Questions submitted and proposed to Messrs Powell, Adhemar and de Lisle by the Baron Maseres with the answers of these Messrs, given in their meeting on March 13, 1784: Difference between revisions

Questions submitted and proposed to Messrs Powell, Adhemar and de Lisle by the Baron Maseres with the answers of these Messrs, given in their meeting on March 13, 1784 (view source)

Revision as of 15:33, 30 March 2007

852 bytes removed , 30 March 2007

m

no edit summary

Mathieugp

wikieditor

10,503

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Image:Maseres-left.gif|thumb|Baron Francis Maseres, Attorney General of Quebec, from 1766 to 1769]]Questions submitted and proposed, <br />
 at the end of February last, <br />
-to Messrs Powell, Adhemar and de Lisle, deputy of the Province of Quebec, <br />
+to Messrs [[Powell]], [[Adhemar]] and [[de Lisle]], deputies of the Province of Quebec, <br />
-by the Baron Maseres, <br />
+by the Baron [[Maseres]], <br />
 General Agent of the said province, <br />
 with the answers of these Messrs, <br />
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 on March 13, 1784.
-Would it please the ''Canadiens'' that the English law of Habeas Corpus be solemnly introduced, by an Act of Parliament, in Canada; so that the power to put men in prison, be exerted only by written orders signed by the magistrate who gives them, and in which would be expressed the cause of the imprisonment; and that the judges of the province be given the right to examine the causes expressed in these orders, and, if they were not legitimate grounds to imprison a man according to existing laws of the province, to liberate the people, wrongfully held captive, in their prisons, either without any condition, and with or without bail, according to whether the laws would require it; and that all this procedure be application as much for the people who would be imprisoned by the order of the governor, or the King himself, as for those who would be imprisoned by any other person?
+Would it please the ''Canadiens'' that the English law of [[Habeas Corpus]] be solemnly introduced, by an Act of Parliament, in Canada; so that the power to put men in prison, be exerted only by written orders signed by the magistrate who gives them, and in which would be expressed the cause of the imprisonment; and that the judges of the province be given the right to examine the causes expressed in these orders, and, if they were not legitimate grounds to imprison a man according to existing laws of the province, to liberate the people, wrongfully held captive, in their prisons, either without any condition, and with or without bail, according to whether the laws would require it; and that all this procedure be application as much for the people who would be imprisoned by the order of the governor, or the King himself, as for those who would be imprisoned by any other person?
-''Secondly'', -- Would it please the ''Canadiens'' that be restored, in the courts of justice of the province, the right to have [[jurés]] decide the facts that would be disputed between the litigating parties in civil matters, if the parties, or one of them required it, as it was in the province from September 1764, up until May first, 1775, when the [[Act of the Parliament of the year 1774]], for the establishment of the government of this province, began  to take force? -- And, if sworn were restored in the civil matters, would be it pleasant with the Canadians, that while returning their reports/ratios, or verdicts, on the facts subjected to their decision, one required them that they be, all twelve the, unanimous ones, or rather than they are said to be it; or would it be more pleasant to them than the decision of nine sworn, which would agree, out of the twelve, was supposed sufficient to decide the fact in question according to their feeling, in spite of the opposition of the others three sworn? -- And, moreover, would it be pleasant with the Canadians that sworn be paid by the litigeantes parts, or by the part which would require to have some, a moderate sum, like one piastre Spanish each one, or of a half piastre, to reward them for time and attention which they would be obliged to give to these decisions?
+''Secondly'', -- Would it please the ''Canadiens'' that be restored, in the courts of justice of the province, the right to have [[jurors]] decide the facts that would be disputed between the litigating parties in civil matters, if the parties, or one of them required it, as it was in the province from September 1764, up until May first, 1775, when the [[Act of the Parliament of the year 1774]], for the establishment of the government of this province, began  to take force? -- And, if jurors were restored in civil matters, would be it please the ''Canadiens'', that while giving their reports, or verdicts, on the matters submitted to their decision, one required that they be, all twelve, unanimous, or rather than they claim to be so; or would it be more pleasant to the ''Canadiens'' than the decision of nine jurors, who would agree, out of the twelve, be considered sufficient to decide the matter in question according to their feeling, in spite of the opposition of the others three jurors? -- And, moreover, would it be pleasant to the ''Canadiens'' that jurors be paid by the litigating parties, or by the party which would require it, a moderate sum, like one [[Spanish piastre]] each, or half a piastre, to reward them for the time and attention which they would be obliged to give to these decisions?
--- Et, si les jurés étaient rétablis dans les matières civiles, serait-il agréable aux Canadiens, qu'en rendant leurs rapports, ou verdicts, sur les faits soumis à leur décision, on exigeât d'eux qu'ils fussent, tous les douze, unanimes, ou plutôt qu'ils se disent l'être; ou leur serait-il plus agréable que la décision de neuf jurés, qui seraient d'accord, hors des douze, fût censée suffisante pour décider le fait en question selon leur sentiment, malgré l'opposition des autres trois jurés? -- Et, en outre, serait-il agréable aux Canadiens que les jurés fussent payés par les parties litigeantes, ou par la partie qui demanderait d'en avoir, une somme modique, comme une [[piastre espagnole]] chacun, ou d'une demi piastre, pour les récompenser du temps et de l'attention qu'ils seraient obligés de donner à ces décisions?
 ''Troisièmement'', -- Serait-il agréable aux Canadiens, que, pour faire agir les membres du [[Conseil législatif]] de la province avec plus de liberté et de zèle pour le bien de la province, et pour les rendre plus respectables aux yeux des autres habitants de la province, il fût ordonné de la façon la moins équivoque et la plus solennelle, par un acte du parlement, que le gouverneur n'eût pas le pouvoir de destituer aucun membre de ce conseil de son office de conseiller, ou même de le suspendre pour un temps, quelque court qu'il fût, sans le consentement de quatre cinquièmes parties des membres du conseil, c'est-à-dire, s'ils étaient vingt conseillers, de seize d'entre ces vingt; et, en tous cas, si les conseillers étaient moins en nombre que quinze, sans le consentement d'au moins douze conseillers; lequel consentement des conseillers, qui se joindraient au gouverneur pour suspendre un de leurs confrères, serait signé de leurs mains sur les registres du conseil, et aussi sur une autre copie qui serait donnée à la personne suspendue. Pourvu toujours que le roi lui-même conservât le pouvoir de destituer tel conseiller qu'il voudrait, quand bon lui semblerait, ou par un acte fait en son conseil privé, ou par ordre signé de sa main, et contresigné par le secrétaire d'État.