CHAPTER II
The Early British Period
When Canada passed under the British flag by conquest there was for a time confusion as to the law in force. During the military regime from 1760 to 1764 the authorities did the best they could and applied such law as they thought the best for the particular case. There was no dislocation in the common affairs of the country. When Canada was formally ceded to Britain by the Treaty of Paris, 1763,[1] it was not long before there was issued a royal proclamation creating among other things a "Government of Quebec" with its western boundary a line drawn from the "South end of Lake Nipissim"[2] to the point at which the parallel of 45° north latitude crosses the River St. Lawrence. In all that vast territory the English law, civil and criminal, was introduced.[3] It is important now to see what was the law of England at the time respecting slavery.
The dictum of Lord Chief Justice Holt: "As soon as a slave enters England he becomes free,"[4] was succeeded by the decision of the Court of King's Bench to the same effect in the celebrated case of Somerset v. Stewart,[5] when Lord Mansfield is reported to have said: "The air of England has long been too pure for a slave and every man is free who breathes it."[6]
James Somerset,[7] a Negro slave of Charles Stewart in Jamaica, "purchased from the African coast in the course of the slave trade as tolerated in the plantations," had been brought by his master to England "to attend and abide with him and to carry him back as soon as his business should be transacted." The Negro refused to go back, whereupon he was put in irons and taken on board the ship Ann and Mary lying in the Thames and bound for Jamaica. Lord Mansfield granted a writ of habeas corpus requiring Captain Knowles to produce Somerset before him with the cause of the detainer. On the motion, the cause being stated as above indicated, Lord Mansfield referred the matter to the full court of King's Bench; whereupon, on June 22, 1772, judgment was given for the Negro.[8] The basis of the decision and the theme of the argument were that the only kind of slavery known to English law was villeinage, that the Statute of Tenures enacted in 1660, expressly abolished villeins regardant to a manor and by implication villeins in gross. The reasons for the decision would hardly stand fire at the present day. The investigation of Paul Vinogradoff and others have conclusively established that there was not a real difference in status between the so-called villein regardant and villein in gross, and that in any case the villein was not properly a slave but rather a serf.[9] Moreover, the Statute of Tenures deals solely with tenure and not with status.
But what seems to have been taken for granted, namely that slavery, personal slavery, had never existed in England and that the only unfree person was the villein, who, by the way, was real property, is certainly not correct. Slaves were known in England as mere personal goods and chattels, bought and sold, at least as late as the middle of the twelfth century.[10] However weak the reasons given for the decision, its authority has never been questioned and it is good law. But it is good law for England, for even in the Somerset case it was admitted that a concurrence of unhappy circumstances had rendered slavery necessary[11] in the American colonies; and Parliament had recognized the right of property in slaves there.[12] Consequently so long as the slaves, Panis or Negro, remained in the colony they were not enfranchised by the law of the conqueror but retained their servile status.
The early records show the use of slaves. General James Murray, who became Governor of the Quebec Fortifications and adjoining territory immediately after the fall of Quebec and in 1763 the first Captain General and Governor in Chief of the new Province of Quebec,[13] writing from Quebec, November 2, 1763, to John Watts in New York speaks thus of the promoting of agriculture in the Province:
"I must most earnestly entreat your assistance, without servants nothing can be done, had I the inclination to employ soldiers which is not the case, they would disappoint me, and Canadians will work for nobody but themselves. Black Slaves are certainly the only people to be depended upon, but it is necessary, I imagine they should be born in one or other of our Northern Colonies, the Winters here will not agree with a Native of the torrid zone, pray therefore if possible procure for me two Stout Young Fellows, who have been accustomed to Country Business, and as I shall wish to see them happy, I am of opinion there is little felicity without a Communication with the Ladys, you may buy for each a clean young wife, who can wash and do the female offices about a farm. I shall begrudge no price, so hope we may, by your goodness succeed."[14]
From time to time slavery makes its appearance in official correspondence. Moreover, there are still subsisting records which show the prevalence of slavery in the province.[15] In January, 1763, there took place at Longueuil the marriage of Marie, slave of baroness de Longueuil, with Jacques César, slave of M. Ignace Gamelin. From 1763 to 1769 there are found records of the baptism of the children of slaves in the registers of the Parish of Lachine. In the first issue of the Gazette of Montreal, June 3, 1778, there is an advertisement by the widow Dufy Desaulniers, offering a reward of six dollars for the return to her of a female slave who had run away on the 14th. She was thirty-five years old and she was dressed in striped calico of the ordinary cut and was of "tolerable stoutness."