The order in Council is manifestly in consonance with law and reason. The grave consequences which might have flowed from the Council adopting a different course will be pointed out when we come in the sequel to consider the proceedings had in relation to the same subject by the Committee of Grievances, who took upon themselves to determine this question, and in a manner which I fear will be found contrary to law. At the instance of the Provincial Secretary, the Attorney General was directed to prepare the draught of a certificate for authenticating documents executed before notaries who had not renewed their commissions; and, in strict conformity with the aforesaid report of the committee of the Executive Council, he prepared and transmitted to the Provincial Secretary for his guidance, the following draught of such certificate:

"His Excellency, &c. &c., to all to whom these presents may come :-I do hereby certify that A. B., previous to the demise of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, to wit, on the .........day of............in the year of our Lord one thousand

...hundred and............, was in due form of law commissioned to be and act as a Public Notary in and for the Province of Lower Canada, and that full faith and entire credit are and ought to be given to his signature in that capacity, in so far as the same may be warranted by law, under the said appointment."

The petitioner seems further to have complained of some change in the form of the conmissions granted to the Notaries. From the time of the passing of the provincial ordinance regulating the admission of Notaries, their commissions have always been during pleasure; and the new commissions are of course in the same terms. The changes made in them are purely of a technical character, not at all touching their rights or powers, and merely concerning the form in which those powers were to be conferred. To judge from the questions which were put by the committee, they seem to have been entirely unacquainted with the technical rules which dictated, and, as I think, rendered fitting these changes. The nature

K

of the changes, and the propriety of them, will be perfectly understood by lawyers, after perusal of the following answers given by the Attorney General to questions put to him by the committee respecting them :

For what reason did you think proper to change the form of the commissions for Notaries since the demise of his late Majesty George the Fourth, whilst you did not think proper to change that of the commissions for Barristers (Attornies)? Whatever changes may have been adopted in framing the commissions of Notaries, subsequently to the demise of his late Majesty George the Fourth, were adopted in consideration of legal fitness and propriety. In such new commissions as may have been required for Attorneis, no alteration was deemed necessary or expedient.

What law, or what part of any law, authorised you to change the form of the old commissions for Notaries, and to insert therein the following words :-" William the Fourth, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith," "at his special instance," "of our especial grace," "certain knowledge and mere motion;""in testimony whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, and the great seal of our said Province of Lower Canada to be hereunto affixed"— "Witness Matthew Lord Aylmer, Administrator of the Government," &c., which are not found in the old form for commissions of Notaries?-The words mentioned in this question, as not being to be found in former commissions of Notaries, are words de style, used in instruments of this nature, issued under the great seal. They are not to be found in the old commissions, because these commissions were issued under the seal at arms of the Governor for the time being. No law is deviated from or infringed by the use of the words referred to.

Can you state the reasons which required the great seal to be affixed to the new commissions for Notaries, and the words "of our mere motion" to be inserted therein, which are not to be found in the old commissions for Notaries?-The general rule with respect to the form of instruments to be used in the appointment of public officers is, that such appointment be made by an instrument under the great seal of the Province. Being, on the occasion referred to, required, for the first time in my official capacity, to prepare the draught of a commission for Notaries, I deemed it proper to advert to this rule, and therefore prepared the draught in the form in which it would pass the great seal.

Why, therefore, did you not cause the great seal to be affixed to the commission for Attornies, and cause the same words to be inserted therein, since they are as much public officers as Notaries ?—There are considerations which distinguish the commissions granted to Attornies from those granted to Notaries.

Are not the qualifications of Attornies and Notaries in this Province regulated by the same law, and what is the reason of the difference you make?-The principal cause of difference is found in the circumstance of Attornies being officers of certain courts, to whose superintending authority and coercive power in the discharge of their duties they are subject; whereas Notaries, as public officers of the government, are charged with more important powers and duties, and act independently without any other controul than that imposed by the provisions of law.

By what law, or what part of any law, were you authorised to insert in the commissions of Attornies, and in the old commissions of Notaries, the words "during pleasure?"-The commissions which have been issued under the ordinance regulating the appointment of Attornies and Notaries, from the time of the passing of the ordinance to the present time, that is, for nearly half a century, have, without exception, contained these words, which are to be found in the new as well as in the old commissions.

Are the words "at his special instance," which are met with in the new commissions for Notaries, also words de style, in commissions under the great seal, or for what other reason have they been inserted?-These words are introduced into the commission, because it is only on the special application of the individual that they are issued, as required by the ordi

nance.

Is the new commission for Notaries in the usual form of commissions under the great seal?-The commissions for Notaries are framed in strict conformity with the requirements of the ordinance, and in the form of instruments under the great seal.

Do you conceive that any greater controul would be established over Notaries under the new form than under the old? -No."

These details, I am sensible, are tedious, but they are necessary to enable the public to come to a right judgment upon the correctness of the report in question, to the examination of which I shall next proceed.

NO. VII.

ON THE FIRST REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF GRIEVANCES.

Quibus in controversiis cum sæpe a mendacio contra verum homines stare con suescerent, dicendi assiduitas aluit audaciam, ut necessario superiores illi propter injurias civium resistere audacibus, et opitulari suis quisque necessariis cogerentur. Itaque cum in dicendo sæpe par, nonnunquam etiam superior visus esset is, qui, omisso studio sapientiæ, nihil sibi præter eloquentiam comparasset, fiebat, ut et multitudinis, et suo judicio, dignus, qui rempublicam gereret, videretur. Hinc nimirum non injuria, cum ad gubernacula reipublicæ, temerarii, atque audaces homines accesserant, maxima ac miserrima naufragia fiebant. CIC. DE INV.

THE SUBJECT RESUMED.

HAVING thus disposed of the proceedings had in relation to this matter, within the Colony, we may now go back to the consideration of the public law applicable to the subject, and of the course pursued by the committee. But before doing so, we are called upon to look at the report of the committee itself; and it would have been satisfactory to find therein what the public had a right to expect-a plain and distinct enunciation of the question in controversy, and of the principles which were to lead to its solution. The jejune and immature character of this production precludes our taking it as any standard for the enquiry which we are to institute; we are constrained, in the first instance, to look at the subject as it stands in itself, and we shall afterwards examine the divergencies of this production.

The matter submitted to the committee would, to mature minds, have distributed itself under three heads :

1st. Are the officers of the Government within the Colony holding commissions from the crown during pleasure, generally, bound to renew their commissions upon each new demise of the crown?

2d. Do the Advocates and Notaries Public commissioned within the Province fall under the operation of this rule, or are they an exception to it?

3d. Have the Advocates and Notaries any just ground of complaint for the course pursued by the Government in relation to the renewal of commissions upon the late demise of the crown?

Upon the first head we apprehend that it is not easy to give any thing more distinct than that which the opinion of the Attorney General affords. The question submitted to him. was not of peculiar difficulty, but ex pede Herculem. Short and easy as this production is, one can readily believe that it comes from the pen of a man who is confessedly the first lawyer of Lower Canada.

"QUEBEC, 8th December, 1830.

SIR,-I have been honoured with the commands of his Excellency the Administrator of the Government, signified in your letter of the 7th instant, requiring me to report with all practicable dispatch, for his Lordship's information, what effect, in my opinion, the demise of his late Majesty George the Fourth will have on commissions of public officers in this Province, after the lapse of six months from that event, and whether a renewal of such commissions will be of indispensable necessity before the expiration of the said period of six months.

In obedience to his Excellency's commands, I have the honour to state, that, according to the first rule of the common law, the commissions of public officers in this Province, which were in force at the time of the demise of his late Majesty George the Fourth, would have been determined by that event. But this rule of the common law has been modified by the statute 6th Anne, 7, according to the provisions of which, all such commissions will continue in force for six months from the period of his late Majesty's demise. At the expiration of this period, the rule of the common law will have the same effect in determining the commissions of public officers which