 
 Choppin. 
 Delkbioqub. 
 
 improved upon 
 our owu : 
 
 Ills immediate predecessor. Tlie italicB are 
 
 BoUTKILtEK. 
 
 Comparaison 
 
 ot text of 
 
 BouTBiLLBB, " FoHuue (Vargent 
 
 Choppin and " est au Baron 
 
 Delsbecqok «' oa au Ber." 
 
 to shew errors 
 
 of two latter. 
 
 ClIOl'FIN. 
 
 Delebecqce. 
 
 " Bonteiller en sa Somme 
 " Eurale dit " que presque 
 " tous los Francois 
 '* avaient une coustumo 
 " pareille selon I'an- 
 " cien vsage de 
 " la France : car il 
 " parle ainsi : " La 
 " ^^ fortune cCargent ap- 
 " ^^ ■partient au Baron 
 " " oil au Ber. Titre, 
 " " du Droict au Baron ou 
 «' " au Ber." " 
 
 " Et au dire de 
 " Bonteiller dans 
 " sa Somme 
 " liurale, au titre 
 " du Droict au 
 " Baron ou Ber, il 
 " paraitrait que 
 " tel etait I'usage de 
 " presque toute 
 " la France." 
 
 Other blunder 
 
 t)f DSLKBKO- 
 
 Better for tlie autlior, far better for the public, it were if 
 books written with such carelessness had never been I^^l^^^^d 
 ISTot only has DeUhecque been thus misled by ^''fP^^^ 
 
 Tmproperand unfair conclusions ^^^'7. ^j^^ .^^jIJ^^^L's ffuen 
 teiller • ' ut Pocquet de Livonieke, Fiefs, i . o5)J, Has lauen 
 intot le error; see P. 51 of the Dotendants' lac um 
 
 wher. quote Pocquet de Lwoniere's opunon but replace, 
 
 tL. slal dots, I much of de Livoniere^s op an on as 
 states that silver-mines do not belong to the King and tha 
 SpV^n and ZeBret are both Bslh defenseurs des droits du 
 ro1%o doubt Pocquet de Dvoniere w.s desirons o being 
 rngcdinthe same 'category as ^/« and LeBre^^^:^. 
 the Kins was then peculiarly the fountain ot all J onor 
 kX Delehecquei^ shall have further opportunities ot 
 pointing out his inaccuracies as we proceed with a short notice 
 ot his opinions. 
 
 Sec, 191, After noticing very bv^%^he Ordi- 
 nance of 1413, which, as Detelecque, at P. 256, vcl I, admits, 
 Xes to the o^ner of the soil the right to work tne mine on 
 7vL\?nff the King's royalty, he proceeds to draw a conclusion 
 iXsllent w^^^^ tlit -^l-opri'etary right ; for he says, at 
 P 257, vol : 1 : 
 
 Fn pffpt de cette Ordonnance resultent pour les mineurs ei awfrn 
 En ettet cie cctte Y"'""' 'v;,„,..«f.„~ in .irnit de nronnete sur li 
 
 |o 1^ f^roit de recherche, 2° POur 
 
 inventeiir Ic droit de propriete sur la 
 
 T 
 
 I 
 
 mine. 
 
— 177 — 
 
 How, in the name of common sense we ask, could the Owj^RsmP 
 rwnorof tlicsoU aud tho dlscovcrcr ot the rame be, at ine pgj^„gpQog, 
 
 Oostroys the Law ; some mierprcu nu.i x.u- "^^T;:' ^ that 
 i.ives 'ife to the Law, some such ^"terpretation, i fact a^^ 
 Sf erwarck <./iven to it by the proirtulgation of »^^ ^^^"^^ ^^ 
 cf liTl whK'h expropriated tliosc owners ot the soilonJ}, 
 who we're unable or unwilling to work the mme. 
 
 Sec. 1 92.—mehecque then proceeds, briefly again, ^^^^ 
 +1.^ /-^.wiin-nu'o of 1471; and Vie says, at r . ioo? the modiiica- 
 
 T^Lnf i Factum^ The author then quotes the opinion Ae«' opinioa 
 and 100 01 tnia raciumj. -^'/^ " . , \?,^rKv>r, r,v Lan- ia favor of 
 
 Sr,^!btare th;\,ro,,erty of ,hc -no. of tl. so.l ; and tl-..„.,..^ 
 
 DeUbtcque proceeds to say) at i . ^oj, \oi . x . ^^^^ ^.^^^ ^^ 
 
 ' ' oS ir J,. r'M?;'c;77(e3DarrOrdonnanceo\vnerof8cil 
 ' Ces reflexions sont suggerees a M. ds ^'^^"jf " f ?;^ \ i sonta right, at 
 " de Louis XI ; il paruit en eifet que les droUs du propi etaire du ^^l^^ j^ J ^^ ^^„^ 
 <' eoonnus. Mais ce ma^istrat n'a-t-il pas trop generalise, «'' . ;«''PJ^'J^'^; of profits of 
 .' STqu'il I'a fait V C'est ce que nous I>«y-"^.;;jf ^^ ^Lna^^^^^^ 
 
 " ,ance frrAiT, en cffot, ATTiuiiufi anx proprietairesfonciers. 
 
 That is a precious avowal from Mr. DcUhecque ! 
 
 Sec. im.-'-DeUecque then notices the period of Err^^r^of^ 
 1 r... .i;..c wliu.h \vp have elsewhere noticed as having J^Ild Deltbec- 
 
 resistance wliich they made to invasions ot pn ate rjUts ^ ^^^.^^^^^^^ 
 the Sovereigns until IIi^nky IV issued hi. ^^f^* J-;^^^^ 
 That successl'ul resistance has altogether ^'^^^V^^^,^^^^^ 
 notice; but what appears to be a "?«' \f ^ %"^^ "^^f . 7\ ^ 
 <;i<rht on the part of our author, is that, at 1 . 2^0, %oL . i,iic 
 ^:^!wUJ:L dissent, the following statement ot Jiegnaud 
 d'J^jpercy : 
 
 ..Nous forons observer que i"^q";«-^'Vl«: ,f t^'l^sV^'rents 
 *' r^,ivaient fait auclne enumeration des mines et de leuis amerenxes 
 
 especes* 
 
 23 
 
 ■ 
 
0\VS«B8«1P 
 Of MiNKB. 
 
 Dkcuecqdi. 
 
 D'Epbkoy. 
 
 Laii£-Flkobt 
 
 Error of 
 
 Ddebeeque 
 inexcusablei 
 
 — 1Y8 — 
 
 Whatever paliiatioii there may have been for the error 
 of Begnaud d'Aberey, avIio spoke in 1701 before the Ordinances 
 had be(m published, there is no excuse lor Delehecque, who 
 mi-lit liavc 6een the Ordinances, Aflf^ he had time io\ook ^t 
 tlie^n. That Ddebeeque has adopted Brgnaud d^Epercy s 
 bhinder, is evident ivom the fact, that, in sjDeaking of the 
 period of the monopolies, Delebecque, at P. 2(;4:, vol : i, says . 
 '' A cette 6poquc les Ordonnances designent Ics differentes 
 "sortes de minerals; ma is, pour toutes, hi legislation est 
 
 ""in-order to shew that the Ordinances of the firet period, 
 as some modern writers have been pleased to style it, ma 
 enumerate the minerals, we refer to V. 88 of this 1 .ctnm lor 
 the Ordinance of 1413, which enumerates the mines in these 
 
 Ordinances 
 specifically 
 mention gold 
 and silver- 
 mines. 
 
 mines thus : " y a plusieiirs mynes d'or et d argent, de 
 " cuivre, de plomh, estain, potiin, asur et anltres mosPtuxet 
 « matures^ Had he read those two Ordinances, he might 
 have been spared the shame of writing his twaddle about gold 
 and silver-mines. , , , 
 
 Better, we say again, such works never had been 
 
 published ! 
 
 Delcbecquea geC. 194. DeUlecque then proceeds to analyse the 
 
 ;ro7dtre Ordinance of 1601 ; and from it he concludes tk^ 
 
 of 1601 of the owner are not respected by that Ordinanec. J^l^ 
 
 reviewed, BeUlecQue, " the owner of the soil could not work tlie 
 
 ^£:^ ^^t2o.i . li,st obtaining ^^"^^^/"^^ 
 " Mattre a permission which the latter might ^ctuse. v eiy 
 true, M. Delehecque; but, then, the Parliament of Paris, in 
 enre-isteriug tlmt Edict, did so only, after a struggle o 
 several yearf' duration, the severd phases of .which are m=^l 
 described by LamI: Fleury, Legislauon mwerale, P. <4, 
 note 1, and^f which Lame-Fleury, P. 85, note 1, says : 
 « Cette Cour cut en definitive a pen pres gam de cause. it 
 may be as well therefore to draw Mr. Delehec^ue^s attention 
 for the next edition of his work, to some of the phases of that 
 struggle. 
 
 'Four Letlres 
 tie JuBsion 
 disresAfd^d 
 by Parlia- 
 onent. 
 
 lliiS 
 
 Sec. 195. Henry IV, finding the Parliament of 
 
 disincliucd to sanction the powers of the Grand-MaUre 
 
 u 
 
 (( 
 
 
error 
 ances 
 , who 
 )ok at 
 )ercy's 
 af the 
 says : 
 rentes 
 on est 
 
 )eriod, 
 it, did 
 nm for 
 1 these 
 et de 
 of this 
 the 
 de 
 i'lux et 
 ! miglit 
 ut gold 
 
 d been 
 
 lyse the 
 le rights 
 
 rork the 
 
 Grand- 
 
 ' Very 
 
 ?aris, in 
 
 OS 
 NT, 
 
 ggle of 
 
 are well 
 
 P. 74, 
 
 L, says ; 
 
 ISC." ^ It 
 
 ttention, 
 s of that 
 
 ,ment of 
 d-Maltre 
 
 — 179 — 
 
 as to the disposal of Mines, addressed to tliat Parliament/oMrOwNKRSHip 
 special Lettres de Jusdon, 1° on the — 13 May, 1602,— 2° 17°*' Minks. 
 July, 1602,-8° (date erased from the Register).— and 4° 
 12 September, 1602, expressly commanding the Parliament to Ordinancb 
 
 " (de 1601) scront enregistrees es registres d'icelle, a hi charge 
 " que la juridiction attribuee par Pedit aura lieu seulement 
 " pour le reglement dcs mines et les malversations commises 
 " par eeux qui seront employes en I'execution du dit edit et 
 " reglement, et sans que les offioikks ^^w/5*m^ pretendre 
 " juridiction contentieuse sur \e& proprietaires des terres men- 
 "'tionncos an dit edit." Two other 
 
 To two other Lettrea de Jumon of the 7 January 1003, jusZ'n aigo 
 and 16 February 1603, the Parliament returned the same disregarded 
 answer : " Persute es delileraiion.'^ by Pariia- 
 
 ment. 
 
 NCC. l«/0. Henry IV, by Letters de e/wssion, of A seventh 
 
 the 3 May, 1603, declaratory of his intentions, yielded, at ^^^-^t^ /uslion\xa.9 
 so far as to consent to require the Grand-Mattre to associate also disregar- 
 with him, in his decrees, " le nomhre de Jnges porte par les ^f^^ ^ut, on 
 " Ordonnances." and further declaring: ^^ n' avoir eniendu eiffy^J^^"""' 
 " n^e7itendre, par I'edit fait sur le reglement des mines et Parliament 
 *' miniercs de ce royaume, que atitrcs que le grand maUre et enregistered 
 *■'' son lieutenant General puissent, en cas de contradiction, ^5*^.'"*"*^® . , 
 
 iL ' J 11 ^ u -1 Jf 71 ' of 1601, with 
 
 '-'- juger de louverture^ travail et pkix a iceUes mi7ies, rouR le /egtriciong 
 " REGARD des proprietaires." and with 
 
 How can />t'^t'2'gc<2W<2 persist hi declaring that the rights of declaration 
 the owner of the soil are not respected, when the King declares j^^j^jq^"^^^^* 
 that the prix d'iceUes mines (tlie price of the mine, not the been made 
 surface damage) shall be determined by the Grand-Mattre^ and " du trhs 
 paid to the owner of the soil, before he shall be dispossessed ^^^i""'^* ''°"'- 
 In the same Lettres de Jassion, the King grants an appeal to^u^Roi!"^^ 
 the Ordinary tribunals from the decisions of the Grana-Maltre 
 and his Lieutenant, and that their decrees shall remain 
 unexecuted, pending the appeal. -Notwithstanding that con- 
 cession of the King, and notwithstanding those Letters, and 
 other Letters of the 2!) June 1603. the Parliament still per- 
 sisted in its refusal to enrcgister the Edict. 
 
 Finally the King addressed to the Parliament, from 
 Chantilly, on the 26 July, 1603, very sharp Letters, which 
 
OWNKBHHTP 
 
 OF Minis. 
 
 Ordinamcb 
 
 of 1601, and 
 
 incidents cf 
 
 its etiregistra- 
 
 Hon. 
 
 LAMfi Flkury 
 
 — 180 — 
 
 the Parliament oheyed by cnterinp; an order that no Jiid.i^'tnent 
 of tlie Grand Master or of his Lieutenant should be proceeded 
 with, pending tlic appeal, as wo have shewn elsewhere. 1 he 
 Parliament further ordered it to be endorsed upon the Ldiet, 
 that the enre-istration had been made ^^ du ires fxpres coin- 
 " mandement dn roi, n'it.'re par p'usieurs /.ettres do Jnssion 
 Every tyro is aware that, in the hin-ua-e ot Parliament, such 
 an entry meant that the deliberations of Parliament liad not 
 been free, and left the Parliament ;it liberty to decide such 
 questio.is as might come np, precisely as the Parliament had 
 decided in the matter of the tie St. JuUcn-GiiA^r ; see § 107 ot 
 this Factum. 
 
 investment SpC. 197. A^ain, whcn 3Iarim Ruze succeeded 
 
 ''^LT^..^4e Bdleganh as Grand-^.ter, he X^"rtuln^^'l(m 
 fnd 1^33, by office by the Parliament ot Pans on theol Augu.t IbUi, 
 
 Tn like manner, on ine lu aviunjn, avi^^, .. ---v..^..„..^-- - 
 
 !»"" peion,"nothei' J/ar/m Ruze, was invested .y the Parliament 
 
 ^T^rV fnr.of Par s with the office of Grand-Master " a la chanje de ne 
 
 of Superior i^ la main d Vexecutlon. ^Zc-.^ edits et ordo.nxanges alkihel!. 
 
 Council here, ^^ , ^ ^ ^r/'ciJ.v d^icellc^:' . , r. T 
 
 ::'S^ l\L then wetind J^e Parliament .ijcnnin, on the Grand^ 
 views. Master to observe the Ordmances mnfiets ; the ( ^'^ "^^ ^c^ 
 
 of U13 and 1471 had certainly been verihed tor the <lclb ela- 
 tion had been free ; and the Parlian.ent oi Pans, by its lates. 
 i idicial act, in respect of minino:, just betore the creation, one 
 may say, of the Siiperior Council here ordei's the observance, 
 of those Ordinances. How then can Mr Delehecque^^y that 
 at that period in France, the rights of the owner of the soil 
 were not re-arded ? How can any one say that here, at thi. 
 period, those rights are disregarded by the Law . 
 
 Unneceasary 
 to follow 
 Delehecque 
 into history 
 of mining 
 legislation of 
 France, sub- 
 sequent to 
 creation of 
 {superior 
 Council here. 
 
 Sec, 198. Ddehceque then enters into the history 
 
 of mining in France siibse-iiient to the creation of the Conseil 
 ^liTmSi hi Canada ; but it is unnecessary that we should 
 fol ow him on that ground, since we are aflectcd by tnose Laws 
 onvBuhsequentto'that event, which lave been emegistered 
 ^ {Ids country. After reviewing, in his own way, thelegi la- 
 tion of FrancJdurirg the remaining period oi the monarchy, 
 
181 — 
 
 OF Minks. 
 
 DiLBBICQCN. 
 LOISBL. 
 CUABLBS VI. 
 
 Precious 
 admiiision of 
 JJilebecquc, in 
 support of 
 Plaintitld' 
 view3. 
 
 DeUhecquef influenced principally by the legislation of the 
 latter days of the Monarchy, says, at P. 274, vol : 1, that, in 
 i'rance, 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 ITDl, that the doc- 
 trine we contend for is rational and just. He says : 
 
 " Mais tout en declarant les mines propriete nationale on publiquc, no 
 " pouvait on pas, sans contradiction, accorder la preference a x proprietaires 
 "dusol? Cette preference ne pouvait-elle dependre que do la propriete 
 " privee des mines ? Et, en considerant les proprietaires fonciers comme 
 " proprietaires de la surface, cette consideration scile ne suffisait-elle pas 
 " pour Icur assurer le droit do preference ? En elTet, I'exploitation amene 
 " des degats a la superticie, de \k la necessit6 d'indemnites, de h\ des dilii- 
 •' cultes, des exjiertises, et dans le but d'y obvier, ne doit-on pas desirer 
 " autant que la chose le comportc, de voir les proprietaires du fond?, et par 
 " la de la superticie, exploiter par eux-metnes les mines qui s'y trouvent. 
 
 Sec, 199, Loisel/m Ilnle XIII of his IndiiiUes i^kel 
 
 Coutumieves, {LaurUre's edition, vol : 1, P. 281) is of opinion ;?^J°^^™^''^- 
 that ^f)W and &\\vGY-mines belong to the l^^nVi?, but that all ^^.^^^jj.^ 
 other mines be' ong Xo the owner of the soil ; and he (pialifies 
 the ownership of the latter by stating that the permission of 
 the Seignior i.s necessary to ciiable the owner of the soil to 
 
 those of gold. Loisel, at 
 jdition, says : 
 
 "XIII. J\r«Z??e;)c?«ibatir, coulombicr i pied, asseoir monlin ni bonde 
 «« d'etang, lii foniller en tcrrcjwur y tirer 7nini^res,metaiix,^ pierre, platrc, 
 " SANS LE coNGfi Diii SON SEiGNEUU ; Si ce.u'est 2>our son WS«[/e." 
 
 How little weight is to be attached to LoiseVs opinion in and atv.i- 
 that particular, ma> be realized on perusing the Ordinance of;;^^';^^.™ 
 Charles VI of 1413 (see P. 88 of this Factum), where the King nances, 
 states that the miners " out bcsoing d'etre preservez et garde/. 
 " de toutes violances, oppressions, griefz et molestes par 
 " NOUS," and furtlicr that " plusieun Heigneurs taut d'oghse 
 " comme seculiers veulent et s\fforcent d'avoir, en icel es 
 « mynes, la dixiesme partie " and again that " et s'eforcent lea 
 " diz Jlaulx Justiciers de donner grand empeschement et 
 " trouble en maintes nianiercs aux maistrcs cpii font laire la 
 " dite euvre " and where the King expressly declares : "A fin 
 " q\ie doresnavant les Marchands et Maistres de trafonds ajs 
 
 " Mynes qui font ouvrer puissent ouvrer continuellement, 
 
 " sans estre empeschez ne trouhlez en leur ouvraige 
 
 " voidons et ordonnons scmblablement que les /lavlx Justi- 
 
 open and work other nunes than 
 P. 280, vol : 1, of de Lauriere's edit 
 
— 182 — 
 
 OwNaasHii' 
 
 01" MlSBS. 
 LolBBb. 
 
 Choppim. 
 
 RBBUl'ITIt. 
 LOYSBAC. 
 
 Constitution 
 of Emperor, 
 Fredkiuc. 
 
 The same. 
 
 " clers moyens et has, haillent et delivreiit, ausdits ouvrierSj 
 " inarchans ct raaistres des dictes mynoa, chemins ot voyes, 
 * entrees et yss lies." Assuredly Loisel could not have liea rd 
 c<' that Ordhianco, or of the Ordinance of 1471, when ho 
 stated that no one could open amine without the perm ission 
 of the Seignior. It is also pos^ilde that, when he framed Rule 
 XIII, the Oi'donnauce of KJOl, published somo lew yeard 
 before his death had not come to his knowledge. 
 
 Sec, 200. In explaining that Eulo XIII, Loisel, 
 
 atP. 2Sl,vol: 1, says : 
 
 " Choppin, dans son Tra'Ue du Domaine, livro 1, titre 2, n. 6, ecrit 
 " qu'en.l«mrtr//ie on ne peut sans la permission de I'erapereur, ouvnr sa 
 " terre pour en tirer des nietaux," 
 
 * -x- •>:- * * •;;• * * * * •- -^ 
 
 " En France, les lalnes iTor et (Vargent appautucnneni- du roi, en payant 
 «' le funds au propriotaire, Voyez Rebufe, sur la loi iiifrr puhlica, de verbo- 
 » rum sujnif. page 115, col. 2, ligne 21, etla regie 52 do ce litre." 
 
 * 4;- * * * -x- * v<- •>s- * «• * 
 
 " A Vegard des mitres mines, elles appautiennent aux puopui£taibes 
 •' DES FONDS qui pcuvcnt y fouiller cornnie il leur plait." 
 
 Loisel bases his opinion upon the dictu7n of Cho^^n as 
 
 to what the Law of Germany was. That Loisel could infer 
 
 that the Law of Germany sl'iould serve as a guide to the Law 
 
 of France on this subject shews how little reliance is to be 
 
 placed on the opinion of Loisd ; and this in the face of_ the 
 
 positive declarations of the Kings themselves on the subject. 
 
 Ilowever the admiseion of Loisel that all other mines belong 
 
 to the owner of the soil is most precious to the Plaintilis, 
 
 wdien taken in connection with the fact, that the Ordinances 
 
 of 14:13, 1471 imd 1601 draw no distinction between the 
 
 precious and the baser metals. 
 
 History of 
 Constitution 
 of Emperor 
 
 Fredtrk. 
 
 Sec, 201. 'We deem it right to devote a few 
 
 words to the history of this Constitution of the Emperor, 
 Frederic, because we find it cited by Loisel, and by Valtoz 
 and other writers. Loyseau, des Se^gneuries di : 1, nos. 
 1 2 3 4, 5 and 6, gives us a narrative of an incident, wluch, 
 if i't did not git^e rise to the memorable constitution of 
 lloncailU, most certainly furnished a pretext to the victorious 
 monarch for crushing out the spirit of the pcopk-, he had just 
 then vanquished. Loyseau says that, as Fredeno Barba?ossa, 
 
a 
 
 few 
 
 — 183 — 
 
 was roturnig from the conquest of Loinhardy, lie saw a splou-O^-^*'"""^ 
 (lid castle, and arikcil from his attendants tlic name of tlie^'^^^""^,^ 
 Seignior ov Lord ot the castle. The attendant gave the name of of Emperor, 
 the Seignior ^.ovd : hut a flatterer, then ]»rc.sent, stated that FnBDERic. 
 the Emperor ,,a8 the Seignior or Lord, of that caetle ; a^°""- 
 wager immediately took phurc between the attendant and the 
 flatterer as to the meaning of the word Seignior, andtlie" '"'• 
 Emperor was requested to decide tlic wnger. TheEmpeior 
 required the assistance of two learned Doctors at-Law, Bulgare 
 and Martin ; tlie former decided in favor of the attendant, 
 whik! the latter delivered a lengthened haranmie in support of 
 the flatterer's opinion, and maintained that tlie Emperor was 
 Seignior or Lord of the world, and the master and owner of 
 the property of all his subjects. The Emperor, whether he 
 had got u]> the scene as a by-play to give a color to 
 his conduct, or whether he really believed with Martin that 
 ids subjects' property belonged to him, issued from a JAt de 
 Justice^ that he held at lioncaille^ that famous Conetitution, 
 wherein that monarch apju-opriated to the Crown all mines 
 without distinction, all rivers, etc., and left his subjects scarce 
 the shadow of ovvnershm in the soil they tilled. 'That sort of 
 Law may have suited Germany and ; aly ; but it is hardly 
 the sort of thing that British subjects would long tolerate, were 
 it transplanted liere. If, to-day, England stands unrivalled in 
 respect of the development attained by her mineral wealth, it 
 is mainly owing to the fact that, at the Revolution, the 
 Commons of England swept out of the Cons^titution all inter- 
 ference by the Sovereign in the matter of mines, and that, 
 for nearly two centuries since the statute of "William and 
 Mary was placed upon record, the mining interest of England 
 has been free from any tinkering or jobbing by the Sovereign 
 cr his favorites. 
 
 Sec. 2Ui<j. Loiselj iu his llulc LII, states, at 1*. i/0"fnn con- 
 
 o28 of de Laurieres edition, vol : 1 : ^^itjj bimseir. 
 
 *' Le Roi applique k soi la fortune et treuve d'or." 
 
 In commenting on that Ilule, Loisel places himself in 
 contradiction with the doctrine enunciated by him, in his 
 commentary on Rule XIII ; there he assigned both gold and 
 silver mines to the King ; here he ooily gives gold-mhics to 
 the King ; silver-mines, he gives to the Baron. He 
 admits, nevertheless, that the Jurisprudence of France as 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 // 
 
 
 
 /t. 
 
 
 fA 
 
 !.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 ;f^ ilia 
 
 M 
 
 iiiiii 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 .« 6" - 
 
 
 ► 
 
 % 
 
 V] 
 
 'r>l 
 
 I 
 
 ^J 
 
 VI 
 
 ^.'^V^ 
 
 %.>:^ 
 
 /a 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 ^ 
 
 •^ 
 
 4 
 
 
 :\ 
 
 \ 
 
 "% 
 
 v^ ^ >. ^\ 
 
 
 =^-^ 
 «^\j~ 
 
 V^."^ 
 
 ^.^> 
 
 r^^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14S80 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 

 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 5?^ 
 
 M 
 
 vV 
 
— 184 
 
 0\V!«BSSBIP 
 OF MiNBS. 
 
 Loisic. 
 
 iiouTsriiiiB. 
 
 ROUTKILLKR 
 (iocs not SUp' 
 port Deien* 
 llanos' views. 
 
 shewn by Bacquet, cli : 32, P. 350, has been otherwise ; 
 Loisel, moreover, cites the case of a t: easiire as he calls it 
 (see § 187 and 188 of tliis Factum) found at Aubcrvilliers, 
 and iid judged by Arret, not to the Kiuir, but to tlie monks of 
 St. Deiiis. He furtlier supportr his opinion by art : 60 of the 
 exceptional Custom of Anjou already referred to by us, and 
 by art : 48 of the a' so exceptional Custom oi Bretagne. Lcisel 
 then cites Bouteiller, in his Sommc rurale livre 1, titre 36, 
 (P. 255, Edition of 1603) as placing " la fortune au nombre 
 dea tresorsP 
 
 Loisel finds fault with the framers of the exceptional 
 Custom of -<4«/ot«, ibr having qualified fortune d'or 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). 
 
 Sec, ^03. The words of BouteiUer, as found at 
 
 P. 255 of the Edition in the Advocates' library at Quebec, are : 
 
 "/i aucun trouve en sa terre aucun tresor, ce doit lui appartenir ; ct 
 «' si c'etoit a, autruy terre, avoir y doit la moitie, et ie Seigneur de la terre 
 " I'autre moitie ; rmis, selon aucuxs, si c'etoit fortune cVor, au roi appar- 
 " tiendroit." 
 
 Observe the caution of Bouteilhr ; he does not give it 
 as his opinion that fortune d'or belongs to the King ; " mats, 
 selon aucuns " {according to some wivters), says Bouteilbr, 
 fortune d'or belongs to the King ; " selon aucuns " means 
 'that a few authors have said so. Nor does a single line in 
 Bouieiller lead to the inference that mines arc included in the 
 designation o^ fortune d'or. Indeed that remarkable caution 
 of Bouteiller is in keeping with tli^i fact which Choppin, 
 vol: 2, livre 2, titre 5, No. 10, P. 21o, Edition of 1662, has 
 transmitted to us aonaGvnmg Bouteiller, as to the latter having 
 been " Conseiller du Roy, Charles VI." The fact that Bou- 
 ieiller was a Councillor of the very Sovereign, who issued the 
 Ordinance of 1413, which, ?mong other mines, treats of s%lver' 
 mines, and speaks, (as we have shewn already, at P. 80 and 
 92) of tliis Factum) of the owners of the soil {inaistre des 
 trafonds) as being also owners of those mines {Maistres des 
 Mvnes)- readily accounts for the caution of Bouteiller^ when 
 lie'says" selon aucuns" ; it would also lead to the belief 
 that his own oi>inion was not so formed. 
 
 What more likely, also, than that Bouteiller^ this Con- 
 seiller du Roy^ was concerned in thoframitigof that Ordinance 
 
— 185 — 
 
 of his Eoyal Patron. Bp that as it may, few will believe, with Ownbbship 
 the Defendants, thsit Bouteiller, the Councillor of Charles V^ °^ ^'*'"- 
 perhaps even the framer of the Ordinance of 1413 (which Si""' 
 certainly does not adjudge silver-mines to the Baron), ever Bacqurt, 
 could have shared the opinion of Loisel, that silver mines °* LivoNiiaw. 
 belong to the Baton, and th^it fortune et ireuve mean mines. 
 
 Sec, 204, Choppin, vol., 2, livre 2, titre 5, F. 214, Choppin, in 
 
 215, 216 and 217, Edition of 1662, treats of the question of J?" ^S"^ 
 treasure-trove, and states Bouteiller'^s opinion to be thct does not' 
 treasure of gold belongs to the King, and that treasure of «?P"33 op^" 
 Bilver belongs to the Baron ; now we have already shewn °^°°' 
 that Bouteiller has not given his opinion ; in fact, at P. 256, 
 of the same work, Bouteiller, by quite a number of Arreta 
 and by references to Bacquet, shews that tht Jurisprudence 
 has been the other way. And yet, strange to say, Choppin, 
 whom PocQUET DK LivoNiEBE, des Fiefs, P. 600 calls a " zele 
 " defenseur des droits du Roi " expresses no opinion of his 
 own, but ia satisfied with calling it " une belle question ". 
 After stating, according to Strabo, that, in Gascoay, pieces 
 of gold had been found in the earth, " aussi gros et aussi 
 longs que la main,^^ Choppin apologizes for eluding the 
 question with the following reason : 
 
 *• Mais Dourquoy nous arrestons nous tant k ces choses, puisqu'ea 
 *' France on tient qu'il n'y a point de mines d'or, " alia anthrakes the- 
 " sauroi " ," 
 
 In Lower Canada we h-.ve the gold ; it were better, 
 perhaps, if we had the black diamonds. 
 
 Sec, 305, Choppin, vol ; 2, livre 1, titre 15, but, 'reatin 
 
 No. 15, P. 167, Edition of 1662, has ^n article on the Domaine, «^ ^^^. 
 in which he expresses an opinion ii insistent with the sup .o-^Jor8"tbe 
 sition of the King's having any proprietary rights in mines. Plaintiffs' 
 Choppin, after stating that, under tlie Eoman Law, private ^iewa. 
 individuals held gold and other mines, says : La souveraineto 
 *' et jjuissance appartiennent au Koy, la proprieto aux 
 " particuliers." 
 
 It is impossible to conceive how the land, with its 
 
 accessory of rock, can be owned by the subject, and how 
 
 the sovereign, at the same time, can own tlie metal, that 
 
 is so intimately united and blended with the rock as to prevent 
 
 84 
 
— 186 — 
 
 the metal (the pretended property of the Sovereign) from 
 Choppw being separated from the rock, without destroying the latter, 
 Lau£ FtBOBYW^ich is the undoubted property of the subject. 
 
 OWMISBBIP 
 OF BIlHII. 
 
 The same. geC, 206. Choppin, Tol : 2, 1. 1, titre 1, no. 4, 
 
 P. 5, Edition of 1662, tells us that the Koman Emperors 
 levied a duty of one-tenth on all mines for the State, and 
 that the owner of the soil received another ^wnth. 
 
 We now come to the passage in Chopping vol : 2, livre 1, 
 titre 1, in P. 15, Edition of 1662, upon which the Defendants, 
 at P. ^^6 of their Factum, appear to rely so murh in support 
 of their case. 
 
 Choppin says : 
 
 " L'Empereur Fb«o£ric I (of Germany), estant en son lit de Justice, 
 " en un lieu d'ltalie, appelle Ronehalice, declara quels estoient les droicts 
 " de Begale ou Royaux. Les Duchez, Marquisats, Comtez, Monnoyes, 
 " Peages, Fodre, tributs, subsides, droicts de moulins, droicts de pesche, et 
 " autres droicts i cause des riuidres, salines, mini^res d'or, et autres 
 " m6taux tirez des veincs de la terre, comme il est contenu au liure 2, de 
 " Eadeuie, ch : 5, et aux Feudes, ch : 1, Quae svnt Regalia. Luc. Penna. 
 "in I. quicumque. G. de omni agro deserto. lib. 2." 
 
 Choppin does not state what the Law of France is ; he 
 merely states what the Law of Germany was then ; he does 
 not even assert that the Constitution of Frederic 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 " zeU defenseur des droits 
 " du 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 
 thoy have cited to us the Laws of the Esquimaux ! 
 
 That passage of Choppin is immediately followed by 
 these words : 
 
 " Au moyen de quoy le Roy Charles IX par son Edict du 26 May 1563, 
 " v6rifi6 en la Gour de Parlement le 1 Juillet ensuivant, ordonna que le 
 " droict de dixUme coraptoit et appartenoit au Roy par droiot de souuerai- 
 " net6 vur toutes lea mines^ minifires, et autres substances terrestresi." 
 
 Now, by glancing at that Ordinance reproduced at length, 
 at § 164 of this Factum, from LamIi Flbury, Legislation 
 minerale, P. 59, it will be seen that the King expressly men- 
 
 tions gol( 
 own she^ 
 the other 
 whom eli 
 to sliew 1 
 Defendai 
 
 Se 
 
 support 1 
 The unw 
 pronounc 
 m favor 
 if, by an 
 Cn stoma 
 given tli( 
 have dor 
 Pocqicet< 
 P. 599 a 
 I'autre zj 
 
 Se 
 
 dants cit 
 P. 371i ■ 
 " et d'ar 
 " propri( 
 Brillon 
 (whose ( 
 Factum) 
 we have 
 (see § li 
 shewn Ik 
 notice th 
 to remai" 
 as a corr 
 Brillon 
 which sl 
 further c 
 " ques c 
 " n'appa 
 " trouvc 
 Wh 
 that, un( 
 and silv( 
 
 I 
 
 ■ft? 
 
187 — 
 
 ;ii) from 
 le latter, 
 
 1, no. 4, 
 
 Emperora 
 ;ate, and 
 
 3, livrel, 
 fendants, 
 1 support 
 
 de Justice, 
 
 les droicts 
 
 Monnoyes, 
 
 pesche, et 
 
 et autres 
 
 liure 2, de 
 
 'jUc. Penna. 
 
 CO is ; he 
 he does 
 ever was 
 lad made 
 le epithet, 
 des droits 
 be Defen- 
 I out that 
 rell might 
 
 Lowed by 
 
 6 May 1563, 
 jnna^ que lo 
 ie souuerai- 
 stresi." 
 
 at length, 
 '.egislation 
 jssly men- 
 
 tions gold and silver mines, the King's rights in which, on his^^NiBseip 
 own shewing, amount to one-tenth only. To whom, then, do ^gprp^^'' 
 the other nine-tenths of gold and silver mines belong? Tol,bbkt. 
 whom else than the owner of the soih We promised elsewhere Bbillon. 
 to shew how Chopj^in had been tortured to give support to the 
 Defendants' tottermg case ; we hope that we have succeeded. 
 
 Sec. 207. In like manner Le BREr ie found not to Choppin and 
 
 support the view taken by Loysel as to gold and silver-mines, favorable 
 
 to 
 
 The unwillingness of such men as Choppin and Le Bret to plaintiffs' 
 pronounce a decided opinion on the question speaks volumes views, 
 m favor of the doctrine propounded by us upon this question ; 
 if, by any forced interpretation of the Koman Law or of the 
 Customary Law or even of the Ordinances, they could have 
 given the mines to the King, we may be certain that they would 
 have done so, i£ we may judge of them by the character which 
 Pocquet de Livoniere^ gives of them in lys Trade ks Fiefs^ 
 V. 599 and 600, where he says of them that they are " I'un et 
 I'autre zthka defenseurs des droits du roi." 
 
 Sec. 208. At P. 46 of their Factum the Defen- Bbi^lm cited 
 
 dants cite from Bkillon's, Diciionnaire des arrets^ vho. Mines, anta, contra- 
 P. 371i injme^ where it is said : " En France les Mines d'or dicta himself 
 « et d'argent appartiennent au Roy en payant le fonds au jJ^b«J«'^J^ 
 " proprietaire." Now on looking into the references given by hag passages 
 Brillon for this statement we find him referring to Loysel favorable to 
 (whose opinion we have discussed at §199 & seq : of this Plaintiffs' 
 Factum), to Bebxiffe {cMq^ by Loisel) and to Coquille. As^'^^^* 
 we have shewn Coquiiys opinion to be quite the other way 
 (see § 137 & 138 of this Factum), and as we have already 
 shewn how groundless LoiseVs opinion is, it is nnneceesary to 
 notice this inconsiderate statement of Brillon any further than 
 to remark, that he never enjoyed any thing like weight, even 
 as a compiler, and that, on the very next page ; Col : 1, 
 Brillon quotes an Arret of the Parliament of Paris of 1329, 
 which shews that silver n.incs belong to the subject ; and 
 further down, onT. 372, Col : 2, Brillon says : " 11 y a luel- 
 " ques coutumes^qui venlent que les mines d'or et d'argent 
 " n'appartiennent ni au proprietaire du fonds oil elles se 
 " trouvent, ni a I'usufruitier." 
 
 What are we to infer from that language, unless it be 
 that, under the other customs, it is otherwise, and that gold 
 and silver-mines belong to the owner of the soil ? No other 
 
 ■ 
 
— 188 — 
 
 OWNIRBHIP 
 
 OP MiMia. 
 Bkillon. 
 
 Daxloz mi3« 
 quot'^d by 
 Defendants. 
 
 conclusion can be drawn ; and that conclusion is in keeping 
 with what Brillon, P. 370 of the same article, states on the 
 subject, namely : " Les mines d'or et d'argent font partie des 
 '' fruits, et entrent dans la jouissance de nisufruit," and also 
 with what he says, vho. mineraux, P. 370 : " Les minoraux 
 " font portion de la terre et de s^s entrailles." So much for 
 Brillon, who, we think, lias not, by reason of his contradic- 
 tions, much strengthened the Defendants' case. 
 
 ^6C, ^Uy, Dalloz, in his Repertoire de Legislation, 
 
 vol : 31. vlo. Mines, ch . 1, § 5. 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 
 synopsis of that article o^ Dalloz, we regret having it to say 
 that nere again occurs one of those ruses, resorted to by the 
 Defendants to bolstei'up their case, and several of which have 
 already been exposed in this Factum. At P. 63 of the 
 Defendants' Factum we re°d : 
 
 " Dalloz, ain6, dans son repertoire de legislation, (tome 31, vbo. mines 
 " ct mini^res) s'incHne aussi devant I'opinion g6nera).e : " Les mines, " 
 *• " (dans les Gaules), dit-il, furent tout d'abord de doraaine public, en 
 " " ce sens qu'elles apparaissent de bonne heure comme grev6es au 
 *• " profit du roi d'une redevance qui comme le droit imperial, 
 " " consistait en une quotite du produit." 
 
 '" *' Ell 786, sous Charlemagne, les mines sont formellement raises au 
 
 '• " nomhre des droits regaliens, quant aux mines d'ob." " 
 
 All the words found in that OKtract from the Defendants' 
 Factum are also to be fonnd, ^nd in the same order iu 
 Dalloz ; but how different a n., «,ning has been lent to those 
 words by the Defendants in substituting a comma for a 
 period, 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 Char- 
 lemagne, gold-mines formed part of the domain, and were the 
 property ot the Sovereign. Let us now see what Dalloz 
 actually did ^iij. Dalloz, loc : cit : says : 
 
 " En 786, sous CharUmagne, les mines sont formellement mises au 
 " nomlre des droits regalitns. Quant aox mines d'oh, Mr. Delebecque 
 " '?. 254, induit d'un passage de Chopin, qui cite Ini-meme k cet 6gard un 
 '* arret du parlement de 1292, qu'elles appartenaient au roi comme depen- 
 *' dantes d'un pur droit rcgalien et ce mfime auteur ajoute que priraitive- 
 •' ment les mines d'argent ont et6, comme les mines di^or, une dependance 
 
— 189 — 
 
 •• de la Souverainete. Mais bientAt cette souvcrainet6 fut fractionn6e, au Ownrrship 
 *' prejudice du pouvoir royal, par suite de I'avdnement du regime feodal. ov Minib. 
 " Les Seigneurs durent done usurper la piopriet6 des mines, et, en effet, la Oalloz. 
 •* CoAtume dMwjo« en contient des dispositions formelles, n'exprimant en ^*citd3. 
 " cela qu'un fait, qui, d'aprds Bouteiller, sommo rr.rale, tit : du droit au 
 ** Baron ou Jsr, parait avoir 6t6 general en France." 
 
 It thus appears that the Orij^inal text in Da los has a The same. 
 period (.) between the words : " droits regalienn " and the 
 words " Quant aux mines d'or ; " by artfully substituting, 
 in their Factum, a comma for the period in Dalloz^ text, the 
 Defendants have made Dados say that gold mines belonged 
 to the Crown under Charlemagne^ while Dallas merely said 
 that what appeared to have been the case under Dagobert, if 
 we are to believe Duchesne's receuil, t. 1, P. 585, really was 
 done by Chaelemagne, namely the imposition of a fiscal 
 burthen on all mines without distinction. VVe can find no lan- 
 guage to designate the Defendants' conduct in this particular. 
 
 Sec. 209 (his), Dalloz,?oc/ dt: speaks of the Error of 
 
 \ / ,, ^ ii.i/»i, Dalloz and 
 
 Eoman Law on mines mnch as it has been treated ot by choppin as to 
 Meklin, as shewn elsewhere in this Factum, and quotes passage cited 
 Delebecgue, t : 1, ch : 3, P. 29, to shew that, in the last stage of Jy tbem from 
 Koman legislation : 
 
 " Sous VaUntinien, Vor etant devenu rare, on accorda h tout particu- 
 " lier le droit de I'exploiter, mais sous la condition de payer a I'Etat uno 
 " certaine redevance, et de ^'endre au ftsc tout le produit de Textraction." 
 
 Dalloz then proceeds to says that France adopted the 
 Boman legislation on mines, and gives the extract quoted 
 above. Dalloz misquotes Tacitus, in reference to the case of 
 Sextus Marius, His mistake arises from having followed 
 Choppin^s erroneous reference to Tacitus, as w^e have shewn 
 elsewhere. The passage is from TAcrrus, Annals, Book 6, 
 § 19, P. 164 of Arthur Murphy's excellent translation ; 
 Choppin states the passage to be Book 4, while Dalloz places it 
 in Book 5. The passage reads thus : " Sextus Marius, who 
 " held the largest possessions in Spain, was the next victim. 
 " Incest with his own dauo;hter was the imputed crime : ho 
 " was precipitated down tlie Tarpeian rock. That the avarice 
 " of Tiberius was the motive for this act of violence, was seen 
 " beyond the post^ibility of a donbt, when the g^ld mines of 
 " the unfortunate Spaniard, which were forfeited to the public, 
 " were known to be seized by the Emperor for his own use." 
 That passage from Tacitus establishes, therefore, that, under 
 
— 190 
 
 Roman Law 
 tlie State 
 
 , gold-mines were owned by individuals, not bv 
 ince the Emperor, in order to eecnre certain fjold- 
 
 OVTHMBBIV 
 OF MlNBS. 
 
 LBPfcBVBi DB mines that he coveted, had to invent a pretext for the death of 
 LA Plahchb. their owner, that the mines might become forfeited to him, the 
 DtPoNT. Emperor, as head of the State. The passage leads to inferences 
 
 directly the reverse of that drawn from it by Choppiriy Dalloz 
 
 and others. 
 
 MlQSIRON. 
 
 Dalloz, in 
 calling legis 
 Ifttion of 
 France" a si- 
 ne de tdton- 
 nementi, 
 commits an 
 error, well 
 refuted by 
 Ddpont and 
 
 MlONBBON. 
 
 Sec. 31U« Dalloz, loo: cit: 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, 3" from 1601 to 1722, 4^ from 1722 to 
 1740, 5° from 1740 to 1791, 6" the modern epoch. His division 
 is not very logical, and the old legislation has been better 
 classed by Lame-Fleury^ as we shall presently shew, into three 
 epochs. Dalloz analyses the Ordinances on raining pretty 
 much as Merlin has done ; and it is therefore unnecessary to 
 do more than state that Dalloz concludes, No. 13, P. 606, 
 that, under the monarchy, the Legislation of France on mines 
 had been nothing else than a " '^''^'^' "^^ *^*^'>^'>^^'>rr>^'rtfjt " TTnw 
 
 Sene de tdtonnements." How 
 
 mistaken he was may be seen on i eference to Dupont, Juris- 
 prudence des mines, vol : 1, P. 2d and 24 ; that author shews 
 that the legislation, which Dalloz so much despises, namely the 
 Ordinance of 1471, contains the germs of the Law Dalloz so 
 much admire^, namely, the modern French Law on mines. 
 Dupont, loo : cit : says : " Cette contbrmite de dispositions, 
 " dans la legislation des mines, a plus de trois siecles et demi 
 " d'intervalle, a cte signalee pour la premiere fois par M. 
 " MiGNEKON {Annates des mines) Seme surie, t : 2, P. 558)." 
 Not a sing e line from Dalloz asserts the belief that, at any 
 period of French History, did the Sovereigns of France 
 exercise proprietary rights over the mines of that country. He 
 merely states what no one denies, that the Sovereigns con- 
 trolled the working of the mines for the greater benefit of the 
 State. 
 
 q^o^'2' "''" Sec, 2 1 1 , The only fault to be found with Dalloz 
 
 LKPiiBrRB DK ig the manner, in which he has quoted Lefebvre de la Flanche ; 
 LA Pmhchi. j)^ii^^ has unintentionally, no doubt, made Ze/ehvre de la 
 Planche state the very reverse of what the latter has really 
 said. The Defendants, at P. 44, 45 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 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
~ m — 
 
 notes made upon Zefebvre'a work, by Lorri, of whom wo have Own ership 
 already Bpoken. Thus it is that Dalloz and the Defendants J!.*' *'"'■»• 
 make Lefebvre de la Planche positively assert, what Zw-nLoair* 
 only said, and that with diffidence, that such a disposal of LEFfeBVRn db 
 gold mines appeared to be dans les mceura du lioyaume.''^ ^^ Planchb. 
 see § 123 of this Factum, where it is shewn that the notes are by 
 Lorri and not by Lefebvre do la Planche ; again Dalloz and 
 the Defendants, attributing to Lefebvre de la Planche the 
 opinions contained in the commentaries of Lorri have made 
 Lefebvre de la Planche say that fortune et treuve d^or mean 
 mines. We shall presently shew that the very reverse has 
 been stated by Lpfebvre de la Planche in both instances. 
 
 ^eC, /itVd, Dalloz, moreover quotes Z^yeJw^ e?e The same. 
 
 la Planche thus 
 
 " Dans les autres mines (que oelles d*or et d'argent) le roi ne prfitend 
 " point de propriete, puisqu'il ne revendique qu'un dixieme, &c., »S;c., &c." 
 
 The quotation is literally exact ; but, owing to the neglect 
 of Dalloz to tell us that he has (quoted from the note, we are 
 led to believe that the opinions there expressed are by 
 Lefebvre de la Planche, while, in fact, we have been reading 
 the scribbling of Mr. Lorri^ who, as the Avocat du Roi au 
 Domaine, has all this time b jen endeavoring, we presume, to 
 increase the sphere of his usefulness to his master, and the 
 chances of his own promotion. Lefebvre de la Planche has 
 thus been improperly made to say that the King is proprietor 
 of gold and ilvor mines. Now the very reverse is the case ; 
 Lefebvre de la Planche, vol : 3. 1 : 9, ch : 4, § 1, P. 33, says of 
 mines of all sorts : " Cependant ellea n'ont jamais eteregardeea 
 " comme appartenantea au Souverain." And, loc : oil : § 5, 
 speaking of the Koyalty, he says : " Leg Ordonnances qui 
 con :iennent cette reserve, expriment que ce droit attend non 
 " SEULEMENT auT les miuea dor et d'argent, mais aussi sur lea 
 " mines de tons metaux, &c., &c. 
 
 Such positive declarations of o]>inion on the part of 
 Lefebvre de la Planche, should have led Dalloz to pause 
 before coming to the conclusion that the opinions expressed 
 in the notes had been written by Lefebvre de la Planche, the 
 two sets of opinions being so much at variance with each 
 other. In like manner while Lefebvre de la Planche distinctly 
 states i\i&i fortune d'or does not include mines, wo find LorA^ 
 in his note (a) to Lefebvre de la Planche, vol : 3, livre 9, ch : 
 4, No, 9, P. 35, stating : 
 
nv MiNBS. 
 
 LORRI. 
 
 LbpPjbvbi di 
 t.\ Planohi. 
 D'Abobntb^. 
 
 — 192 — 
 
 " question a pcu d'in « ct soit dln^ it n^ ''"^•?-, ^^f '!?" »^ ^ *^' «, la 
 " on no connoit point drminesdwJn^ 'S nouveau-monde, 
 
 '• I'oWissance du jj^,,- ,, ""^^ '^ '^'^ ^'^Ploitfiea dans l'6tendue des terres de 
 
 Xi'/^iF" "i^'^kes the remarks quoted by i?ato as the 
 a^rvoae an accompanin.ont to a<,^^J... l^'^lZTellet^ 
 
 1 01 
 
 opinion 
 one ^vaj or 
 scrv( 
 tion. 
 
 D'Ab8bntr£ 
 favora Plaint- 
 iffs' views. 
 
 ^eC. 213. By a great misapprehension, D'ar- 
 
 GENTRE, on tlie Custom of i?r.to^ne, has been cited in support 
 of the ormiion tliat go d and siiver-mlnes belong to the K 
 That author, on Article 66 of that Custom Nos q« <?o i^i 
 40, P. 227 and 228 of Edition of 162lf has^he L^^^^^ ^^ 
 
 *' 38, Salinso an sint de regalibus "? 
 " 39. Salinoi sunt etiam pkiuatokum " 
 *' 40 Auri fodinse ? " 
 
 " tionem apparet ex I i««.r /'j£V'r/rf «SS/p w".'?™ -P'^^^'r 
 
 *' St saHtoremrcut^L^Tlfcu'^^ lif^p^^^ appellaban t 
 
 ;; institutas Liuius et .c.teri V^rT' ^ftiZ.^t^Z^^'^JZ 
 nnf.' ;f '5-^ ^•^'^'^P^'?' fPrincip. D' de relvs JC quod et A^ex 
 notavit I diuartio, u mrmfundo. post Glos. in D. sol. matrhn etL^l 
 Com.^ m § sifundum ibid, ubi et «e consuluisse volaterrirSt in caust 
 ardua atque ,t4 obtenuisse, cum in fundis priuatorL reperi^^^^^^^ 
 
 39. bedcrebrisexpenmentisdocemur etiam priuatis ista coraDetere 
 !ten/"".' -k'* nostra talibus priuatorum ialinis, qSbusZ „oA 
 effoditur u ahbi, sed quibus confiscitur et coquitur, utili mortalibus 
 inuento, nis, ant.quorum exempla, et priscarum legum aWrita^cuSa 
 tem principum nostrorum denuo provocasset, ut lusUrDominis '^neeo 
 tmm facesserent ea de re. quam prisca tempora, et vsnrS per aufm 
 vetus et ipsorura pnnc.pum consensus comprSbasset. Quarmagno do"oS 
 bonorum omnmra factum et ingenti patriae communisdetrTmSvlsaHs 
 artifices magnis mcommodis et publicanorum molestiis veTat exterSas 
 
 II 
 
 if 
 
 ♦ 
 
- im 
 
 •• sedes quaerero cogerentur proditis arcanis salis coquendi, quro antO exter- Owhisship 
 " ni ron nossent. Nam apud Francos Gabellarum salis iuuentum, iniuriao"' Mihbs. 
 " est tomporum Philippi Valesij Regis." D'Aboe!itb£. 
 
 •' 40. Eadem ratio reporitet auri etargenti fodinas, et picarias, quas 
 "volunt esse picia foiinas, Principibus vondicare, I. inter jyublica. L. de 
 "yerJ, signif. et d. e. super quibusdara, ot d. c. 1. tit. qua aint regal. QUiB 
 " TAMEN IPSA NON MA0I3 Principum SUNT, «t in, FUNTDO PRiuATO rcperitiJitur, 
 " quam lapidicince aut cretmfodina : quod ex eo apparet, qudd decimam 
 •• ex his cogere Principes solebant, I. cuncti. God. de Metall. lib. TJ. Cod. Et 
 ♦* quae in de vectigalia priscis Romanis colligebantur in agris publicis. 
 " Popul. Rom. fuissc appar.^t, veluti in Tauriscis, in Norico, et Macedonia 
 *' de quibus Tit. Liuius, lib. 4. Decadis 5, et Strabo lib. 4. merainit ; et 
 " Polyb. quoquo suo tempore repertas propd Aquileiam scribit : Fuisse 
 " verd vniuersas in Romanorum potestate : Sed et priuatorura fuisse indi- 
 *' cio est Com. Taciti locus, cum a"rarias cuiusdam, quamquam publica- 
 '• rentur, Tyberius sibi sepoauisao dicitur, lib. 4." 
 
 Sec. <<&14. If we understand any thing of the ing />> jr. 
 
 quaint Latin in use in the days of D'Argentre, that author Jfjjj'^^'opi- 
 places gold and silver-mines among those things which belong, favorable to 
 when tound on private lands, to the owners of the soil, piaintififa. 
 Moreover, we gather as much from the way in which he puts 
 the question and answers it as to salt works " 38. Salinae" 
 he says, " an sint de regalihus. 39. '* Salinae swnt fitlnn 
 PBivATORUM." In discnssmg tlie question in No. 
 by stating that there is very old authority 
 Digest, qnod cuj usque univera. nom.) for placL 
 among regaMan riglits. He notices the oxistou "j 
 
 Romans, of a Superintendent of salt-works; i ^ 
 
 decides the question in the negative, by saying : " b^ .8 
 
 " exemplis docemur etiam pnv atis ista competere, &c;, u-o." 
 In like manner, with reference to gold and silver-mines, 
 he begins by stating that a like authority claims, for the 
 Sovereign, gold and silver-mines ; and after quoting the 
 Roman Law, which, in his opinion, applies to that view of the 
 case, he again decides the question, in the negative, as to 
 gold and silver-mines, by saying : " quae " (mines of gold 
 and silver and of bitumen)" tamen ipsa non " magis Pkin- 
 ciPUM SUNT, si in fundo privato reperiuntur^ quam lapidieinae 
 " aut cretae fodinae : quod ex eo appaket, quod decimam ex 
 " his cogera Principe^' solebant." 
 
 Finally, if any thing were wanting to satisfy us that 
 
 D^Argentre agrees with his great rival Du Molin, we find it 
 
 in that peculiarity, which led D'Argentre to diverge, at times 
 
 from Du MolirCs opinion. On this head see £ Lettres de 
 
 25 
 
 sunt fitiam 
 h ^ins 
 'the 
 
 ks 
 
— 194 — 
 
 BoORJON. 
 PoN TAMOS. 
 
 Thejaamtt. 
 
 REScsaou'a 
 opinion in 
 favor of 
 Plaintiffs. 
 
 The same of 
 
 POHTANOS. 
 
 « tion." See alfto Arrets de J* ram, vol. i, i . i"«, *>"^^° ";-v- 
 vJ^vLhes B^Argentre with having dissented trom Du Mm 
 "rUirD^^^^^ ^"^ parraison." Now 
 
 wl ZVihTvu Molil in treating of t^^-AYt'L^.l"t" 
 holds that Kold and silver-mines may be seized by the seicrnior 
 as fruit oAhe soil and ns being the property of the debtor 
 forthedebt(cm.t..Ooftho vassal owner ol the soil An d 
 ;?nce neither in the passage Quoted above at length from 
 D^ArZtrLZ in treatinjf of tke like seizure, under article 
 129 ot' to Custom of ^r.?a^ne, does i)'^/^.n«r.' use the set- 
 tled form of contradiction. ^' iil! si diversa quc^.am allegat 
 ^Md^(ms &c , &c. (see P. 482 of D^Argentrfs '^ork and 
 § SofSfttU), we must come to the eoncUj^on that ^J. 
 Molia &iidJ)'Argentr6^.ve in p( ^ect agreement on this point 
 The error into which some writersliavo thiis tallen, as to 
 the opinion of J)\Argentre, can bo explained on the supposition 
 Xtha'tbV merely read the first sentenc 3 of the passage 
 above quoted, and followed our author no further. 
 
 Sec 215. Benusson, in Lis I'raite du droit de 
 
 opinion ; and, in no. 42, says : , v. . . 
 
 ♦• craie et autres ? /. . 
 
 Tie mves all such mines as are open to the usufructuary, 
 
 Amw »"^ „JS Jver neithe" to the proprietor nor to the 
 f^IIfir^tat asSTold >'»"«=« toWlCing, and silver- 
 ™."'™?S'Baron ifocs tlat opinion ^i Rmmwn look as if 
 hethoushUhat by the Commo^ Law of France, gold and 
 ^v* mWdid not forn part o the dm».n.i.»»D. i 
 
 BOOBJOM 
 
 baaea bis 
 opinion on 
 LouAz 
 
 France^ 
 
 ^f^c 216. BouHJON,in hi8Z>m^ Commw.ide la 
 
 ZMdee ms. part : 3, ch 1, sect : 1, § 51, note, 
 
;ait en 
 indent 
 lonvic- 
 IJevin 
 MoUn 
 
 Now 
 "andon 
 2i<];iiior 
 debtor, 
 
 And 
 li from 
 ' article 
 tlje set- 
 allegat 
 rk end 
 hat Du 
 8 point, 
 n, as to 
 position 
 passage 
 
 iroit de 
 
 jsses the 
 fruitier^ 
 MolirCs 
 
 ) et autres 
 rdoise, de 
 
 uctuary, 
 lotes the 
 oring his 
 sucli ai 
 ion Law, 
 )r to the 
 Qd silver- 
 look as if 
 gold and 
 
 %u'.i de la 
 51, note, 
 
 — 105 — 
 
 (not quoted ly the Hefendants) exprcsacB the opinion t^iat <^'J»nsnip 
 gold-mines belong to the King and silver-mines tc the Baron ; Boogjoit.' 
 ho bases his opinion upon the authority of Lovsel, whoso opinion uu&Fuiv '' 
 wo have already diacnssed and exploded In this Factum. 
 Bourjon's anonymous commentator so far contradicts Bourjon 
 as to assign botii gold and silver-mines to the King, ai; forming 
 part of tiie domain, but assigns no authority for his views. 
 Wo deem it unnecessary to discuss i?:;Mr;W« opinion since 
 we have already shewn the worthlcssness of the source whence 
 he has drawn his inspiration. 
 
 Sec. 217 LAMkYLEXJRY, Zigislatlon minSrale, m^^^^^^^^"^ 
 
 his Preface, P. 5, divides mineral legis'ation into three mining- legis- 
 epochs, which in his summary, he divides thns : '"""" '"*'' 
 
 ining-legi 
 lation iato 
 three epochs, 
 
 " PREMifeRE pfiBiODE (1413— lu48).— Liocftfi absolue 
 " d'exnloiter les mines." 
 
 " DKUXifcME p£kiode (1548—1597).— Concession tera- 
 
 " poraire de toutes les mines k un privi- 
 
 «• 16glee." 
 «« TROisifcME p^BiODE (1597— 1791).— Retours succes- 
 
 " sifs aux systemes des deux premieres 
 
 " periodes." 
 
 That author, a layman {Ingenieur au corps w«P«/';«^ thaV^a 
 des mine,s) hac made most profound researclu. , on the Legisla- rights in 
 
 lion of the Old Monarchy in France, on the subiect ot mines ; mines a mere 
 and, although, as a layman naturally would, he has failed to enseal bur- 
 appreciate the diiTerence between the force, as Law, ot an 
 Ordinance registered in the Parliaments of France, and those 
 private grants we have already refered to, as resisted by the 
 Parliaments and embraced in' the second period referred to 
 by him, his work is, on the whole, a mos^ valuable compila- 
 tion, in fact the most valuable collection extant of mining 
 documents viider the old monarchy of France. At P. 169, 
 note 1, of that work,}he thns defines the old legislation on mines, 
 and effectually disposes of the doctrine that the old legislation 
 of France, snch as it has been transmitted to us in Lower- 
 Canada, had any other than a fiscal object, namely, the 
 collection of the one-tenth royalty. He says : 
 
 " II est 6galement inutile de s'appesantir sur la nature mentiellement 
 ♦' FiscALE du j)ersonnel des inines jusqu'en 1781. H a toujours pour but 
 *' principal, au moins penchant les deux premieres periodes, la perception 
 " du droit rejaiien. " 
 
OWNRBSeiP 
 OP H1MR8. 
 LAH^-f'LBDBT 
 
 The same. 
 
 The ra-ae. 
 
 The same. 
 
 — 196 — 
 
 Again, as if to raise all doubts as to his opinion, he says, 
 at P. 172, note 1 : r j j , 
 
 " On n'a pu, dans la note!!, dela page 169 que donner une idfie confuse 
 " de CG qu'a ete I'administration primitive des mines de 1413 k 1548. " 
 
 " En ce qui concerne la secondo periodo de la legislation des mines, la 
 •' tfi,che est plus facile ; malgr6 le litre de surintendant, donne k Roberval, 
 " St Julien et Vidal, k Lescot, Collonges et de Troyes, il ne s'agit jamais 
 " que d'un concessionnaire general et tetnporaire de toutes lea mines du 
 " royaume, sur les privildges excrbitants duquel les actes de 1648 k 1597 
 •' donnent tons les details desirables. " 
 
 " Enfin, au commenoement de la troisiime periode on voit poindre une 
 *' administration technique des mines, qui ne perd definitivement son carac* 
 •' TEKE FISCAL qu'4 la fin du XVIIBme sidcle. Elle ne se dessine bien 
 «• nettement que dans I'arret de 1781 ;— ce qui justifie la division introduite 
 " dans cet essai sur le personnel des mines. " 
 
 fefiC ^10. According, then, to Lame—Fletiry 
 
 during the first and third periods, the administration of mines 
 had a purely and essentially fiscal character, and the droit 
 regalien must have been of a like purely and essentially ^«cai 
 character, and the royalty^ a mere fiscal hirthen. 
 
 With regard to the second period, knowing, as we do, 
 that the Law of mines had 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 147'' on mining. 
 
 Henry IY. in his Ordmance of 1601 has judged those private 
 grants, we have already shewn, when he declared in the pre- 
 
 Then again how severely 
 
 : : l:i ...t ^.. 
 
 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 nought by 
 the Ordinance of 1601. 
 
 k^(3C, ^ 1 y, — -Lame-Fleuky, p. 74, note 1, gives ns 
 the history of a great struggle between the King, and the 
 Parliatnent of Paris, as to the enregistration of the Edict of 
 1601, a struggle that had no less than 18 phases, though it 
 lasted but two years. That struggle was one {Lame-Flenry 
 tells us, P. 85, note 1) in which " cette Cour ent en definitive 
 
 " R npn -nroa rrain Aa nawan " Tn /I' ^iKorofipnc •finnllir r\rt +}lof 
 
 Ordinance, the Parliament of Paris decided and ordered that 
 
=- i9t — 
 
 the Grand MaUre or bis Lieutenant should not " proccde- aOwEMBip 
 rexccution de leurs jngements centre les proprietaircs sur ?*" '^i'l?'- 
 1 ouverture dea mines et autres en consequence, aw premdice ^^"^'^"'''^^ 
 des Appellations interjettees." Iho King acquiesced in the r, ,,, 
 modification; and the Parliament remained with the power flkobx 
 of preventing any improper spoliation of the proprietor, with Gin. ' 
 the very same power, in facf, that wo ask this Conrt, as theHs^^H^s. 
 Successor and Heir ot the Conseil Souverain, the Parliament 
 
 f . T?"oo^' *^ ^f'''^'^^ Ki^^' ^^«^- I^^t of this more hereafter. 
 At P. 82 note 2, LameJileury tells ns that de Bellegarde was 
 appointed Grand-Master and Superintendant, a fact which, 
 apart from the coincidence of date (June 1601), shews us, that 
 
 S?-^. tfLn?''^'^'^^'T^^" of bv J/^s^mj/ brought about the 
 Edict of 1601 and that the Edict in question governs gold 
 mines, equally with all other mines. Conclusive evidence 
 moreover that the Edict of 1601 applies to gold is to found in 
 the Arret of 14 Ma;^, 1604, in explanation of the Edict, wherein 
 It is expressly prohibited to buy from the workmen, &, etc., 
 any gold or silver ceridrees not previously marked bV the 
 Grand-Master (see P. 87 of LameFleury). ^ 
 
 Sec, 220. 
 
 -Vahhe Fleuei, (not to be mistaken fov UahU 
 
 the modern writer Xam^-ir/gw^2/) was preceptor to the Daa-^'?^"*''* 
 phm, and wrote for his instruction a very valuable little work, Z^^^ 
 intituled : " Droit puUic de la F,ance " ; in that work, t. 2, PlaintifiFa. 
 ^^^v. * I'' ^^' ^^"^0^ of 1769, there is a minute enumeration 
 ot the objects composing the domaine du roi ; and the only 
 reference made to mines is in these words : " droit de dixieme 
 *• sur les mines." That, assuredly, doe? not mean ownership 
 01 the mines. ^ 
 
 NeC. 4il, In like manner, Gin, in his Analyse q^ ^^ q^^ 
 
 du Droit Romain, P. 612, adverts to the Law of France as to 
 ihQ domaine, and declares the domain to be inalienable, ''sauf 
 petita domaines, which he there minutely enumerates ; he 
 makes no mention of Mines. lie, also, must be of the opinion 
 that mines do not belong to the Sovereign. 
 
 hec, J22. Henrys, vol : 2,^Edition of 1772, P-HBHava 
 
 350 et seq : , livre 4. ch : 6, question 45, decides that mines, dJSis 
 without distinction, belong to the owner of the soiL The ^'^o Mobnac. 
 length, to which this Factum has already grown, prevents us 
 
 ■ 
 
— 198 
 
 ()wN«RgHIP 
 OF MlNSd. 
 HiMRYS. 
 
 DbGobhib. 
 
 MOHNAO. 
 VOKT. 
 
 MiNIIB. 
 
 Tboplonq. 
 LooBi. 
 
 FODCABD. 
 
 Voer favors 
 
 Plaintiffs' 
 
 views. 
 
 Plaintiffs 
 have not 
 been able to 
 procure 
 
 MlNIBR, 
 TnOPLONQ, 
 
 Loor£, and 
 FonoABD 
 cit«d by 
 Defendants. 
 
 from giving the very lengthy article of Henrys upon this 
 subject, llennequin, vol : 2, P. 308, states that Decoemis, 
 t. 1., col : 773, and Mobnao, upon 1. 67, de rei vindicatione 
 share the opinion of Henrys. We regret that we are com- 
 pelled from want of time to leave those two writers unappre- 
 ciated. 
 
 J^CC. ^4)0» YoET, in his Commentaieres on the 
 
 Roman Law, with a statement of the Law of his day, says, 
 at P. 169 of the^iZa^Me Edition of 1707, vol : 1, book 7, title 1, 
 No. 24, de usufructu, that the owners of the soil have 
 the right to work all mines on their lands. It is of that work 
 that Camus^ vol : 2, No. 395, says : " II y a peu de livres de 
 " droit qui joui-sent d'une estime plus gonerale." 
 
 There are other writers on this subject, whose works we 
 have not been able to procure ; some of them, such as Minieb, 
 Troplong, LocEfe ^& FoucAED, 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 Proudhon^ Lefebvre de la 
 Blanche, Bosquet^ Hallos, Choppin, LeBret and Henneqain, 
 how much danger there is of that trust being abused : w hv 
 the Defendants cite LeMaistre is quite a mystery to us. With 
 reference to G'lenois, cited by the Defendants, he bases hia 
 opinion upon the de St. Julien-grajit ; we have already most 
 satisfactorily disposed of that grant, and shewn that it utterly 
 fai's to support the views advanced by the Defendants. 
 
 Ignorance of g^^^ 224. A most striking illustration of the 
 
 Jurists of contents of the the prevailing i^jnorance of the contents of 
 o?cVnteS;7of *^^^ Ordinances of the French Kings is to be found in an 
 Ordinances, opinion 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 Hegistre 
 Frangaisy letter G. P. 260. We have already, at P. 90 and 
 91 of thi:4 Factum, alluded to that opinion ; we do so again, 
 as it reaches other points in the case. Tlie names of those 
 three Counsel are J^lie de Beaumont, Target and Houchet. 
 The opinion is founds at P. 256 of the Return to an Address 
 of the Legislative Assembly of the late Province of Canada 
 of the 29 August, 1851, and printed in three volumes, by E. R. 
 Frechette, by order of the Legislature. Yoiume 1, printed in 
 
— 199 — 
 
 1852, contains a transcript of the original grants of most of Ownebship 
 the Seigniories of Lower-Canada, and is referred to by Ch • J ^^ ^'nbs. 
 Lafontaine,in his Seigniorial Judgment, as Titrea des Seiqneu- f!!!f "''^' " 
 Ties ;- volume 2, also printed in 1852, contains E icts, Ordinan- dk SrMor 
 ces, Declarations of the King^ and Judgments of the French ^abobt. 
 Courts, of Canada, on Seigniorial matters, and are cited by the ^*^^^het. 
 eame learned and lamented Judge, as Documents Seigneuriaux 
 vjol : 2 ;— volume 3, published m 1853, We find cit^d no where. 
 We shall cite it as volume 3, Documents Seigneuriaux, 
 followmg the Chief Justice. That opinion touches the question 
 at issue between the Defendants and ourselves in three impor- 
 t^t particulars ; we quote from the authorized translation 
 {Doc : Seign : vol : 2, P. 256 ; it states at the outset : 
 
 u IX. *.* ^® undersigned counsel, who have seen the memorial submitted for 
 their opmwn touching the Ugality of various clamea contained in the 
 patents or granU of laniin Canada, emanating from His Majesty, and 
 now subjected to the dominion of His Britannic Majesty, are of opinion 
 that the^ are called upon to consider, in the first place, what effect the 
 Patents in question would have had under the dominion of His Majesty 
 the irmi7 of i^V'anc^; in the next place, to examine whether the tram- 
 
 ' mmwnoiihQ Sovereign power to other hands has changed the principUi 
 upon which such decision must be based." 
 
 In reviewing that opinhn, we shall shew its application 
 to the present case, while we incidentally point out how the 
 gentlemen who delivered it have erred in their statement of 
 the contents of the ordinance of 1413. 
 
 ^eC. A4tO» ^The opinion adverts to the fact that The 
 
 tlie reservations as to timber are variously worded in the 
 diflferent patents, and concludes from thence that the intention 
 of His Majesty must have varied in each case ; that such 
 reservations do not make the King proprietor of the timber. 
 The opinion then states the following conclusive argument j 
 that btara powerfully on some points of the present ease : 
 
 " The King treats with his subjects in this respect only aa an 
 
 ' ENFEOFFING Seignior, t-'i not aa a Sovereign. They must loth be judged 
 
 by the laws regulating contracts, laws which bind the monarch as well as 
 
 '• his suljeeta /—but i/" there could beany douU as to the meaning of the 
 
 *' clause, the fundamental principle in this matter is, that the decision must 
 
 ' be m favor of the grantee, because it is he who is bound, and all Ioam 
 
 •' require that we should invariably favor the party bound by such 
 
 *' obligations." 
 
 On three important jjoints, that opinion bears upon this 
 case. 1 ® It shews that in the matter of miies, the Kino-'a 
 rights were a feudal burthen, since the "King treated with Sis 
 
 same. 
 
— 200 
 
 )» 
 
 Tabskt 
 
 R0DCH«T. 
 
 The same. 
 
 Ownership « subjects as an enfeoffing seignior^ not as a sovereign , 
 OP MiNBs. ^^^ ^Q^^ consequently the abolition of the feudal tenure here 
 sSu"" has swept those mining rights away. 2 ® It establishes that 
 BiAux. in such matters the Sovereign is equally with his subjects, 
 
 DB Beaumont. ]3QUQ(j to the observance of the Laws of the Kealra. Hence 
 we infer that, in respect of the monopolies granted by Henri 
 11 and his successors, adverted to at P. H2 and aeq^ : of thia 
 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 theKmg, and in favor 
 of the party Imind to sive notice ; and consequently since the 
 King did not, in so many words, reserve the ownership of the 
 mines, then have the mines not been reserved by the King. 
 
 Sec. 226, The 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 Blachstone, 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 
 
 tliis Factum requiring notice of all discoveries of mines to be 
 
 given to the King. The opinion states : 
 
 "The patents of concession contain also the following clause: "On 
 «' " condition of giving notice to His Majesty of mines and minM-als, if 
 «« " any should be found in the said concession. " " 
 
 In the case submitted it is " ashed whether this clause in to be understood 
 " as constituting the king y'mi proprietor of the mines and minerals which 
 " may be found upon the property granted, or merely as shewing a desire, 
 " on the part of His Majesty, to be informed of their existence, in order to 
 «' have it in his power to provide for the security of these treasures, and to 
 " protect them from conquest, for the hen^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 the profits of the 
 •« mines ; or whether the proprietor of the land is not, in virtue of his title 
 '• to it, proprietor of the mines also, and whether companies could be formed, 
 " with privilege or otherwise, who could dispute his right. " 
 
 The question could not have been more fairly or squarely 
 put. Let us see the answer : 
 
 ♦♦ The counsol answer liiat this questioa aisd ought to be decidec, by 
 
 -^-— ^ 
 
— 201 — 
 
 '' Or^^:l!^S.:Z'^:^^^,^^ ^' ^'^ ^ow by the Ow..nsH,P 
 " most ancient law we have concernin; f j.jo ^^.°^ ¥% ,^*^3' ^^ich is the of Mink?. 
 " " Alng and to h m Smi n.T? ^ this matter, " <jold mines lelong to the db Beaumont. 
 
 " thinff but onir tn nvZSli ' " thout being bound to pay any- Rodchet. 
 " private paS4"'„.a.'„°f r'sS/lL ^^S^ of^t^„*„t-.™' '^''^ """''"■ 
 After calliuling to the Edicts of the 9« mnv i -xaq i i? 
 
 states tlie answer tliiis : ♦^'^"uaij, 1744), the opinion 
 
 '' th;:si^:/s::/^^;--^^i:- ,f ^^ -^h is 
 
 "minerals, NOT that the A7«amavttnnp!fw ^^'s Majesty of mines and 
 " that he r^ay exercise ovt tLm LlrSL T*"- ^\ ''''''H'' ""^^^'"^^ ^^'^ 
 ' <^ingfrom the lam of life Kingdom." ° '^ ^^''' "^*"''' *^^' ^^^'*^* «^»"- 
 
 ^(3C. /^^7, That opinion, tlien, distiiiotlv =!fnfna 
 
 turn t^n?;''";;^^^ ""' 'f'' ^^'^-^^ ^-^^ p 88 o t^is f^! oTnir 
 
 turn, contains tliese words : " gold 7nines lelong to the Kin7^ bears out 
 Now GOLD IS I.OT ONCE mentioned in the Ordinance ! Dkm^Li ^■'''''^'' 
 (vho mznes),^vho appears to have had some idea of fhe con. 
 f ?iMk^' n^r^^"^'^'''. ^'^^^ "^--^^ ^^^^ have already seen 
 that the Ordinance of 1413 does not alhide to gold ininesTt 
 being unadvisable to do so, since thej belong fo the iS '" 
 but the best evidence of this inaccuracy in the'' opinion is Kir 
 nishcd by a perusal of the Ordinance itself. Kefther does S; 
 opinion make any mention of the Ordinance of 1471 -such 
 Ignorance of the nature of the French Edicts on mining is per 
 ^ctly excusable, sinc^ we know, as we have already ^slewn 
 
 vohitbn "^"'''' """^ ^'''''" P'^"^^^ "^^^^ after the Re- 
 
 .1 . ^' . , ^' ^^^* inaccuracy of the opijion as to The same 
 
 he nature of the Edict of 1413, does not lessen the value of 
 he opmion on other matters, founded as it is upon reasonim' 
 
 the King had intended to reserve the mines, he should lave 
 
 dicsit Ihe clause mr.st be interpreted favorably for the 
 party bound o give notice, and therefore against t^. Kin- • 
 :t must be held that the clause is a mere ofiigation to give 
 notice, and nothing more, and, consequently, not a r^s^V-a- 
 tion oi the mines. The opinion also shews that the roVal 
 
— 202 — 
 
 OWKIBSHIP 
 
 or MiMBS. 
 Loom XIV. 
 
 riglits in mines consist of the oue-tcntli royalty and nothing 
 more. 
 
 Loois XIV, 
 
 by instrac- 
 tions to 
 Governor 
 atid Inten- 
 dant, and by 
 several 
 Arrets sbewa 
 his intention 
 to have been 
 that ctnsitai- 
 ret should 
 have all the 
 domaim utile. 
 
 Sec, 229. It is, however, fortunate, that we are 
 
 not left to mere cDnjcctnre for the discovtry of the King's 
 meanino-, when he stipulated that notice of all nnnet. should 
 thus be given to him. Louis XIV, by instructions under his 
 sipn-manual, countersigned by Colbert, on the 20 May 1674, 
 and registered in the Archives of the Superior Council, at 
 Quebec, Eeg : A, folio 64 (see Dog : Seign : vol : 2, P. 29), 
 eojoined on Messieurs fZe Fronten-c and i>«<c/<<?.weaM to 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 ISiovember, 1707, Intendant Rmdot 
 wrote from Quebec to Chancellor de Pontchartrain, deploring 
 the evils arising from the unusual reservations which the 
 Seigniors had been introducing into the concessions made by 
 them (see Dog : Seign : vol : 3, P. 7), and advising that the 
 King should issue a declaration securing to the tenants " the 
 " ownership of the lands, with all their appurtenances ". The 
 Chanceller promised to attend to the matter ; but it was not 
 until 1711 (see Edits et Ordunnances, vol : 1, P. 323 et seg ;), 
 that the King fulfilled 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 rbtxire, and that Captain Moreau 
 might have a small grant en rbture. Although that, 
 like many other royal purposes, was not adhered to, as 
 regards lands in the present limits of Lower Canada, yet 
 Bteps were taken towards establishing the ibtuvetQuwcQ. 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, Dog : 
 Sdgn :, and at P. 325 and 241 of vol : 1 Bog • Seign :, wefind 
 several grants en roture^ one to Ohauvin, another to Bonhom- 
 
 it 
 
— 203 — 
 
 me VAid again to others whose 
 to CAauvm is dcatcl the IG J 
 
 tt',!^Vav'Tltat'shIvn;,"i;;-^'^ """^ ** "f'^fs Fac -"■'-' 
 
 m«: 'z°fr:'S.:: "i r% ^^'^^'^^^^^^.-^^^> 
 
 ffmdiere and reZcwt? p' ^l,^""*™'^ ""<• * '« ffo;-: ''«7«- 
 ^ . -».T ^^piouncea at 1 . 243 i??^ .'iro • nf xt^I . i ^^ n graata near 
 
 Seim : Now, while, iu tlie tlireo srnlX' lit " •■ ^'"' • ^•"'oi', «a 
 ■^»f/, the Kill" (hv /?,.,! grants last mentioned engpanu elie. 
 
 requie notice ot-'almi,^?^''''"' "'"' '^''n"'"''') merely 5«" ■" 
 thoCTaiSan?! ffl? "^'"'"' 6'^™ '0 »'i'5 king, yet, in ''■»•«*«• 
 
 «r :rr d^ /fc?ra-,;^^ f?* t "'"'^^^^"'^ 
 
 " the Kine's name «**»» «=' ■^'^"'''^ reserving in 
 " and niinor\r?f ,„v 1, 7 ''," "TP^hip of the mines, ores 
 
 S^r^it^r irr/l^'l - tholf ?niie^?743: X':? 
 those threr^ranrst. T^-??^ fl''^ «?"•'' ''«''»'•<' »'^<1 af^r 
 
 mfJlTu ff ^f """-e'y require a notice to be given of the 
 ui. iinnes, in the tiiree grants m JH/f, wliy did ho not sav sn? 
 
 gra?r;?^7^^^^^^^^ 
 
 anoid conclnsive evidence thot tl-io nlo,-..^ • • ^. -"Thesaaie. 
 
 apnlies to aj. mines, wItZu tuSot to 'gSTSfih^rS 
 
 rre pec iVe of'th^'''-^ ' ""^ ™f " '^ admitted, on all ands 
 urespecTive ot the evidence wr hnvn n/Mu-'ed f]i«^ H^- i ^-i 
 
 melis passed to the owner of the soiF, so h-nJe* .te n^^int'of 
 
OWNHRSHIP 
 
 oiT Minks. 
 
 Jntendant, 
 HOCQUAKT. 
 
 — 204 — 
 
 goH and silver That the lands owned by the riaintiffs, and 
 which the Defendants seek to affect by their " de Lery- 
 J atent had been conceded and lield en cenHve, and that, 
 conseqnently, all mines, even of gold and silver had past.d 
 from the Crown, thron-h the hands of the Sei-nior, into t le 
 hands ot the I laintiffs auieurs, as censitaires, loni? before the 
 issue of that Patent, is a matter of express and siiecial allega- 
 tion m the Plaintifts' Declaration in this case. However the 
 decision of the Seigniorial Court, and of Commissioner 
 inrcotte have, once and for ever, settled that (inestion ; but of 
 this more iiereattcr. 
 
 Jndgmpnt of 
 Jntendant 
 HocQCART, as 
 to alate-quar- 
 ry, in entire 
 aj^reement 
 with Plain- 
 tiffi' views. 
 
 I 
 
 ^eC. ^#J1, The interpretation placed upon that 
 
 obligation to give notice of tho mines is still further exempli- 
 fled by a Judgment of the Infendant BocquaH, (avIio signed 
 the three grants en i^iV/' above-mentioned) ; the judgment was 
 rendered on tli9 14 (October, 1729, and is reported at P. 143 of 
 vol : 2 of Dog : Sdgn : The 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 
 tnventeur, as Delebecquf, Vol : 1, P. 257, calls him. ' 
 
 It is true that the decision of the Jntendant was in refe- 
 rcpce to a slate-quarry ; but the first law-book that odo opens 
 will convince him that slate and other quariies are included iii 
 ihe v,^0Y^]& mines et mituerefi, m\c]er t]\G old I.aw of France- 
 see, on this head article 2 of the Ordinance of IGOl, P. 104 of 
 this Factum, by which the King exempted 7mties cVardoiae 
 from the payment of the royalty. The principle, tlien, being 
 the same, let us see what Jntendant Ilocquart decided. A 
 slate-quarry had been discovered, on unconceded lands, in the 
 Seigniory of I'Anse a I'etang, owned by one Sarrazin. We 
 say unconceded lands, because the judgment of the intendant 
 forbade all persons from settling on "the lands, until Sarrazin 
 and his associates should have taken the extent of o-round 
 they required, for mining purposes ; and Sarrazin and his 
 associates do not appear to have made the discovery, since w^e 
 find Sarrazin, in his Petition to the Jntendant, expressin«i- the 
 fear that some persons might go there, under pretence of beino- 
 \\\Q first discoverers, and disturb Sarrazin and his associates iu 
 the working of the quarry, j^ow what was the judgment of 
 the Jntendant ? " We forbid ", states the Intendant's decree, 
 
 4^ 
 
 I' 
 
— 205 — 
 
 operations, or to settle in the place, until they eliall have 
 taken the extent of ground they luav want, or farther to 
 disturb them and interfere in the Avorking of the quarry 
 of slate belonging to thesa'd Sienr Sarrazin, on pain against 
 the eontravening parties of a line of fifty livre?, and of a 
 " greater penalty if thought fit." 
 
 There being no ccnsituire upon the land, to whom, under ^lie same. 
 the mining Ordinances, were the cemitaire unable or uiiwil. 
 l:ng, the Seignior might have been subrogated, for the 
 working of the quarry, it is plain that the Seignior was 
 entitled to the grant, and therefore properlv preferred by the 
 Intendant to the first discoverer. " 
 
 Moreover, the inte-pretation which Intendant, Begon. 
 pnt upon the clause obliging the Seignior, Sarrazin, to give 
 notice of the Mines, is conclusive in the Plaintiffs' favor, and 
 confirms the view taken of that clause by the Legal Opinion 
 referred to in § 22-1 & seq : of this Factum. Begon, upon being 
 notified of the existence of that slate-quariy {Mine d' Ardoise\ 
 does not treat it as a part of the Crown domain {proprieU 
 royale et domaniale), and concede it to Sarmsi^. as such ; no- 
 tJlnng of the sort ! The intend:;nt treats it as the property of 
 i>arrasin ; Begon's words are : '' the quarry of slate Jc/o^j^/m^ 
 to the eaid Sieur SarrapAny 
 
 cha.i>tii:r IV. 
 
 NO CHANGE EFFf CTED IN LAV/ OF MINING DY ORDINANCES 
 
 ENREGI8TERED IIEKE SINCE THE CREATION OF THE 
 
 SUPERIOR COUNCIL. 
 
 feeC, M^. Having already shevrn, that, by the^avy not 
 
 La\vs_ of France prevailing up to, and at, the time of the ch^ged from 
 Creation of the Superior Council here, the owner of tlie soil was *'™® ^^ ^^^a- 
 held lobe the owner of all mines imbedded in his land, let^;!'^,?'''* °^ 
 us now examine whether any of the Laws promulgated hy Council. 
 the King in Canada, since that time, hn/e aficcted a change 
 III this matter. 
 
 I 
 
— 206 — 
 
 OWMBBBHIP 
 OF UlMI3. 
 
 Irom tlie instant tJiat Jacques Carticr planted the iteur 
 ae Lys on Canadian soil, this Country became a portion of 
 
 -.. „„.t'ie Crown Domain of Franco, subject to every Law, save 
 
 D0NNANc«3 ./one, pfovornmg the Domaine ; that one exception consisted, 
 Canada. from the very nature of things, in the exclusion of the rule 
 as to the inalienability of this new Domaine : then a wilder- 
 
 Edits bt Oh- 
 
 The saino. 
 
 the 
 
 mines 
 
 I Canada, tlic « Vompagnie dea Indca Ocddentales and 
 Cmnpagme d Occident ou des Indes^' treated the mh..o 
 
 ot Canada as his property, since the Country was a mere 
 
 wilderness, and had then no cenaitaires. 
 
 And yet the Defendan's seem to think that, because, in 
 
 the several .iLdicts creating those Companies (see. art. 4 of the 
 ^i^'^c^f -'^.^P"^ 1627, M ; et Ord! vol : 1, P. 1, see also 
 
 art : 20 and 24 of the Edict of May, 1664, Ed. et Ord. Vol : 
 
 i r< ' ^\ ^^^ ''^^^^ ^^'^ '• "^ "-'^ 8 Edict of August, 1717, M. 
 et^ Ora: Vol : 1, P. 377.) the King granted to those Compa- 
 nies all mines in the wilderness of Canada, it necessarily fol- 
 lows that the Kin^ must be the owner of mines on private 
 lands ! Discussion is impossible with men, whose minds lead 
 them to such conclusions ; and vet one must endeavor to lead 
 them to the light. The grant to the " Compagnie dea Cent 
 f-ssociea ou de la Nouvelle France, " terminated in February 
 lb03, by an abandonment of the Company's rights to the 
 King (see Ad: et Ord: vol: 1, P. 33). It is, therefore, 
 hardly necessary to .efer to it; nevertheless, on examining 
 tlie text ot the Edict creating that Company, it appears that 
 the King gave Canada to the Company en juatice et Seigiieurie 
 with the MINES, '' pour jouir toutefois dea 'ditca minea confor- 
 ' mementa VOrdonnance:' There is surely no innovation 
 there upon the Common Law of France ! ! The Company 
 was merely placed on the eame footing v;ith regard to mines, 
 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 cenaiiaire to work it. In 
 April following (1663), the King, by Edict, created the 
 tonaeU ^upeneur, with power " de connaitre de toutes causes 
 civiles et criminelles, pour Juger souverainement et en 
 dernier ressort selon tea loix et Ordonnancea de notre 
 Ixoyaume, et y proccder autant qu'il se pourra en la forme 
 et maniere qni se pratique et se garde dans le ressort de 
 
 " notro ( 
 P. 37.) 
 
 ItSi 
 
 expresse 
 in Cana 
 " royaui 
 1601 tha 
 doubts, ( 
 torn of r 
 tion to 1 
 shewn, g 
 surface. 
 
 Sec 
 
 the " C(. 
 20 of the 
 words ar 
 " aeignei 
 " eeule f( 
 confirm 
 Seigniori 
 Company 
 " et droil 
 by art : 
 " minieri 
 " islots ", 
 interfere 
 ceded, ov 
 pany's ri 
 already < 
 only have 
 King clo£ 
 " en autr 
 P. 54 oft 
 not owne: 
 not grant 
 what we 
 under the 
 
 Sec 
 
 to the Kii 
 to Art : 3 
 
tho Jteiir 
 lortion of 
 aw, save 
 consisted, 
 the rule 
 a wildcr- 
 esourcci. 
 whatever 
 
 having, 
 <iocUs ou 
 3 and the 
 le mines 
 
 a mere 
 
 (cause, in 
 . 4 of the 
 see also 
 ^d. Vol : 
 717, m. 
 
 Compa- 
 arily tbl- 
 
 private 
 nds lead 
 >r to lead 
 des Cent 
 February 
 3 to the 
 herefore, 
 camining 
 jars that 
 eigneurie 
 t confor- 
 novation 
 !yompany 
 ;o mines, 
 Y shewn 
 le mine, 
 : it. In 
 ated tlie 
 es causes 
 it et en 
 de notre 
 la forme 
 !BSort de 
 
 — 207 — 
 
 " notro cour do parlement do Paris " (see Ed : ci Ord : vol : 1, Owkwship 
 ^ • o7.) OF MitJM. 
 
 Edits et Oa- 
 
 DONNANOM of 
 
 expressed -•-'""''"" --, vr — —6 -""'^ uoi have(7ar,arfa. 
 
 in Can 
 
 " royaume " 
 
 force 
 . - ' — — v..^>,.w»u,#ny,^o de soti 
 
 -.CA1-.U . ■ V^oso throe great Ordinances of 1413, 1471 and 
 1601 that we have already reproluced and discussed ; no one ti., «.„,. 
 doubts, either that he then introduced into Canada the Cus- "'' 
 
 torn of i aris, for he repeatedly afterwards declared his inten- 
 tion to that effect ; and that Custom, as we have already 
 shewn, gives, to the owner of the soil, all above and below the 
 suriace. 
 
 1 
 
 Sec. 233. When, in May, 1664, the Kin^ chartered 
 
 ^}]^ '' Oompagnie des Indea Oocideyitales;' He,' by Art : '^^' '*"•* 
 . 20 of the Edict, merely erected Canada into a Seigniorv ; His 
 words are : pour en jouir ^ perpetuito en toute proprioto, 
 
 seigneurieet justice, i\Q nous rcservant autre droit que la 
 
 eeule foi et hommagc-lige ; " Art : 22 and 23 still further 
 contirm this view, as the King gives to the Company the 
 beigniorial dues then levied on ti e inhabitants, and allows tho 
 Company to concede the ungrant d lands ' a tels cens, nntes 
 
 et droits seigneuriaux qu'elle jugera bon ; " and, although, 
 by art: 24, the Company " jouira de toutes les mines et 
 u ?^/^^^,f *' caps, golfes, Dorts, havres, flenves, rivieres, isles et 
 _ islots , the grant, in this respect, must be understood not to 
 interfere with private rights or with those lands already eon- 
 ceded, over which the King, in Art : 22, declared tho Com- 
 pany s rights consisted merely of the Seigniorial rights 
 already established ; the grant, uncontained in Art : 24, can 
 only have reference to mines on the unconceded lands, since the 
 Jiing closes the Ecict with thes3 remarkable words: '' Sauf 
 
 en autre choses notre droit, et l'autrui en toutes " (see § 72 
 ±-.54 ot Ihis Factum). We never pretended that the King was 
 not owner of the mines on his own Domain, or that he might 
 not grant to the Seignior the mines on the unconceded lands ; 
 
 iTnrwTf ''y^'^il '' ^t ^^^^°^ ^^^ "P ^y t^^« Defendants 
 under the " de l.tRY- Patent;' to the mines on our lands. 
 
 ^eC, ^o4. If any doubt could possibly remain as The same. 
 
 to the King's intention in this respect, we have onlv to i-ofor 
 . to Art : 33 ot that Edict, for the following expressive "language 
 
208 — 
 
 0wsB3Bnir 
 or Mines. 
 ScptaiOR 
 Council of 
 Canada, 
 
 Tbo same. 
 
 of tlio K iiifij : " Scront Ics Jiigos ctablis en tons los dits lienx, 
 " tcnus do jn<^cr suivaiitlos luix ct Ordoimaiuos du royanrno, 
 " et lc3 Orficicrs do suivro ot so conformer u la Coutiniio do la 
 " Provoto ct V'comto do Paris." Hero thou is ft do.daratioii 
 incoinpatiblo with the sui>position that tho Company should 
 liavo any fj^rcater rii^hts iu mines on private lands than tho 
 royalty of onctonth eonteniplatod by tho Ordinances of 14:13, 
 1471 and IGOl, which tlicCuurtsof tho Company were ordered 
 to ohscrvo. Moreover, we have only to glance at the 61 grants 
 made by tho Intcndant during the Company's rule in Canada 
 (sec Doc : Seign :, vol : 1, P. 1 to 79), in ordoi to become 
 convinced that the mines wove not reserved ; the only clause, 
 in respect of mines, to be found in the grants, is the usual obli- 
 gation to give notice. 
 
 ^OC. /ZoO% The last lingering doubt, if any exist, 
 
 as to the Company's rights on private lands, disappears on 
 
 1665, enumerating, in 31 Articles, the Comj^any's rights, and 
 praying fur a recognition of them by the Superior Council. 
 (See Kl : et Ord :, vol : 1, P. 51). Art. 16 of that Memoir 
 reads thus : 
 
 *' Que Ics concessions qui se font k "ivenir seront donnces par mon dit 
 " Sieur I'lntendant, d tels cens et rentes qu'il sera par lui juge k pro- 
 " pos en presence du dit agent ou comtris g<^n6ral de la dite Compagnie, au 
 " nom de laquellc tous Ics litres do concessions seront passes." 
 
 To that article the Superior Council answered : 
 
 *' Rien ne parait plus conforme aux intentions de Sa Majeste ; ainsi il 
 semble trds-juste d'accorder ce qui est demande par cet article." 
 
 It thus appears that, even fa* lands to be thereafter con- 
 ceded, tho only conditir,; •''■i'.l the Companj'' had power to 
 annex to the grant was tne payment of such cens et re7ites., or 
 annual dues, as the Intendant should fix ; and lest any other 
 burthen should be entailed upon the grant, the Intends'Tst 
 alone should be authorized to make the grant ; and the Suj - 
 rior Council declares that nothing can Idg more conformable 
 with the intentions of His Majesty. There is little room for 
 supposing that such grants by the Intendant would not have 
 transmitted the mines to the ccnsitaires, subject to tho one- 
 tenth royalty. 
 
— 209 — 
 
 latcver, may bo thought of tAO^rS' 
 
 Sec. 236. — wha ^ ^ 
 
 effect of tho Edict creating tlio " Coinpagnio dcs Icndes Occi-BDiJyVT'oa- 
 " dentaios , that other Edict of the King, in December J 674 "'"'n*''^*' <>/ 
 extinguishing the Company, and reuniting all their possessions^"'""''' 
 to the Crown Domain {td: et Ord: , vol: 1, P. 74) and the 
 Declaration of June 1G75, confirming and ro<nilatin.i" tho 
 establishment of the Superior Council (see Ed : ct Ord •'' vol • 
 1, P. 83), completely dispel all doubts upon tho point.'' The 
 King orders that his Edict of 1G63, creating the Superior 
 Council, bo punctually executed; needless to remind one 
 that the Edict of 1GG3 ordered tho observance of all tho Urdi- 
 nances of the Kingdom, and of course, amoni? tho re^t tho 
 Ordinances of 1413, 1471 and 1601. " ' ^ . 
 
 ^PC. dpjl, Again, upon the very day, upon which '^•'® ^*™®- 
 
 the King issued the two celebrated Arrets de Ma. it/ (see Ed : 
 et Ord: , vol: 1, P. 324 and seq :), which prohibited the Sei- 
 gniors of Canada from conceding lands, on any other condi- 
 tion, than d iUre de redevance,—on the 6 July 1711 
 
 the King ratified quite a number of grants of Seigniories made 
 by the Governor and Intendant, with no other°condition, as 
 to mines, than the usual obligaticn of giving notice ; and the 
 King expressly mentions and confirms that obligation to give 
 notice, as one of the conditions of the grants (oee Ed : et Ord\^ 
 vol: 1, P. 323). Assuredly, when the attention oftheKint^ 
 had been so pointedly drawn to the matter, one must infer 
 that he did not consider that clause as equivalent to a reserva- 
 tion of the Mines. An J.rre^ of the King in Council of the 
 15 March, 1732, (bee Ed : et Ord : , vol : 1, P. 531) clea-ly 
 marks the King's intention that the Seignior should be a mere 
 trustee for settlement-purposes, and should have no part of 
 the domaine utile, the who'e of such domaine utile being 
 transmitted to the censitaire. 
 
 feeC, /ioo, We have shewn, thaf , as the country The 
 
 became peopled, the language of the Sovereign became more 
 guarded, when He undertook to charter Companies ; as the 
 charter of the '* Compagnie des Indea Occidentalea " 
 had been more cautiously drawn than that of the 
 " Cent Associes," in like manner we find the Sovereign, 
 when He charters the " Compagnie d' Occident,'^ in August', 
 1717, merely giving to that Company such mines as they, 
 themtclves, shouia open up during the period of their 
 27 
 
 same. 
 
 I 
 
— 210 — 
 
 The same. 
 
 I 
 
 Commissions art : 7 cand 15, M I ct Oxl : vol : 1, p. 3(7). xhc existence 
 of Governors ^^f jj^f^t Company is recognized by an Ordinance of the In ten- 
 ants'"'"" flant, Tlocquart, in April, 173S (.ee El : et Ord : , vol • 2 P. 
 374) and tlie Company soems to have been a mere trading 
 corporation, and to have snbsisted nntil the conquest of Ihc 
 Country, for we lind enregistered here no Edict tor their sup- 
 pression ; but their liold upcn the so 1, or npon anything else 
 than the comm.erce de castors seems to liave been niore imagi- 
 nary than real, for we constantly find justice administered in 
 the King's own name ])y Olhccrs ' f his own a;, pojntment, and 
 all the grants are made by the Inter' daut in the King's nanie, 
 with stipulations in tlie King s favor, and requiring to be con- 
 firmed by the King himself, as was the case with the veiy 
 seif^iiiorv now called Kigaud-Vaudreuil ; and the Intendant 
 continues, as before, to require a mere notice to be given, not 
 to the Company, but to the King, of all mines found withm 
 the extent ot the grant. Assuredly there is "othmg in the 
 charter of that Company to justify the be'ief, whuhthe Uelen- 
 dants affect to hold that the Company's charter made any 
 alteratioa in :he Laws of the Kingdom, in respect of mines. 
 
 Sec. 239. Some further light is thrown upon this 
 
 subiect by an inspection of the several Comm-ssions held by 
 
 Commission the Governors and Intendants of Canada. The only mstru- 
 
 of Governors , • ^| nature of such Commissions, reterrmg directly or 
 
 Sa.-"'"- S cti; to mines, and to l,o found in tl>e £Wferf Or^n,,c^ 
 
 CCS ave t!io two Oommissions of ,k Vhamplam of ll.o lo Octo- 
 
 , . 1 -ir^io ^cr.n A-nl • '-i 7^ 11^ i.nd of the lo February, 1(>2.> 
 (fe C/jawii^Zam, ber, 1612 (see \0l . rf, l.li^.'nu \.\. ..r t.,„„^,:J lara 
 
 («ec vol • 3, P. 13), of JVwnlas Denys ot the 3( J anuai> , Ib^i 
 (see vol " 3 P. 17), cf Beauharnois, as Intendant, ot the 1 
 April, 1702 (see vol : 3, P. 5G), of Eauaot, .^the Elder, as In- 
 tendant, of the iJamiary, 1*^5' ^^^^^Iv,;^^'/- ^^)\ ^i;^v^ 
 
 i?.y.n, as Intendant, of the 31 March, 1710 (see vol: 3 P. 
 03^ The two Commissions of de Champlaiti (the Country 
 beiDg then a wildc ness) contain the following injunction : 
 
 " Et fairc, en la ditc tcrrc fermc, soigneuscmont rechercher ct reconnai- 
 -tre toutes sortes de mines d'or, d'argcnt, ciuyre et autres metaux et 
 "mineraux; les faire fouiUcr, tirer, purgcr et aflfiner, pour etro convertis, 
 '^ S eHippJ^sr sdon etainsi qu'il nst present par Ics Edits et Reglements 
 " dc sa dite Majesto, et ainsi que par nous sera ordonne. 
 
 The same. 
 
— 211 — 
 
 Sncli an injunction lias notliing in it of a nature to assert a^^Jj"*'"^'' 
 riglit to tlie owne pln'p of mines on private lands, bad tlic EDnrET* Oa- 
 Conntry tlioii been settled, instead of being a waste and part donninces 0/ 
 oftlie Crown domain ; tbe King merely asserts a right of ^«««<^''- 
 Police over the mines, and ordei's liis viceroy to see that tliose ^P^JJf""^^'^ 
 treasures should not lie profitless in the bowels of the earth ; it an/ irUeT- 
 as crts a right that we never denied to the Sovereign. dants. 
 
 The Commission v^ Deni/s varies remarkably in its terms, 
 on this point, from those of de Champlain ; to Denys the Denys. 
 King's commands are : 
 
 " Faire soigneusetnent chorcher les mines d'or, iVargent, cuivre et 
 " autres metaux et mineraux, et les faire mettre ct convertir en tisagc, 
 "■ comme II eU prcscrit jiar iios Oudoxnaxcks : nous riaenant du profit qui 
 " ei. vieiKlra de oellcs iVor ct (Tarcjent, seuloment le dixieme denier, et lui 
 *' delaissons et atroctons ce qui pourroit notis en apjiartenir aiix autres 
 *' metaux ct mineraux, pour lui aider a supporter les autres depenses que 
 " sa charge lui apporte." 
 
 The King, it is plain, views mining matters as being Kaudot ' 
 subject to the operation of the Ordinances of the Kingdom, JSfi7o?i. ' 
 that we have already reproduced ; he exercises his undoubted 
 right of police and supervision in I'cquiring Denys to see that 
 the mines (of all sorts) be " mis et convertis en usage £elon 
 '• nos Ordonnances." But it is impossible, almost, to state in 
 clearer terms than tlic King lias done that His lucrative 
 rights in mines consist of the one-tenth royalty only. 
 
 That view of the case is strenghthcncd by a reference to 
 the injunffion from time to time laid by the lung on the three 
 Intcndants just named, touching : " la levee ct j^^'i'Gcption 
 " de nos droits dans Tetendue du.dit pays, savoir : des droits 
 " appeles, dix pour cent, quart des castors &c, &c, &c. " ; the 
 droits de dix pour Gc7it evidently include the one-tenth royalty 
 on mines ; it is among the dro-ts de din- pour cent that Gin 
 and ZV/We Fleukt, cited in g 230 and 221 of this Factum, 
 Iiavc chisf^ed the King's roj-alty of one-tenth. 
 
 Tlie above considerations, taken in connection with what 
 we have already stated as to the difieronce between the grants 
 near Detroit, and the grants; in the present limits of Lower 
 Canada (see § 229 of this Factum), and coupled with the 
 judgment of Jntendant, Ilocquar', (sec § 231 of this Factum), 
 make it p'ain to our mind that the Law of Mining in Lower 
 Canada, remains the same as it was in Old France, in IGCr 
 date of the creation of the Superior Council, and that, in thib 
 Country, mines of all sorts belong, by French Law, to the 
 owner of the soil, subject to the royalty of one-tenth on certain 
 
— 212 — 
 
 'OWNBJISHIP 
 
 or Minks. 
 What Law, 
 governs ease, 
 French or 
 English ? 
 
 metals, and to the right inherent in the Head of every State 
 to compel the working of the mine for His own and the public 
 benefit. 
 
 FKENCH LAW G0VKRN8 THIS CASK. 
 
 French Law 
 governs cose. 
 
 Sec. 240. 
 
 -A 
 
 question, 
 now, is the 
 
 we should have 
 as to which of 
 
 which 
 perhaps discussed before now, is the enquiry' 
 the two Laws, French or English, sliould govern the decision 
 in this case. There is no no essential difference between the 
 two Laws, as regards this cise, as wc shall presently shew ; 
 however we shall devote a short space to that enquiry. "We 
 shall not dilate upon tlie effects of art : 37 of tlie Capitulation 
 of Montreal, which was g' anted unrestrictedly by General 
 Amherst, and which secured to the French Seigniors and 
 ccnsitait'es of this colony the full and free enjoyment of all 
 their property, real and personal. Nor shall we pause to 
 shew how that enjoyment would be incomplete, and the 
 Article violated, if French-Canadian Seigniors, holding from 
 the French Crown, in trust for their future cejisitaires, 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, mines 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 tliis colony should 
 continue to be governed by the same Laws which had 
 thitherto prevailed therein, and to which General Amherst 
 made answer : "They become subjects of the Kins." It is 
 
 also unnecessary to refer to the Treaty of Versailles. All 
 these would serve our purpose ; but we have the highest and 
 the strongest evidence, luimely, the settled, unvarying 
 jurisprudence of this country, for nearly a century, establishing 
 the fact, that property, real and personal, in this country, for 
 BO much of it, at least, as c -nsists in Seigniories,ha8 never 
 been governed by any other rule than the public and private 
 Law of France. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 t 
 
— 213 — 
 
 It is siifRcicnt, for our purpose, just to mention, that the O'^nbb-^'p 
 Law of nations, as expounded by Jjlackstonk, Comme^ttaries^^j^^Y^aw 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 t 
 
 t 
 
 governs case, 
 
 vol : 1, cli : 4, P. 107, CnrrxY, Prerogative, ch : 3, P. 25 .26 
 & 30, and houM Mansfield, 2 Cowper, P, 200, settles tliisFRi«0H or 
 question ; those authorities arc unanimous in declaring that ^^^"^^' 
 in conquered, or ceded countries that have existing Laws 
 of their own, those Laws sliall subsist until altered by 
 the King. And when those writa-s state that the King 
 may, indeed, alter the existing Laws of a conquered orTheeame. 
 ceded country, they mean an alteration made according to 
 tlie Constitution of the Realm, a change effected by the King, 
 Lords and Commons, an Act, in fine of the Imperial Legis- 
 lature, having the concurrence of the three Branches. Let no 
 one, then, imagine, that the King, by his mere Proclamation 
 of October, 1763, still less General Murray, by his feeble echo 
 of the Sovereign, under date of September, 1764, not even 
 published in French, have succeeded in engrafting English 
 Law, in civil matters upon the institutions of this country. 
 True it is, that the Courts and Functionaries, appointed by 
 General Mwray, were in the habit of deciding all suits, civil 
 and criminal, by English Law ; but the fact does not make 
 out the right. Even the time-server, Mazeres, Attorney- 
 General under Governor Carleton, was compelled to admit 
 that English Law had not been introduced into the colony. 
 So strongly had public opinion in this direction grown in 
 England that, in 1766, Attorney General Yorke, and' Solicitor 
 General c?<3 6^»ey, formally advised the Crown that a very 
 trifling portion only of Englit^h Law had been introduced into 
 this country ; and as early as 1770, Cugnct, Pres.sard and 
 others were entrusted by Governor Carleton with the task of 
 preparing for the opinion of the Law OfHcers of the Crown 
 m England, a draft of the Custom of Paris as appUcable to 
 Canada. Upon Cngnefs draft of the Custom, Sir James 
 Marriott, Advocate General, Sir James Thurlow, Attorney 
 General, and Mr. HV/r/erii^/7i(f, Solicitor General unanimously 
 reported that Article 37 of the Capitulation of Montreal, by 
 virtu J of the Law of Nations, had secured to the Canadian peo- 
 ple all rights of pro])erty held by them, at the time of tlio 
 Conquest, together with all the incidents and qualities thereof, 
 and, as a consequence and corollary of that proposition, 
 ensured to them all the Laws that had created, defined and 
 secured that property. Hence it i-, that, in 1774, the '' Queheo 
 Act " was passed by the Lnperial Legislature innovating, on 
 the old French Law, in respect of the Criminal Law only. 
 
 I 
 
OwsKRsniP 
 OP Mines. 
 What Law 
 governs case, 
 Fbbnch or 
 EnghbH ? 
 
 The satne. 
 
 The Sflme. 
 
 _ 214 — 
 
 E.cvy one must agree that the change ^vas <»'•'''» )?f*^'"-tt,^* 
 is a sinsnlav fact, lunvcvcr, in connect™. '^^^'^ J'^i'j J,t<S 
 that thS .Icsire in Englaml to do inst.cc " »>\« ^™J^f''J'^,o„^^^^^^ 
 pace with tlie growth oftl.seontent in '';«. ™'*'=';;:^,'Xaliy 
 ind that, botlfcnhninatin;; together tl.at n .ce was bn^ij 
 done to Canada, that had near y ^^ , jJ^-^d her^o ^^^^^ 
 
 rs :X"po L'tetthe ^s. -|"^ilf ^v'; 
 
 T nw= So far is the Laws were concorned, they migiit u.ivo 
 'werecl tcfthe; L so inclined, that the two systems arc 
 not so far apart, as they, no doubt, imagmed. 
 
 SOC. 241.— We may, perhaps, be toll, that the 
 
 clahn o/the Sovereign to mh^s^edally^to gol^ 
 
 mines, is a prerogative of the j^^^^^^' J^^^ To 130 governed 
 right k coiiage, and iVo- the^^^^^^^^ -t « U, go^^^^^ ^^ 
 
 by any other Law than the Public i.aw oi ^ „ 
 dLyLttherighyfco^r^^e^m^^^^ 
 
 the early history ot England ib ^^.P^f '^ ] ;^^^^^^ . jjiacMone, who 
 individuals having exercised ^^^^^ iig t , x.6ac , 
 
 .efers to some of the ^^^^ ^ B.Vcit V...mm- 
 not inseparable froni the Uo^^ " ^^^° ^ ^he obnoxious 
 
 taires, book 1, ch : 7, P. 2< .). /^^ ^S ^' der the Great Seal 
 Patent is not, as we have already stated, 1 ndei ^^^"^ 
 
 of England, where the f S^to^^^^lrh - d^Twhieh 
 l-ip imdor the Great &eal ot uanauo,, uciuino « 
 Canada, unqSionally, had not the right oi corragc. 
 
 Sec. 242.— Apart fronr all tliat, our ^'"-ver to the 
 ohiection is <inite phun and eonclnsive Bl.vckstonh, hook^ 
 ct 7,P. 23i) &'i40 Cnrrrv, ^''''"f" ^'J „;' i^.-di'vi'de 
 
 & 30, and the liKTXisn I-^"''^'?''™^.'™"- V ^o Preroga- 
 ,,,epk.rop.ivesoftlK.Ow..mtodro^^^^ 
 
 tives, and Incido.ital or Minoi ' """ incidental or minor 
 BlacMo.u, tlie right of eon.ago '^^^.^" "'^^f^ Uj«''' "'« 
 Trerogative ; and, according to all ^' "'^f^*"' ' . ';. „-'^istcnce 
 direct"or major I'-'ovogatives are cssmi la « tl o ^- ox stenc 
 
 of thomonarehy, const.tnte the p. to ttoeot ana 
 inseparable attributes ot the C.own, anu o ' 1 ; 
 
 eapicity of the Sovereign i 'I'lj^^^^-n \he flagTs p ante^-. On 
 are engrafted on ovcj-yod.w Ik un aefl^^^ ^_,^ ^^ ^^^^,^ 
 
 I'll^tt 'wS" t -.ho-sovcreign power may bo 
 
— 2t5 — 
 
 !1'. It 
 
 latter, 
 s kept 
 lonies, 
 finally 
 111 the 
 about 
 ^'rencli 
 : have 
 ins arc 
 
 lat the 
 silver- 
 )iii the 
 verned 
 :s ow we 
 ;rown ; 
 private 
 e, who 
 nage is 
 'ommen- 
 noxious 
 eat Seal 
 ports to 
 t which 
 
 cr to the 
 book 1, 
 , 25, 26 
 e^ divide 
 Preroga- 
 rdin^ to 
 ir minor 
 jject, the 
 existence 
 arc the 
 political 
 rogativcs 
 ted. On 
 of Euch 
 may be 
 
 exercised In all its plenitude, are local only, and do not 0»'-"<«a£«fP 
 certainly extend to a country, though conquered, havino- an *^L,^'^7^' 
 existing code of Laws, such as Canada, unless introduced thcve, Jo ttrL ell 
 m the manner prescribed by the Constitution, as wo havci'^fiENCH or ' 
 already mentioned. F.nqi.ish ? 
 
 feeC. d'M, Finally, does not the " de Leky-TIic sam;. 
 
 Patent ", itself, state, that it has been issued in conformity 
 with the Edict of June, 1601 ? Does that not bring this 
 question within the scope of Frencli LaAv ? Our adversaries 
 have chosen their ground, and we have accepted battle on 
 that ground. Who can object to that ? Certainly not the 
 Defandants. But does not the very Edict, invoked by the 
 Patent, impl-citly declare that the owner shall have the 
 preference by requiring him to prendre reglem.ejit avec le 
 Grand- Maitre ? And have we not shewn already that, in 1633, 
 in the very last phase of mining legislation in France before 
 the creation of the f^'uperior CoVmcil h.ere, Grand-Master 
 Martin liuze was expressly prohibited by the Parliament of 
 Paris from ^Q?,mm\\gjuridiction conteniieuse and from expro- 
 priating the owner of tlie soil ? Was it not by that Arret 
 expressly enjoined on the Grand-Master to sec to tlie execution 
 of i\xQ Edits et Ordonnancesverljiees in that Court ? And finally 
 was not the Ordinance of Louis XI, of 1471 (which gives the 
 preference to the owner of the soil) verilicd in the Parliament 
 of Paris ? 
 
 feOC, ^44* Again, we ask, are rot our LoM'cr- xhe ^^me 
 
 Canadian, and our Canadian Statute books filled with Laws 
 applying the Public Law of France to the decision of 
 questions aflecting the Sovereign in Lower-Canada ? By wluit 
 oiier Law than the Public Law of France, has the Eepresen- 
 tative of the Sovereign Jiere received Fui et IlommagCy Aveu 
 et denomhrement tV:c., &c., from so many generations of 
 Canadian Seign'ors ? By wliat other Law 'tlian the Public 
 Law of France has the Sovereign been governed in his actions 
 and in his suits-at law in Lower Canada ? Plow else than 
 by virtue of the Public Law of France, has the Sovereign, 
 for nearly one hundred years, filled his cofters with Qimit, 
 Reliefs Droits d^auhaine^ de hdtardise^ de desherence ? 
 What means the language of those statutes which confer, first 
 upon the late Courts of King's and Queen's Bench, and, since 
 then, upon the Superior Court, rdl the judiciary powers of the 
 
OwNBnsaip 
 OF Mines. 
 What Law 
 governs case, 
 Fbench or 
 Enqlisu ? 
 
 — 21G — 
 
 Conseil Souverain ? Did the Conml Soiivcrain in tlie good old 
 days of EngHsh-hating Louis XIV, dispense justice on the prin- 
 ciples of tlie Pnblic Law of England ? Finally what means 
 the Seigniorial Act by calling the Sovereign a Seigneur 
 Suzerdn? AVe dcein it unnecessary to pursue this enquirv 
 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 
 6tato that the Public Law of 'England should govern this 
 matter. 
 
 ENGLISU LAW MORB FAVORABLE TO TUE OWNER OF 
 THE SOIL TUAN FRENCH LAW. 
 
 t 
 
 (S 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 u 
 
 (( 
 (I 
 (( 
 
 u 
 
 I' 
 
 ( 
 1 
 ( 
 ( 
 
 Englith-L^yf ScC. 245. We promised to thcw that it matters 
 
 more favora- '^^ , , , J , . , t • 
 
 ble, even, litt'c by wh'ch ot the two Laws, the question vnder discussion 
 thaa French g]iQ^i(i ]je decided, and that by the one, as vvell as by the 
 ofloif! °^'°" other, the Plaintiffs 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 
 pretension^ of the Crown as to the ownership of what some 
 writers 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 th>it revolution broke out which drove 
 the Stuarts troni the throne. Suffice it to say, thfit one of the 
 very iirst cares of the first Parliament which assembled under 
 William and Mary, was to settle this vexed question ; an 
 act was passed, 1 W. & M. ch : 30, § 4, declaring tiiat : 
 
 " No mine of Copper, Tin, Iron, or Learl, shall hereafter bo adjudged 
 reputed or taken to be a lloyal Mine, although Gold or Silver may be 
 extracted out of the same." 
 
 As gold and silver, except gold in alluvial form, are seldom, 
 if ever, found unassociated with 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 prosperity 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 
 
t 
 
 — 21T — 
 
 our printed Declaration, which, for all the purposes of this O^'Jf ""^^^'^ 
 argument, must be held to be true : KsauBH Law 
 
 " That, on the pieces of land so bought by the said John O'Farrell, more favora- 
 " Esquire, from the said {names of the Plaintiffs' auteurs), there exist ble to Plwa- 
 " deposits of alluvial and diluvial gold, tin, platina and other metals, and tifls thau 
 " veins and courses of quartz and other gangues, carrying gold, silver and French Law. 
 " platina, uncorabined with any other metal, and also chemically combined 
 " with copper, lead, tin, rJnc, arsenic, antimony and iron. 
 
 " That the said John O'Farrell, Esquire, has discovered, and has been 
 " the first to denounce (denoncer), to Our Sovereign Lady, The Queen, the 
 *' existence, on said pieces of land, of the said gold and silver-bearing quartz 
 '' and other gangues. ' «... 
 
 " That the said Plamtiffs are ready and willmg and have sutbcient 
 " means to work, and to cause to cause to be worked, well and sufficiently, 
 " the said alluvial and dilluvial gold and other mines, and the said metal- 
 " bearing quartz and other gangues ; whereof the said Plaintiffs hereby 
 " pray acte^ 
 
 Sec. 246, Collier on Mines, P. 1, of the^rr^or of,^ 
 
 En<'lish Edition, and P. 13 of tlte American Edition, has the gayiug 
 following upon this subject : ^ranYsu' 
 
 " Gold and silver accompanied with certain other metals, copper, lead, ^gp unaccom- 
 iron, tin, belong to the owner of the soil." ,.,,,,., . , panied by 
 
 '' The right of the Crown to Mines in which gold and silver are lound, Copper, lead, 
 unaccompanied with these metals and mixed with others, would, if the iron, tin, 
 case should rise, be a m.atter of some doubt." d °abtfal' 
 
 With all respect for the opinion of M. Collier, as to the 
 ownership of Gold and Silver, when not accompanied hy EngUgu sta- 
 copper, lead, iron or tin, we beg leave to say, that, centuries ^^te, 12 
 before the passing of the statute of William and Mary, a Edward III 
 Law forgotten by the English people (just as the Ordinances settles^the 
 of the French Kings had been lost sigbt of by French J urists) ^^^^,j^y,iy ^^ 
 had settled this question in a sense favorable to the pretensions piaintiffa. 
 of the Plaintifis. We allude to a statute passed in the 
 twelfth year of the Eeign of Edward III^ in the Parliament 
 at Westminster. We quote from a work, intituled " Awum 
 lieqincB'' or Queen- G old \>\\h\\^\\Q^ in 1668, with the approval 
 oi Sir Robert AtJcins, the Queen's Solicitor General, by 
 William Pkynne, a Bencher of Lincoln's-Inn, and Keeper ot 
 the Tower-records. In the preface the author states : " All 
 «tlie Records here cited I have carefully perused and 
 " examined with mv own eyes." At P. 128, Frynne says : 
 " Yea King Edward the 3 d. in his Parliament held at II eii- 
 " minster in the twelfth year of his reign at the earnest Petition 
 " of the Commons, with the advise and assent of his Prelates, 
 " karls, Barons, and others of his Counsil in that Parliament 
 28 
 
— 218 — 
 
 OwMERsnip 
 or Minks 
 
 ^^ for the common henefit of the Realm,, granted fur hlin his 
 Ei!olis"l\w " ^^^"'^ ^"^ successors, free liberty to a'l and every person of 
 favorable to " tliis Eealm, that they and (very of them niiglit dig for mines 
 " of Gold, Silver and hid Treasure, within his or their own 
 " soyl, by the view and oversight of sneh Clerks and Officers 
 " as he and his he'rs should apjjoint, and extract, fine, and 
 " cx>yn the same at his Exchange and Mint, at their proper 
 '' costs, to augment the money of the Ilealm ; rcndring to 
 " Am, his heirs and succe bOrs "the full third part of all the 
 " pure Silver^ and the iwWmoietij of all tlie Gold which should 
 " be so digged, fined and coyned by them, " reserving the 
 " residue to themselves : which he likewise ratified by his 
 " Letters-Patent in the loth year of his reign, as this memo- 
 '■'' V2i\i\QlXQQ,or(S. {not hitherto published) will inform ns, now 
 
 Plainliffj. 
 
 The same. 
 
 " advance the Trade, improve, pay Land rents, and defray 
 *• i\iQ extraordinary puhlike Taxes of the Kingdom.'''' 
 
 tMs-pft^ntof ^^C* 247. — Prynne, then, gives the text of the 
 
 Edward III, Letters-Patent of the 15 Edward III, which recite the statu* c 
 reciting and ^2 EowARD IIL adverted to by Prymie. Those Letters-Patent 
 
 confirming ,, ' ,/ u 
 
 t^mt Statute, rnu thus : 
 
 " REX Omnibus ad quos, &o., &c., salutem. Sciatis, quod cum in 
 
 " Parliamento nostro apud Wcstmon, Anno regni nostro duodecimo convo- 
 
 " cato, considerata tarn nostri quam populi regni nostri communi utilitate, 
 
 *' ad instantem requisitionem Communitatis ejusdem regni nobis per Peli- 
 
 " tionem suam coram nobis et Concilio nostro in eoJam Parliamento fac- 
 
 " tarn ; de assensu Prailatorum, Comitum, Baronutn, et aliorum de Conci- 
 
 " lio nostro tunc ibidem existentium, concesserimus universis et singulis de 
 
 " dicto regno, quod ipsi et eorum quilibet solum suum proprium pro Mind 
 
 " Auri et Argenti, et pro Thesauro abscondito quairendo et inveniendo 
 
 " fodere, et dictam Minam Auri et Argenti per visum et testimonium cujus- 
 
 " dam Clerici per nos vel h.Bredes nostrosad hoc deputandi purgarc et pcr- 
 
 " affinare \ ac dictum Thesaurum inventum per visum cjusdum Clerici extra 
 
 " solum trahere possunt pro suai lILito voluntatis : Ita quod totum Argcn- 
 
 " turn sic purgatum et peraffinatum ad cunea nostra et hioredum nostrorum 
 
 " dtferatur Custodibus Cambii vel Cambiorum nostrorum aut hieredum 
 
 " nostrorum per Inde tur. inde faciend. ibidem liberand. ad monetam inde 
 
 " cudend. Et qu6d singuli Dominorum praidictorum omnessumptu'' etCus- 
 
 " tas qui in pra^missis apponeridi fuerint, de suo precio facient et apponant. 
 
 " Quodque tertia pars moneta; sic cussa) nobis et Ilasredibus nostiis rema- 
 
 *' neat ; et du£e partes ejusdeii Dominis, quorum solum illud fuerit, libe- 
 
 '* rentur ; Et quod totura Aurv.m praidictum sic purgatum et perafflnatum, 
 
 *' et Thesaurus inventus, per prajfatnm Clericum et Dominos, qui Aurum 
 
 " illud sic purgaverint et Thesaurum invenerint, vel illos quos ad hoc 
 
— 210 — 
 
 " deputavcrint, ftd Scaccftrium nostrum et h«>redum nostrorum salvo atlOwNKasniP 
 
 "sumptiis conindcm Dominorum deferantur, una cum Indenturis, quasoF Mii^isa. 
 
 " inter ip.suin Clcricum et pra;fatos Doniinos indd fieri volumus (^' 'ut 
 
 " decet) et medietas indd ad opus nostrum ct hmredum nostrorum retin' 
 
 " et in Thcsaurariam nostram et ipsorum ethsercdum nostrorum lib«it^ 
 
 *' et altera medietas praifatis Douiinis et eorum singulis rcstituetur et rema- 
 
 " neat ad Coinmodum suum indd faciendum pro dictis sumptibus et Custu- 
 
 " bus in prremissis apponcndis, (ut pncdicitur) faciliiis supportandis Nos 
 
 " volentes Conccssi»ncm nostrum pnodictam elFectui mancipari, concessi- 
 
 " mus et licentiam dedimus, pro nobis ct haeredibus nostris, Priclatis, Comi- 
 
 " tibusBaronibus ao ca^teris hominibus de dicto regno nostro Anglice, ct 
 
 *' Terra nostra Wallia', et eorum hasrodibus, ctsucccssoribus, et aliis, terras et 
 
 " tenementa ibidem habentibus et habituris, quod ipsi et ecrum singuli 
 
 *' solum proprium pro Mina ct Tbcsauro hujusmodi ibidem qurerendo et 
 
 " inveniendo fodcre ; et dictam Minam per visum et testimonium hujusmo- 
 
 " di Clerici sit ad hoc deputandi purgare ct pcraflinare ; ct Thesaurum 
 
 *' inventum extra solum suum in forma praidicta trahere possint, sino 
 
 " occasionc vel impedimento nostri vel hieredum nostrorum, Justiciarorum, 
 
 " EsciBtorum, Vicecomitum, aut aliorum Ballivorum seu Ministrorum nos- 
 
 " trorum quorumcumque : It^ quod totum Argentum sic p-orgatum et 
 
 " perafflnatum ad Cunea nostra praidicta, et dictum Aurum similiter purga- 
 
 " tum et peraflinatum, et Thesaurus inventus ad Scaccarium nostrum et 
 
 " dictorum hajredum nostrorum deferantur ; etprajdicta tertia pars monetae 
 
 " sic cussfe, et medietas totius Auri sic purgati et peraffinati et dicti The- 
 
 " sauri invent!, nobis et luicrcdibus nostris rcmaneant ; et residuum indd 
 
 " dictis liberetur et restituatur in forma supradictA. Et quod si dicti 
 
 *' Domini vel eorum aliquis fodere neglexerint vel ncglexcrit, tunc nos ct 
 
 " ha^redes nostri in eorum defectu solum suum pro voluntate nostra fodere, 
 
 "et totaiTi Minam et Thesaurum in eodem inventa, ad commodum nostrum 
 
 " et hseroutim nostrorum inde faciendum possumus absque contradictione 
 
 *' alicujus rctincre. Volumus tamen quckl aliquis de dictis regno et terra, 
 
 " cujuscunquc status seu conditionis fucrit pnetextu Conccssionis pra)dictie 
 
 " Minam hujusmodi in absentia dicti Clerici nostri purgct vel peraffinet, aut 
 
 " Thesaurum inventuir extra locum ubi ipsura inveniri contigerit trahere 
 
 *' priosumat, sub forisfactura eorundem. 
 
 " In cujus, etc., etc. Teste Rege apud Turrim London 28 die Julii." 
 " Per ipsum Regem et Consilium." 
 
 SOC. /24o. If appears, then, by that statute andEnglieii 
 
 the doclaratoiy Letters Patent of Edward III, that cvery^ mang^jJJ and^ ail- 
 has fall liberty to a 'ork gold and silver- mines, and to di^ forver ia \\\9 
 treasur-', npon his own lands, under the supervision of the only, 
 officer of the Sovd'eign, and on condition ol bringing the gold, 
 bilver and treasure to the mint to be refined and coined, and 
 also upon payment of one third the silver and one halt tho 
 gold and treasure. That royalty was gradually redu 1 »b 
 I*rynne informs us in the margin, to 1{8 of the line iio'u and 
 silver extracted, then to 1|0, then to 1[10, then to lil2, and 
 finally to lil5, by successive Letters-Patent* of the Kings, 
 successors to Edwahd III. As the Law, therefore, now stand3 
 
OWHBBSBfP 
 
 OP Minis. 
 Gold MiNtifa 
 Act. Sbiqnio 
 ttiAL Act. 
 Cons DB Cas 
 
 6ATI0N. 
 
 Gold Uining 
 Act of 1864. 
 
 — 220 — 
 
 in England, every mnn may M-ork mines of gold and silver, 
 unaccompanied by eoprer, load, iron or tin, on payment of a 
 
 .royalty of one fifteenth. The effect of the 1 William and 
 Maky, sh : 30, § 4, h.s only been to abolish the royalty, 
 
 -wherever the i)rceion8 metals are accompanied by copper, lead, 
 iron or tin. We presume therefore that Fnglisli Law >s 
 much more favorable than French Law to the position of the 
 Plaintiffs. Under English Law, there is no Royal Permission 
 required at all ; that Jioyal 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 associate 1 M-ith copper, lend, 
 iron and tin ; and, in the very few cases wherein a royalty 
 can be claimed by the Crown, tlie English royalty is only 
 oiie-fifteenth Avhile the French royalty is one tenth. 
 
 J?eC, 241). Our Own Canadian Statute, " The 
 
 '' Gold Mining Act of 18G4 ", the 27 an J 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 (The Gold-Mining amendment Act of 1868), has, 
 in our opinion, made the matter very p'aiu. But, owing to 
 the fact that the latter Statute appears to have been touched 
 by some hand friendly to the " de LtiiY-Fatent," 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, we might be treated to the 
 luxury of another " Gold Mining Amendment Act," meeting 
 all our reasoning on the existing Statutes. We deem it safer 
 to reserve orr remarks on this head for the ear of the Court 
 i/i Banco. 
 
 CHAl^TEIl VII 
 
 THE " DE LEEY-PiTENT " VOIDED BY THE ABOLITION (>F 
 THE FEUDAL TENURE. 
 
 Cour de Cas- ^r»r» O^O rrr 
 
 nation, held K^tC, /£0\J, We have already seen, in the quotation 
 
 Miaes'llru-*^^^^'".^^^^"^.^^- ^^ ^^ ^^^^ Factum), how the claim set up by 
 
 •daliburthen. certain ex-Seigniors of Hainault in France to an annual 
 
 rent called entrc-cens was repudiated by the Cour de Cassa- 
 
— 221 — 
 
 hon.^ Tlio l)etter to sciz- tho bearing?, on this question, ofOw.viBe,„r 
 that imi)ortaiit dcGision, it is well to recall the facts. IIain<iult °- "*"'• 
 which had formerly been a portion of tho Germanic Empire! act""" Co Ji 
 came under the Dominion of Franco with a peculiar system d. CAaHATm. 
 of Laws, called the Constitution of Ilainault. I3y that Cons- ^""n. 
 litution, no mine couIl be opened in Ilainault 'without the ^*'''''^^- 
 express i erinission of the iieicfncur-hautjusUcier. Fo- that 
 prmission, while the Feudal tcn.re lasted, the Seignior n°ifod^iuh 
 had sometimes exacted an annual payment, called cntreccns.\hTxlnr!il] 
 Ihel^rcnch Kevolution came; and in 1789, the Constituent '« Pf'^nte- 
 Assembly decreed he abolition of the Feudal Tenure The 
 question discussed by Merlin and his adversaries before the 
 Cour de Casmtion, was whetl-er the ricrhcs poesessed by the 
 beigniors m mines in Hainault before 1781), were ri-^lits of 
 property, or merely feudal rights. ° 
 
 ^ Tho Courde Cassation, held with Meklin, that those '^'^^ s'^^^- 
 riirhts were purely feudal rights, and as such had been 
 abohshed by the Law of 1780. Those rights so declared 
 abolished had been assigned to the Seigniors of Ilainault by 
 the Sovereign. For particub.rs of that decision, see the quo- 
 tation from Meklin, Questions de Droit, vho. Mmcs, 
 reproduced at P. 61 ol this Fr.ctum ; see also 31 Dalloz 
 liep. de Lcgis. et de Juris, vho. Mines, § 
 
 ^eC. ^Oi, "What difference is there between the 
 rights claimed under the " de Leky Patent " and the ri'dits 
 for which the seigniors of Ilainault exacted an entre-crna ? 
 Ihere cannot be two conflicting possessions of the same thinir 
 atthe same moment of time! The de Levy Patentees and tho 
 Piaintihs cannot, at the same instant, possess, the one the soil 
 the other the mines, for both are so intimately blended that 
 they form but one substance ; the one cannot 'be taken awav 
 without destroying the other. A better illustration of the ab- 
 surdity of the pretensions of the Defendants in this particular 
 cannot be found elaewhere than in that sublime concei)tion of 
 bhakespeare, when Portia awards to her ftither the liund of 
 flesh but adds that he may not draw the tiniest 'drop of 
 blood. ^ 
 
 Sec. 253. 
 
 The whole cpirit of Our Law repels There can be 
 
 the supposition of a joint ownership even. Article ¥>d 430 "° •'°^°f • 
 arid 431 of the Canadian Code, in treating of accession, prohi-"""^" "''' 
 
— 222 — 
 
 Lit such joint possession, and Pothier, proj)r{ete, Part 2, ch j 1 
 No 16, establishes, what hardly needed |>roof, namely, that 
 tliere can be no two adverse posse -sions of the same thing. 
 
 Sec. 253. Apart from the great authority of the 
 
 decision of the Cour (U Cassation abovo-referred to let us 
 see if wo cannot find, in the " Seigniorial Act of 1854 "^and 
 Cidastrt have its aiueudenients, and In the dec'sionsof the Seigniorial Court 
 nnnihilated ^iiei-ynndcr, sutHcicnt to convince the most scoptictil, that, even 
 wSaSdifthe "ni.:LEKY./V<Y6»r', were a valid instrument and had 
 grant. 
 
 OWHBUSfllP 
 
 (IP MrNBs. 
 
 iSRinNIOHIAL 
 
 CouuT ani 
 
 their 
 
 Judgment. 
 
 ^seigniorial 
 Court, Judg- 
 ment and 
 
 Tlie same, 
 
 conv 
 the 
 1 
 men 
 
 veyed the rights claimed under it, yet, on the day when 
 i.v. Crt</a5^re of the Seigniory was deposited, iliosc pretended 
 rights became a thing of tlie }:>ast and amiihilated. Of tho 
 aSn who made the solution ot that great Feudal Probleni a 
 lifelong study, yet lived to see their labors crowned with 
 SUCCCS3, we sh'ali 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 Avith wliich he grappled with, and 
 mastered, the difficulties of a position that, for half a century, 
 had embarrassed the minds of succeeding statesmen here. 
 Suffice it to say that the Seigniorial Court, the crowning act 
 in that grand 'and peaceful Canadian Revolution, deterged 
 from our midst that blemish on the body politits which it re- 
 quired rivers of blood finally to blot out in Fi ance. 
 
 Sec, 254. The preamble of that act, 18 vict : ch .. 
 
 tao-es must result from the " substitution ot a free tcnxira^ for 
 « That under which property hath heretofore been hcid. 
 We ha-e already shewn that the lloman Law, f)nd its oflshoot, 
 the Common Law of France, and the Laws, from time to 
 time, promulgated by the Sovereign, niade no distinction 
 betwecm n-ines of gold and silver, and mines of other metals ; 
 and Mfrlin (cited at P. 61 at seq : of this Factum) conclusive- 
 ly established, and the Cour de Cassation held, that the 
 rVhts claimed by the Seigniors of Hainault for grants ot 
 mTning-privilcgcs had been swept away by the abolition ot 
 the fe^idal tenure in Fn>nce. Jf, under the iTench Law a 
 claim to mines on private lands were thus so emnly held to 
 be a feudal burthpn in Franco, and extinguished in J^ ranee 
 
— 223 — 
 
 along with the Foil Jill Tenure there, iiow can it be held toO^ji^BSHtp 
 subsitt hero since the abolition, by a like law of the same g*j[ "j^'j "j^^^ 
 tenure here? Common reuse forbids the supposition. act. Feosio- 
 
 RIAL COCRT 
 r-sj ^-w mf mf AQ(i iH ir 
 
 v^CC. -^OO. By the fijth section of the act, it judgment, 
 
 became the duty of the Commifsioncrs to value : 
 
 " 1 ® The total value of the Sei^jniory, i. e. of all 
 " property and lucrative rights held by the Seignior, as such, 
 " either as Seigneur Dominant^ or otukrwise. 
 
 " 2 ® The lot<il value of the rights of the Crown, in the 
 " Seignory, including Droit de quint and all other valuable 
 " rights of the Crown as Seigneur Dominant, or by kea^jon 
 *' of any reservation in the original grant, and the value of 
 " the seigniorial rights therein hs they might bo ascertained 
 " by the judgment of the Seigniorial Court." 
 
 &C., ifcc, iSiG., 
 
 &c. 
 
 Why, it is ai^kcd, were the Commissioners enjoined tc The saaae. 
 value the rights of the Crown in the seigniories ? Sections 18 
 & 19 of the Act fhall tell us. Tho^e two sections appi'oi)ria'ed, 
 among other sources of revenue, in aid of the censitaire, the 
 value of the Crown rights, and then deducted the value of 
 such Crown rights from the vahie of I he Seignior's rights. 
 It is therefore clear that the intention of the preamble of th<i 
 Act has been carried out and the censHaire possesses his 
 land free from all feudal rights whether I 'earing upon the 
 censitaire or up -n the Seignior, in other words, from all feudal 
 rights whether claimod by the Seignior or by the Crown. 
 So much so indeed that Section 14, in express tc -us, declares 
 the soil shall thenceforth be free aiul cleir of kx... Seigniorial 
 and feudal duties and charges whatever^ except a rente 
 constituee, substituted therefor. 
 
 Now let us see whether a claim to the mines is among 
 the buitheuf. contemplated by the act, and intended to bo 
 removed ; let us again quote the words of the 5th section as 
 to the Crown-rights which the commissioners were ordered 
 to value : " and all other valuable rights as Seignior domi- 
 " nant, ok ly keason of any reservation in the original 
 " grant. " JSlow a dilemma for the Defendants : eithek tho^ 
 iniunction on the Grantee to give notice of the discovery of 
 
OWNKRSniP 
 OP MlMBS. 
 
 SiiQNior.rAl. 
 
 AfT. SeIGNIO' 
 RIAL CODBT 
 
 ami its Judg 
 ment. 
 
 rbe same. 
 
 — 224 — 
 
 nuncs, contained in the Orii^nnal Grant to de la Gorgendiere, 
 and quoted by the Plaintiffs at P. 27 of this Factum,^ is a 
 reservation of the mines or it is not ; if it is a reservation of 
 the mines, it is a right that should have been valued under 
 ■Bcctiun 5 of the net, and was abolished, and should have been 
 deducted as abolished, under sections 17 and 18 of the act, 
 from the Seignior's rights, in order to asccrtam the exact 
 amonnt of the capital of the rente constituee due by the censi- 
 taire f(n- the perfect redemption of his soil from all burthens 
 whatever ; but, if on the other hand, that injunction to give 
 notice contains no reservation of the imnes, then, as we assert 
 nnder the decision of the Seigniorial Court, did the mines pass 
 to the censitaire with the sub-grant made to him by the 
 sei<niior, lung before the issue ot the de Leky Pattnt. Indeed 
 Bucl is the decision of the Seigniorial Court, in answer to the 
 39th Question submitted to that T.ibunal by the 1-aw-Offlcer) 
 of the Crown under that ret, as found reported at P. 79 [a) 
 of the Lower-Canada "Reports of 1856, vol : A, 
 
 Sec. 256. The 39 h Question runs thus : 
 
 " In various deeds of concession of lands held en roture, covenants are 
 " found tending to establish, in favor of the Seigniors, reservations similar 
 " or analogous to the following, viz : 
 
 " 1 « A reservation of timber for the building of the manor-house, mills 
 «• and churches ^yithout indemnity. -.^u o • • 
 
 " 2 ^ A reservation of firewood for the use of the beignior. 
 " 3 o A reservation of all marketable timber. 
 
 " 40 yI reservation o/all mines, quarries, sand, stone and other ma- 
 terials of the same kind. 
 
 &c., &c., &c., &c. 
 
 " Were these reservations, or any and which of them, legally made, and 
 «• do they give the Seigniors a right to be indemnified for the suppression ot 
 " tliem TO BE EFFECTED hj the said Seigniorial Act. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the questionwas fairly and square- 
 Iv put to ihe Seigniorial Court, as to whether A reservation 
 ,:fmwJ65 could legally be made by the s.ignior,_ or in other 
 words, wheher in making the sub grant the ee.gnior could 
 leo-allv withold from the tenant the mmos contained in tiit 
 land Moreover the question acknowledges m ihe most posi- 
 tive terms th:it all reservations, even thocc legally made, are 
 ft'mnro=sed bv the Seigniorial Act. . 
 
 '^^ t';' wJl Proportion submitted by the Crown, m rcfe- 
 
 \ 
 
— 225 — 
 
 'i, 
 
 reuce to that qiies*ion, as reported at P. 80 (a) of volume ^ ^ J' y*'^®,"' *" 
 of the L. C. Reports of 1856, is thus ttated : SEiaNioBtAL 
 
 *' 1 o . Custom seems to have sanctioned the reservation of timber for ^j^^.^ ji,f|cr. 
 " the building of the manor-house, mills and churches without indemnity ; mg^t 
 " moreover, such reservations were made for the general good, and were 
 " calculated to promote the settlement of the country. " 
 
 " 2 ° . The reservation of firewood for the use of the Seignior, has 
 " not received the same sanction, and is repugnant to the principle of 
 " the feudal contract which gives to the Gemitaire the entire property of 
 " the DOMINIUM iTTiLE (domaiiie utile) ; therefore all such reservations are 
 " XULL, and cannot give rise to any indemnity." 
 
 *' 3 ® . The sarnt! thinuj must be said of marketable timber. " 
 
 " 4 ® . The same ^oith regard to the reservation of all mines, quarries, 
 " sand, stone and other materials of the like kind, except the reservation of 
 " mines in favor of the Kinaj or Suzerain, according to the conditions set 
 " forth in the Original grants of Seigniories ad Flefs,^'' 
 
 &c., &c., &c., &c., &c., 
 '■'■None of the reservations declared null and illegal in the above 
 " enumeration, give to the Seigniors a right to be indemnified fob the sup- 
 " PBESsioN of them, in virtue of the Seigniorial Act of 1854." 
 
 Sec, 257, That legal Proposition of the Crown The eame. 
 
 distinctly states tliat a!l reservations as to mi'iesare illegal, as 
 being inconsistent with the nature of the feudal compact, 
 unles.^ there is a re^ervauon to that etfect in the Original 
 g-a'it, aid that all feudal rights, even when exis'ing under a 
 reservation of the mi les by the Crown in the Original Grant, 
 have been supjjre-sed by the Seignior al Act of 1854. The 
 Proposition goes still further and d dares that the censltaire, 
 by the very nature of tlie feudal compact, is entitled to all the 
 domaine utile of his land. It seems to the Plaintiffs that nothing 
 can be clearer. 
 
 Sec. 2»>o Now let us see what was the answer, ^he same. 
 
 the solemn judgment of the Seigniorial Court, upon that 
 Proposition of the Crown. Ihat decision is found reported at 
 P. 82 (a) of Yolume A of the L. C. Eeports for 1856 ; it runs 
 thus : 
 
 " § 3. The folloicing reservations or others analogous to them, were 
 " illegal and do not give to the Seignior, a right to any indemniiy by 
 " reason of their suppression." 
 
 " Art. 1. A reservation of firewood for the use of the Seignior." 
 
 " Art. 2. A reservation of all marketable timber." 
 
 " Art. 8. A reservation of all mines, quarries, sand, stone and other 
 *' materials of the same kind." 
 
 &C. 
 
 &C. 
 
 &i 
 
 ccc. 
 
 29 
 
— 226 — 
 
 OWSEUSHIP 
 
 OF Mines. 
 
 SlIONIOUIAL 
 
 Gonav and 
 their Judg- 
 mont. 
 Gad\8TBE. 
 
 The same. 
 
 Such also, is 
 effect of 
 Cadastre. 
 
 Sec. 2*^9, That decision of the Seigniorial Court 
 
 bears upon this case in more respects than one ; not only doc.-^ 
 the Court, by its Judgment, declare that the reservation of 
 Mines was illegal, except when made in obedience to the 
 Original Grant, and gives rise to no indemn ty ; but the 
 decfsion goes still farther and holds that all claims of that 
 description have beei suppresticd by the Seigniorial Act. See, 
 on this head, the able judg nents delivered by the Judges of 
 the Seigniorial Court, as reported in the L. C. Reports for 
 
 1856. 
 
 Sec. 260. A part from all this the Plaintifts 
 
 contend that the Judgment of Co,nmissioner Tn.rcofte., detei- 
 min no- Seigniorial rights in that Seigniory, but making no 
 mention of min'S, ns'evidenced by an antlientic oopy ot the 
 Judgment filed iu tuis case has completely settled the question 
 agiiinst the Defendants' pretensions. 
 
 SsiaNioBiiii 
 JcoauiNT is 
 ar« 
 and 
 pleaded. 
 
 Sec. 26 1 . Let liS now see of what importance that 
 
 RSJ?. decision beco.nes in this case. The Plaintiffs maintain that 
 i/t 'the Judgment of the Seigniorial Court has all the autho- 
 rity of a'm jadlGata as between them, as C<'nsitai,'eH and the 
 Defendants cither as Seignwrs, or even as_ representatives ot 
 the Crown. The pretensions of the Plaintiffs m that respect 
 are borne out bv paragraphs 8 and 9 of section 16 of the 
 Seigniorial Act ;' ihose two para-rai.hs,_ in speaking ot the 
 decTsions to be arrived at by the Seigniorial Court, under that 
 Act, state : 
 
 «« 8 ° The decision and opinions of the said Jnd-cs shall h^motivees, 
 " „nd delivered as in a judgment on a case in nppeal m "•'^j;;^;^ J ^^^ij^^^; 
 " tions hadariconand were put in issue, »ut without • ,y '•' '^^^ •'^"tc^ce 
 " in favor of the Crown, the Seigniors or the Cemitain ., whether ab to cc sts 
 *' or otherw'se ; 
 
 «« 9 o The decision so to be pronounced on eacli of the said Questions 
 " and Propositions shall guide the Co.nnii^sionners an,l the Attorney-Gene- 
 " S and shall, in any actual case thereafter to arise, be hel. to have been 
 " a judging;, appeL dernier ressoH, on the pon.t^^ raised by such 
 
 " Question, in a like case, though between other piirtius. 
 
 The 9th parngraph then gives the right of appeal to any one 
 of the parties within a limited time ; it is well to mention, that 
 
 r 
 
 T 
 > 
 
 I 
 
227 — 
 
 :h 
 
 section 16 made it incumbent on the Attorney Geiv^ml, as Ow«KB8m«. 
 
 ntins: the Ci 
 
 to submit, to the Seio-niorial Court 
 
 reprcsjntmg lue v^rowii, lu biiumiu, i.t» mo ocigmui uu v^wuiu, g^j^j^j^^j^j^ 
 certain Qnestious and legal I'ropositions cmbodyhig lusootjRTand 
 views ; and that section gave to Seignior and Censitaire ahke their Judg- 
 the privilege of Biibmitting counter propositions. That per- ^^nt.^^^^^^ 
 mission was availed of largely by the Seigniors, and but 
 sparingly by the censitaircs } \Vho shall venture to affirm that 
 no effect has been prodeced on this case by that gre it and 
 solemn Judgment, where the three parties interested in this 
 case, namely : the Crow7i, the Seignior and the Censitaire, 
 were alike represented, and where the decision as to the 
 suppression of all clahn to mining righ s nuist be declared 
 t') be a resjndicata in this case ! The Pla-ntiffs specifically 
 allege that 'iudgment as a rc.^-j"dicaift, and claim its opera- 
 tion; it will be, for the " dk Lehy- Pattmtees, " and for the 
 Crown as well, a ratlxer difficult task, we tliink, to shew that 
 this " DE LtKY-Patent " has not received its quie.us from 
 the Seigniorial Act. 
 
 CONCLUSION : 
 
 The Plaintiffs have now, I think, satisfactorily shewn that 
 they are entitled to succeed, upon e^ery branch of th ir case- 
 When J began this Factum, I had no idea that it would have 
 filled more space than a couple score of pages ; as I progressed, 
 however, with the work, I foimd that each branch of the case, 
 that I entered on, opened up new vistas of enquiry, and com- 
 pelled me to wi'itG almost a honk, a thing I dreaded all the 
 more from my recollection of Byron's wish that his enemy 
 should " write a book ". Having concluded my task, hardly 
 to my own eati-faction, it only remains 'or me to express my 
 warmest thanks to Mr. Justice Taechereau and ^ others 
 for the loiin of rare and valuable works cited in this 
 Factum. To my gifted youngfriend, Charles Hamilton, Esquire, 
 Advocate, I am, in an especial manner indebted for a work 
 200 years' old, and now out of print ; I allud- to Prynnb'b 
 Auriun Reginae. The value to me of that book may be 
 
— 228 — 
 
 ^^athercd from iho fact tluit it contains a copy of Letters- 
 Patent, refei-iiiipf to a statute of Edward III, which seem to 
 have escaped tlie attention of every English Law- writer. 
 
 The M-liule respectfully submitted. 
 
 C^iebec, 24tli December, 18GS. 
 
 J. CFARIIELL, 
 
 Attv. fur Plaintifts. 
 
)f Letters- 
 ill seem to 
 •iter. 
 
 aintitFs.