Anyone who knew Haldimand's plan of governing Quebec, could prophesy what would follow and prophesy almost the particular methods and agents to be employed.

The complaint was effective: Judge Adam Mabane who was the "handy man" of Haldimand's Administration, was despatched to Montreal to bring the erring Magistrates to their senses. He at once called a general meeting of the Justices of the Peace, and in the name of the King commanded them to enforce the law in all its rigour.35 This was effective -the Writ of Supersedeas36 retained all its force; and we hear no more of indisposition to enforce the law or of insult or disrespect to the legal representative of the Crown.

Powell says that his popularity suffered from these prosecutions; but it may be doubtful if any unpopularity resulting was of serious financial disadvantage to him. Any loss thereby suffered must have been more than made up by his official retainers-he informs us that he "was employed by the Crown in the delicate service of conducting the Court duties until the Peace" in 1783.

In the following year, occurred an incident creditable to Powell's humanity; it is significant of the times and requires no explanation-this will be told in his own words:37

"Sir

"Montreal, 22 August,

1782.

"I should make an Apology for the Liberty I take but that I considered it a public Duty.

"When you were here some time since, I am informed that mention was made to you of a young female slave bought of the Indians by a Mr. Campbell, a Publican of this Town, and that when you learned that she was the Daughter of a decent family in Pensilvania,38 captured by the Indians at 10 years of age, your Humanity opposed itself to the barbarous Claim of her Master and you Promised that she should be returned to her Parents by the first Flag with Prisoners.39

"In Consequence of such a Promise the Child had been taught to expect a speedy release from her Bondage, and, finding that her Name was in the List permitted by his Excellency to cross the Lines with a flag from St. Johns, she imagined that there could be no Obstacle to her Return; but, being informed that Mr. Campbell had threatened to give her back to the Indians, she eloped last Evening, and took refuge in my House from whence a female Prisoner, (sometime a nurse to

my children) was to sett off this Morning for the Neighborhood of the Child's Parents. Upon Application from Mr. Campbell to Brigadr, Genl. De Spêht,40 setting forth that He had furnished her with money, an order was obtained for the deliv ery of the Child to her Master and there was no time for any other Accommodation" than an undertaking on my part to reimburse Mr. Campbell the Price he paid for her to the Indians. This I am to do on his producing a Certificate from some Military Gentleman, whom he says was present at the sale.*2 I have no objection to an Act of Charity of this Nature, but all Political Considerations aside I am of opinion that the national Honor is interested, that this Redemption should not be the Act of an Individual. As Commissary of Prisoners I have stated the Case to you, Sir, that you may determine upon the propriety of reimbursing me, or not, the sum I may be obliged to pay on this occasion.

"That all may be fairly stated I should observe that the Child was never returned a Prisoner, nor has drawn Provisions as such-although there can be no doubt of her political character, having been captured by our Savages.

"I am favored with your's by Saturday's post and have since layed it before His Excellency the Commander in Chief, and I have the Pleasure to inform you that he approves much of your Conduct and feels himself obliged for your very humane Interposition to rescue the poor unfortunate Sarah Cole** from the Clutches of the miscreant Campbell; and I am further to inform you that your letter has been transmitted by his Secretary to the Judges at Montreal, not only to make Campbell forfeit the money he says he paid for the Girl, but if possible to punish and make him an example to prevent such inhuman conduct for the Future; but in any Event you shall be indemnified for the very generous Engagement you entered into.

[Signed] Rich. Murray"45

"Mr. Powell had redeemed his word the day it was given and paid Mr. Campbell Twelve Guineas46 on production of a string of Wampum which a witness said he saw delivered by the Indians with the Girl and the Money paid by Campbell."

IT

CHAPTER IV

THE STORY OF DU CALVET

T was in the year 1782 that a decision was given of the utmost moment for the inhabitants of Canada-the object of the decision was the same Pierre Du Calvet who was Powell's first client. Let us first give Powell's version.

"Mr. P.'s unfortunate Client, Peter Ducalvet having escaped the vengeance of the Judges in one way, was suddenly taken from his dwelling House in the night by an armed force headed by a military officer and conveyed to Quebec (80 miles) where he was imprisoned on board a Ship in the River under a supposed charge of High Treason. This man was a high tempered Hugonot from Gascony, who had returned to Canada to enjoy his religion in freedom.1 He was rich but virulent and had become so obnoxious to two of the Judges, (Roman Catholics) that their marked Partiality in all Cases to which he was Party was a matter of public animadversion and drew forth the Libel, which Mr. P. had defended. On the Charge of Treason which no one believed Mr. P. had applied to the Court of King's Bench for a writ of Habeas Corpus, when it was refused upon the ground that the enjoyment of personal Liberty was a civil right concerning which all Controversies were to be decided by the Laws of France which did (not) know the remedy applied for.

2

"Mr. P. was, however, indulged to communicate by open Letter with his unfortunate Client, who for years suffered every misery of close Imprisonment, under a capital charge, and for a long time with the Aggravation of exposure to the torture of a Recollet society of monks, in whose custody he was placed, with a view to convert him to the Church of Rome. "This Gentleman was finally discharged upon the express Command of the King, in the alternative of not bringing the charge to trial."

This is a very imperfect account and is misleading in many particulars. It is practically certain that Du Calvet adhered to the Americans during their occupancy of Canada. The evidence available at the time could not justify us in fixing treason upon him-that was based on his supply of goods to the American forces. That the American commander obtained

supplies for his troops during the occupation of Montreal is admitted: Du Calvet says that the goods were taken from his warehouse by force and probably the form of force was gone through. But even if he did sell the goods, the sale of goods by a merchant to an alien enemy in control of his city is not necessarily treasonable. Du Calvet, however, went much further; he accepted a Commission as "Ensingne" in "the Canadian regiment commanded by Col. Moss Hazon" (Moses Hazen) to be composed of the Canadians who joined or were to join the American Troops.

Of course Powell could not know of this; he took his client's story as true, and Du Calvet at all times most positively and emphatically denied all charges of disloyalty.

4

Nor was he "taken from his dwelling house in the night": he was arrested near Three Rivers when on his way home from Quebec. On the 26th September, 1780, he left Quebec for Montreal, and went as far as Three Rivers without hindrance or molestation, "but on the 27th September, 1780, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when he had gone about four miles and a half beyond Three Rivers, he was met by Captain George Laws (Lawe) of the 84th Regiment or Royal Emigrants . . . and another officer. They came up to him on the road with pistols in their hands, and told him that he was their prisoner and that they had order to arrest him wherever they found him to carry him before General Haldimand.” This is Du Calvet's own account and it is supported by contemporary documents, Reports, &c.5

This was one of a number of arrests made about that time on the mere order of the Governor General without sworn information or cause shown sufficient under the law of England. But the Governor exercised the powers admittedly possessed by the French Viceroys who had in that regard much the same discretion as their masters, the Kings of France.

Du Calvet was imprisoned first on the Canceaux (Captain Shank) a 400 ton, 28 gun Sloop of the Royal Navy lying in the River opposite Quebec-the Captain receiving orders to prevent any person to speak to him. While legal proof was wanting there were even then very strong grounds for suspicion of treasonable communication with the Enemy.

Powell was consulted without delay, but he advised that however irregular the arrest might be, there was no legal remedy: he recommended application to the Governor for clemency. The prisoner had already written to Haldimand asserting his innocence and asking what was the charge against

8

him: this proving fruitless, he wrote again once more protesting his innocence and desiring to be allowed to go to London' and again imploring consideration for his letters. Other letters saying that he had done no wrong to King or State and asking for the immediate consideration of his case or a discharge from confinement elicited a reply from the Lieutenant Governor Cramahé that in such times of danger the same mild treatment could not be extended to persons as in times of peace. Complaints of ill-treatment on the ship procured him, after six weeks' imprisonment, a transfer to the Provost's prison at Quebec where he remained for a month, from time to time protesting his innocence, offering unconditional submission, imploring trial or discharge and asking to be allowed to sail for London10-all without success. He was, however, removed from the Military Prison to the Convent of the Recollet Monks at Quebec where he remained until May, 1783.

Had such a thing happened in England, a speedy application would have been made for a writ of Habeas Corpus: but before his removal to the Recollet Convent, a decision had been rendered by the Court of King's Bench at Quebec which showed the hopelessness of such an application in the Colony.

Charles Hay, "a person in trade" at Quebec, had been arrested in the Spring of 1780, in the same way and for the same cause as Du Calvet: failing to move the Governor by entreaty he at last in November, 1780, applied to the Court of King's Bench for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Chief Justice Livius was absent in England and the office of Chief Justice was being administered by the same three Commissioners who had sat on the trial of Du Calvet for Criminal Libel at Montreal in 1779, Mabane, Dunn and Williams: the court, thus constituted, held that the Writ was not in force in Canada.11 While in Civil Law countries a Court is not (in theory) bound by its own decisions as it is in Common Law countries,12 there was no hope that the Court so constituted would depart from its decision given in Hay's case, and Powell did not advise an application on the part of Du Calvet.

Du Calvet continued his appeals to Haldimand with the same want of success as before;18 the fact was that the authorities had no satisfactory proof of guilt but had strong grounds for suspicion and were diligently looking for evidence. It was considered and probably with reason—that it would be dangerous to allow him to be at large-he was "interned" for the sake of safety.

In October, 1781, it was decided to send Louis Jussome