according to the directions of his Excellency, the Civil Secretary writes a letter to the Attorney General dated the 29th of the same month of December, in which he says in reply to the foregoing letter, that the mind of his Excellency was much relieved by the assurance which that letter conveyed, that the interests of the crown were not involved in the case of Mr. Lampson, and more especially as this assurance enabled his Excellency to call without scruple for his professional services as Attorney General in a matter arising out of of the statements contained in the petition of Mr. Lampson; that it appeared by the petition of Mr. Lampson, that he was sub lessee of the King's Posts, which he held under the Crown, in the enjoyment of which he complained of being incommoded, owing to the circumstance of the boundary of the seigniory of Mille Vaches, (which touches upon the lands called the King's Posts) not being accurately defined, and the petitioner appealed to the justice of the Crown as possessor of the King's Posts to put an end to this state of uncertainty, by causing the metes and bounds of the seigniory of Mille Vaches to be accurately surveyed and defined. That His Excellency was clearly of opinion that this appeal of Mr. Lampson to the Crown was founded on justice and equity, and that it was incumbent on the crown as possessor, and not upon Mr. Lampson, as sub lessee, to establish the boundary in question, and that his Excellency had therefore come to the decision to comply with the prayer of Mr. Lampson's pe tition, by directing the necessary legal steps to be taken towards establishing the boundaries and metes of the seigniory of Mille Vaches.

Measures appear to have been forthwith taken to obtain the requisite documents for the institution of this suit, and this, together with the counter petition to his Excellency, of the Seigniors of Mille Vaches, having occasioned some short delay, the action for settling the metes and bounds of that seigniory was instituted and returned in the Court of King's Bench for the District of Quebec. If the fourth resolution of

the Committee has any application at all, it must apply principally, if not solely, to the proceedings above adverted to, and it is apprehended that in these nothing will be found to justify the inference that the Attorney General, by becoming counsel for the Hudson's Bay, had placed himself in opposition to the interests of the lessee, and by a necessary consequence also, to the interests of the Crown itself.

These proceedings constitute the sole subject of complaint in the first petition of Mr. Lampson to his Excellency the Governor in Chief; the utter absence of foundation is plain, and manifest to all.

I come next to the consideration of the additional matters contained in the petition to the three branches of the Legislature, which were referred to the Committee of Grievances of the Assembly, and whose report forms the subject matter of the present enquiry.

These may all be reducible to the complaint, that the law officer of the crown acted as a private advocate for one of the parties, in certain private suits pending between the Hudson's Bay Company and Mr. Lampson, the lessee of the King's Posts. It is not pretended that, in these suits, (as was erroneously set up in the seigniory of Mille Vaches) any public interests were involved. If these complaints could be supported at all, they could only be so upon the ground that the Attorney General ought not to act as a private advocate in private suits; and, accordingly, it is upon this ground that the committee, in their first, second and third reports, proceed; yet nothing is more clear than that the law officers of the crown are not interdicted from private practice, either in Great Britain or in any other parts of the colonies or possessions of his Majesty. There seem to be many reasons why their services should be open in private causes to the public at large. It is sufficient here to say, the established rule is that they shall be so, and that rule subsisting, no blame can attach to the public officer acting in private suits.

W

King's domain could be enticed from the lessee, and that the sum by him paid annually to the government, and the advances and comforts of the Indians which the petitioner was also bound to provide, could no longer under these circumstances be expected.

"That the petitioner must be permitted to express his regret, that the leading crown officer, (the Attorney General) should be found zealously engaged in advocating an interest so adverse to that of the true interests of the Crown, as that set up by the owners and lessees of Mille Vaches, and to express his hopes that his Excellency, upon mature consideration, will afford such relief and impartial justice as the petitioner is so fully entitled to."

And concludes with the following prayer:

"That his Excellency would be pleased to take the premises into his immediate and most serious consideration, and thereupon grant to the petitioner the relief prayed for."

The day after the receipt of the abovementioned letter of the 23d December, the Attorney General addressed a letter to the Civil Secretary, wherein, after acknowledging the receipt of it, he proceeds as follows:-

"In obedience to his Lordship's commands, I have the honour to state that the duty of the office of Attorney General, which I have the honour of holding, necessarily precludes me from taking any retainer to support the interests of individuals, in opposition to or inconsistent with those of the crown; and I have not, therefore, become, nor could be retained, by any party adverse to Mr. Lampson, to oppose or question interests in him, which are identified with those of the crown. The case to which Mr. Lampson, I presume, refers, and which, it has erroneously been supposed by him, furnishes ground for his assertion, is a possessory action, (called in the French law an action "de Reintegrande," being the "Inter dictum unde vi" of the Roman law) recently brought by me for the Hudson's Bay Company, against Mr. Lampson and his servants, for having, with force and arms, entered upon a piece of land which then was, and during a long period previously had been, in the peaceable possession of the Hudson's Bay Company, as lessees of the seigniory of Mille Vaches -for having expelled therefrom the servants of the Company-for having continued the erection of, and erected, a house, buildings and fence thereon-and for having since for

cibly retained possession thereof, &c. This action turns exclusively on the alledged fact of possession in the Hudson's Bay Company, at the time of the trespass complained of, without reference to boundaries or right of property. In this action the boundaries between Mille Vaches' and the adjoining waste lands of the crown, of which Mr. Lampson is lessee, cannot come in question, or be litigated; nor can any right or interest of the crown be in the smallest degree promoted, injured, or affected by the proceedings to be had, or the decision to be given in this action. The ground on which this action rests is that of unjust spoliation by force and violence; and the rule of law applicable to it is, spoliatus ante omnia restituendus est. If, as alledged by the Hudson's Bay Company, they have been by force dispossessed by Mr. Lampson of land which was in their peaceable possession, they must recover judgment against him in this action, even though he were the lawful proprietor of the land.

"The law in such case requires that the despoiled party be reinstated in possession, before the question of right can be litigated, and this can only be done in a "Petitory action" to be brought by the party which claims the right of property. It is manifest, therefore, that Mr. Lampson could derive no benefit in this action, from a right of property in his Majesty, even if such right existed; and it is equally manifest, therefore, that the interests of the Crown are in no respect identified with those of Mr. Lampson in this matter. He has chosen to incur the high responsibility of taking the law into his own hands and he must abide the result. The Crown is a stranger to the illegal acts complained of by the Hudson's Bay Company, and cannot and ought not to be implicated in the consequences of them.

"I will only beg leave further to observe that if it be suppos ed that any part of the waste lands of the Crown are included within limits improperly ascribed to the seigniory of "Mille Vaches," the remedy for the recovery of it would be found, not in any interference on the part of the Crown in the differences between Mr. Lampson and the Hudson's Bay Company (as Mr. Lampson would seem to desire) nor in any action against that Company, but in an action against the lessors of the Hudson's Bay Company, proprietors of the seigniory of "Mille Vaches," for the establishment of boundaries between that seigniory and the adjoining lands of the Crown."

This explanation could not be otherwise than satisfactory to his Excellency the Administrator of the Government and

according to the directions of his Excellency, the Civil Secretary writes a letter to the Attorney General dated the 29th of the same month of December, in which he says in reply to the foregoing letter, that the mind of his Excellency was much relieved by the assurance which that letter conveyed, that the interests of the crown were not involved in the case of Mr. Lampson, and more especially as this assurance enabled his Excellency to call without scruple for his professional services as Attorney General in a matter arising out of of the statements contained in the petition of Mr. Lampson; that it appeared by the petition of Mr. Lampson, that he was sub lessee of the King's Posts, which he held under the Crown, in the enjoyment of which he complained of being incommoded, owing to the circumstance of the boundary of the seigniory of Mille Vaches, (which touches upon the lands called the King's Posts) not being accurately defined, and the petitioner appealed to the justice of the Crown as possessor of the King's Posts to put an end to this state of uncertainty, by causing the metes and bounds of the seigniory of Mille Vaches to be accurately surveyed and defined. That His Excellency was clearly of opinion that this appeal of Mr. Lampson to the Crown was founded on justice and equity, and that it was incumbent on the crown as possessor, and not upon Mr. Lampson, as sub lessee, to establish the boundary in question, and that his Excellency had therefore come to the decision to comply with the prayer of Mr. Lampson's petition, by directing the necessary legal steps to be taken towards establishing the boundaries and metes of the seigniory of Mille Vaches.

Measures appear to have been forthwith taken to obtain the requisite documents for the institution of this suit, and this, together with the counter petition to his Excellency, of the Seigniors of Mille Vaches, having occasioned some short delay, the action for settling the metes and bounds of that seigniory was instituted and returned in the Court of King's Bench for the District of Quebec. If the fourth resolution of