Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The argument for the application of the royal proclamation of 1763 to British Columbia, its force and… Hutchings, Patricia Margaret 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A6_4 H87.pdf [ 13.55MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077695.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077695-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077695-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077695-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077695-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077695-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077695-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077695-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077695.ris

Full Text

THE ARGUMENT FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763 TO BRITISH COLUMBIA: ITS FORCE AND EFFECT By PATRICIA MARGARET HUTCHINGS LL.B. U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1983 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN LAWS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1987 (c) P a t r i c i a Margaret H u t c h i n g s , 1987  A 6  In  presenting  degree  at  this  the  thesis in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  British Columbia, I agree  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  of  department publication  this or of  thesis for by  his  or  her  that the  for  an advanced  Library shall make  it  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head  of  copying  my or  this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written  IVHIAJ  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6G/81)  representatives.  requirements  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be  permission.  Department of  the  PAGE i i ABSTRACT  The purpose o f t h i s work i s t o c o n s t r u c t t h e argument f o r the c o n t i n u i n g a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 t o B r i t i s h Columbia and t o examine i t s l e g a l f o r c e and e f f e c t i n r e l a t i o n to pre-Confederation c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t i o n .  T h i s has  important i m p l i c a t i o n s as t o the c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e o f a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. In Canada t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a s u i g e n e r i s , a b o r i g i n a l  legal  i n t e r e s t ( " a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e " ) i s no l o n g e r i n doubt.(1) S c a t t e r e d j u d i c i a l statements  have not f u l l y addressed  the s u i generis  n a t u r e of the i n t e r e s t but have focused s o l e l y on i t s 'common law' source(2) and have h e l d i t ,  l i k e o t h e r common law r i g h t s , t o  be s u b j e c t t o l e g i s l a t i v e a b r o g a t i o n . ( 3 ) That i s not t o say extinguishment  w i l l be l i g h t l y i m p l i e d . ( 4 ) A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s a r e  now r e c o g n i z e d and c o n f i r m e d i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t . ( 5 ) To t h e e x t e n t t h a t the a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t i s d e c l a r e d and c o n f i r m e d  i n the  Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763(6) a d i f f e r e n t argument can be  (1) G u e r i n v. R^, [1984] 6 W.W.R. 481 (S.C.C.). (2) Hamlet o f Baker Lake v. M i n i s t e r o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s and N o r t h e r n Development, [1980] 1 F.C. 518 (F.C.T.D. 1979) a t p. 568. (3) A.G. o f O n t a r i o v. Bear I s l a n d Foundation (4th) 321 (Ont. H.C.).  (1984), 15 D.L.R.  (4) Simon v. The Queen (1985), 23 C.C.C. (3d) 238 (S.C.C.). (5) C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867 30 & 31 V i c t . , c. 3 as am. by i t e m 1 of Sched. t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1982, Sched. B o f t h e Canada A c t , 1982, c. 11 (U.K.). (6) R. v. White and Bob (1965), 52 W.W.R. 193 (B.C.C.A.).  PAGE  iii  made.(7) The R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n i s a P r e r o g a t i v e i n s t r u m e n t .  The  " I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s " come towards the end o f t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n and address a s e r i e s o f d i v e r s e i s s u e s . geographic  C o n f u s i o n e x i s t s as t o t h e  scope o f the p r o v i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g I n d i a n l a n d s and  p a r t i c u l a r l y r e g a r d i n g t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n t o B r i t i s h Columbia.  It  i s here argued t h a t i t i s m i s l e a d i n g t o f o c u s s o l e l y on t h e geographic  scope as e x p l a i n e d i n t h e document i t s e l f .  The R o y a l  P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763, as a law o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e and m a n i f e s t l y u n i v e r s a l a p p l i c a t i o n , i t i s argued, a p p l i e d t o B r i t i s h Columbia, i f not as o f i t s enactment i n 1763, then  either  upon t h e a s s e r t i o n o f B r i t i s h S o v e r e i g n t y over t h a t a r e a o r by v i r t u e o f t h e C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865. F u r t h e r i t i s argued t h a t the P r o c l a m a t i o n enjoyed  the f o r c e  and e f f e c t o f an I m p e r i a l s t a t u t e i n t h e c o l o n i e s t o which i t applied.  The I n d i a n r i g h t s t h e r e i n d e c l a r e d o r c o n f i r m e d  became s t a t u t o r y r i g h t s .  thus  T h i s has i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s  r e g a r d i n g t h e s u s c e p t i b i l i t y o f the a r t i c u l a t e d r i g h t s t o c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t i v e derogation. In o r d e r t o understand  f u l l y t h e import o f t h e R o y a l  P r o c l a m a t i o n i n the c o l o n i e s i t i s n e c e s s a r y B r i t i s h c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r u l e s governing  t o understand  t h e n a t u r e and e x e r c i s e o f  the S o v e r e i g n ' s p r e r o g a t i v e l e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e powers i n newly a c q u i r e d t e r r i t o r i e s and the r u l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e I m p e r i a l laws t o which the c o l o n i e s a r e s u b j e c t .  (7)  Whether or not t h e R o y a l  v. White and Bob (1965), 52 D.L.R. (2d) 481  (S.C.C.).  PAGE i v Proclamation  extends t o a f t e r a c q u i r e d c o l o n i e s depends i n p a r t  upon t h e c a t e g o r y o f P r e r o g a t i v e t o which t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n belongs.  B a s i c a l l y "minor" p r e r o g a t i v e s o p e r a t e  i n those  t e r r i t o r i e s i n which t h e B r i t i s h common law o p e r a t e s  and a r e  f r e e l y a l t e r a b l e by t h e c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t i v e b o d i e s .  "Major"  P r e r o g a t i v e s , however, e x i s t i n a l l B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i e s whether or not t h e B r i t i s h common law i s i n f o r c e and o p e r a t e limit colonial  t o b i n d and  legislatures.  The argument i s made t h a t t h e I n d i a n l a n d p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Royal Proclamation  o f 1763 should be be c l a s s i f i e d as major  P r e r o g a t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n on the grounds t h a t : (1)  they a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n nature h a v i n g t o do p r i n c i p a l l y w i t h l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e powers o f Governors t o a c q u i r e unsurrendered t r i b a l l a n d s , or  (2)  as l e g i s l a t i o n g o v e r n i n g the p r o c e d u r e t o be adopted f o r Crown a l i e n a t i o n o f I n d i a n l a n d s they f a l l w i t h i n t h e King's peculiar authority. F u r t h e r t h a t as major P r e r o g a t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n t h e I n d i a n  Land p r o v i s i o n s enjoyed t h e f o r c e and e f f e c t o f an I m p e r i a l s t a t u t e w i t h t h e necessary  intendment f o r t h e c o l o n i e s w i t h i n t h e  meaning o f the C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865. F u r t h e r t h a t by v i r t u e o f such A c t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763  ( a t l e a s t up u n t i l t h e p a s s i n g o f t h e S t a t u t e o f  Westminster, 1931) operated  to void c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t i o n  (or f o r  t h a t matter Dominion or P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n ) repugnant t o any of i t s p r o v i s i o n s t o t h e e x t e n t o f any such repugnancy.  PAGE v  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  v  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  viii  INTRODUCTION PART I : 1. 2. 3.  1  THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION  (iii) (iv)  Introduction Indian P r o v i s i o n s of the Royal Proclamation - P a r t IV The I n d i a n B e n e f i c i a r i e s o f P a r t IV G e o g r a p h i c Reach o f P a r t IV o f t h e Proclamation  Prospective o f 1764 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)  5.  10  Introduction C o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 G e o g r a p h i c Scope o f t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 (i) (ii)  4.  OF 1763  Effect  23 23 26 30 33  Proclamation 48  Introduction C o n s t r u c t i o n of the T e r r i t o r i a l E f f e c t of the Royal Proclamation's Indian Provisions i n L i g h t of T h e i r L e g i s l a t i v e Purpose B a s i c Rules of S t a t u t o r y C o n s t r u c t i o n re Temporal A p p l i c a t i o n Prospective A p p l i c a t i o n of C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Documents Extension of T e r r i t o r i a l L i m i t s of B r i t i s h Jurisdiction C r e a t i o n o f New C o l o n i e s and P l a n t a t i o n s  Statutory of 1763 (i) (ii)  A p p l i c a t i o n of the Royal  10 19  of t h e Royal  48 49 56 62 66 72  Proclamation  Introduction S t a t u t o r y E f f e c t of the Indian The R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763  82 82 P r o v i s i o n s of 89  PAGE v i PART I I : COLONIES  THE  ROYAL PREROGATIVE AS  The  Royal  (i) (ii) 2.  (iii) (iv) 3. 4.  100  Introduction H i s t o r i c a l Roots of  the  Royal  Prerogative  Acquisition  (i) (ii) PART I I I :  100 102 107  Introduction 107 The P r e r o g a t i v e L e g i s l a t i v e Power as I t R e l a t e s to Settlements 108 The P r e r o g a t i v e L e g i s l a t i v e Powers as I t R e l a t e s t o C o n q u e r e d and Ceded C o l o n i e s 113 The K i n g ' s C o n s t i t u e n t L e g i s l a t i v e Power i n R e l a t i o n to B r i t i s h Dominions 119  The Laws t o Which C o l o n i e s A r e S u b j e c t The I m p e r i a l Law i n F o r c e P r o p r i o V i g o r e British Territories C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the R o y a l P r e r o g a t i v e  5.  Introduction Major P r e r o g a t i v e  122 in 127 138 138 142  Powers  THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF PREROGATIVE LEGISATION  1763  AS  MAJOR 144  The I n d i a n Land P r o v i s i o n s o f t h e R o y a l Proclamation o f 7 t h O c t o b e r 1763 as M a j o r P r e r o g a t i v e L e g i s l a t i o n R e f e r a b l e t o t h e B r i t i s h Crown's C o n s t i t u e n t Power i n Dependent B r i t i s h T e r r i t o r i e s  144  The I n d i a n Land P r o v i s i o n s o f t h e R o y a l Proclamation of 7 t h O c t o b e r 1763 as M a j o r P r e r o g a t i v e L e g i s l a t i o n R e f e r a b l e t o t h e B r i t i s h Crown's Power i n R e l a t i o n t o Land i n D e p e n d e n t B r i t i s h T e r r i t o r i e s  164  (i) (ii) 3.  Prerogative  Territorial (i) (ii)  2.  TO 100  1.  1.  IT RELATES  General Crown R i g h t s Prerogative  Amendment (i)  164 i n R e l a t i o n t o Land  of P r e r o g a t i v e  Introduction  as  a Major 171  Legislation  by  L o c a l Laws  187 187  PAGE v i i PART I V : 1.  THE COLONIAL LAWS VALIDITY ACT, 1865 The H i s t o r i c (i) (ii) (iii)  2.  Setting  (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)  205  Introduction Background t o t h e Enactment of t h e C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t C o l o n i a l L e g i s l a t i v e Powers P r i o r t o 1865 The D o c t r i n e o f Repugnancy  Substantive Provisions V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865  205  205 206 210  o f t h e C o l o n i a l Laws 222  Introduction Section 2 Section 4 Section 5 C o n c l u d i n g Remarks  222 231 249 258 26 9  CONCLUSION  273  BIBLIOGRAPHY  27 8  APPENDIX  I:  APPENDIX  II:  THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION  OF 7 OCTOBER 1763  THE COLONIAL LAWS VALIDITY ACT, 1865  284 289  Page  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I w i s h t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o my t h e s i s s u p e r v i s o r . P r o f e s s o r M. J a c k s o n f o r h i s e n c o u r a g e m e n t and a s s i s t a n c e i n t h i s u n d e r t a k i n g . I w i s h t o thank P r o f e s s o r M u r r a y Greenwood f o r v a l u a b l e d i s c u s s i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t . 1 8 6 5 . I would l i k e t o thank t h e D e p a r t m e n t through a D u f f - R i n f r e t Scholarship.  o f J u s t i c e who p r o v i d e d  In p a r t i c u l a r I w o u l d l i k e t o thank S h e i l a T a l b o t t y p i n g and e d i t i n g t h i s m a n u s c r i p t .  funding  f o r her patience i n  PAGE 1  INTRODUCTION In  the past  inferior title.  legal  western conceptions o f the Native  status  have d e n i e d  Such t r e a t i e s a s were c o n c l u d e d w i t h  explained  of a s u b s i s t i n g l e g a l  A change was e v i d e n c e d w h i c h had p r e v i o u s l y  denied  the existence  title,  decision.  Such n e g o t i a t i o n s  compensation.  The most  interest.  claims  recent  government,  b a s e d on  to the Calder(8)  were t o be p r e m i s e d  extinguishment of the a b o r i g i n a l c l a i m  rather  of the a b o r i g i n a l  to negotiate  a r e s p o n s e due i n p a r t  were  expedience  i n 1973 when t h e f e d e r a l  indicated a willingness  aboriginal  of aboriginal  the Indians  on g r o u n d s o f m o r a l d u t y o r p o l i t i c a l  t h a n upon t h e r e c o g n i t i o n  claim,  the existence  people's  i n return  federal policy  upon f o r bare  statement  (December, 1986) i s s u e d  i n response  to the " C o l l i c a n " Report,  indicates a willingness  on t h e p a r t  o f t h e f e d e r a l government t o  reject  the notion  pre-condition allowed  the  to negotiation.  for self  settlement  of the n e c e s s i t y  Recent  of four  i nthe  These p o l i c y developments a r e r e f l e c t e d i n modern t r e a t i e s —  Agreement, t h e 1984 C r e e - N a s k a p i A c t , (Innuialuit)  as a  c h a n g e s i n p o l i c y have  government powers t o be i n c l u d e d  process.  content  of extinguishment  Claims Settlement  t h e 1975 James Bay t h e 1984 W e s t e r n A r c t i c  a n d t h e 1986 S e c h e l t  Indian  Band  S e l f Government A c t .  (8) C a l d e r v . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145 ( S . C . C . ) ; ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 13 D.L.R. (3d) 64 (B.C.C.A.); (1969) 8 D.L.R. (3d) 59 ( B . C . S . C ) .  PAGE 2 A l e g a l b a s i s f o r the now  r e s o l u t i o n of o u t s t a n d i n g c l a i m s i s  found i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act  1982.(9) The  aboriginal  people  are s e c u r e d a commitment to a j u s t r e s o l u t i o n of t h e i r c l a i m s i n the r e c o g n i t i o n  g i v e n to t h e i r e x i s t i n g t r e a t y and  r i g h t s by v i r t u e of s e c t i o n established  35.  The  aboriginal  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l conference  under s e c t i o n 37 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t ,  the a d d i t i o n a l c o n f e r e n c e s added by the 1983  1982  and  amendments were  i n t e n d e d to p r o v i d e a forum f o r r e a c h i n g some agreement on content of such c l a i m s .  The  the  c l e a r l y expressed c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  r i g h t of a b o r i g i n a l people to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s p r o c e s s r e f l e c t s t h e i r v i t a l input have f a i l e d to make any  i n t o the s o l u t i o n .  These c o n f e r e n c e s  significant contribution  to a  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . I t seems c l e a r t h a t u l t i m a t e l y the terms of accommodation w i l l be s e t through n e g o t i a t i o n and  i t s a b o r i g i n a l peoples.  f a c t o r on the p o l i t i c a l p r o v i n c i a l and  between the governments of Canada  However, a l t h o u g h such i s a  agenda, the f e d e r a l government and  t e r r i t o r i a l governments ( n o t a b l y  In B r i t i s h Columbia i t i s f u r t h e r argued t h a t  l e g i s l a t i o n of the Colony of B r i t i s h Columbia, p r i o r C o n f e d e r a t i o n , s e r v e d to e x t i n g u i s h Columbia the C o u r t s p r e s e n t l y e n s u r i n g the n e g o t i a t i o n  most  B r i t i s h Columbia)  c o n t i n u e to deny the e x i s t e n c e of a v a l i d l y s u b s i s t i n g title.  rising  such t i t l e .  aboriginal land  to  Thus i n B r i t i s h  seem to o f f e r the o n l y means of  e n v i s i o n e d by s s . 35 and  37 t a k e  place.  (9) C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1982, b e i n g Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.  PAGE 3 I n d i a n r i g h t s were f i r s t addressed  i n the Royal  Proclamation  of 1763,(10) promulgated by George I I I o f Great B r i t a i n i n r e g a r d to B r i t i s h North America, which a r g u a b l y r e s e r v e d t o t h e I n d i a n s a l l l a n d i n t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n which 'not h a v i n g been ceded t o o r purchased  by [the B r i t i s h Crown] a r e r e s e r v e d t o them as t h e i r  h u n t i n g grounds'.  As p o i n t e d out by Lysak, a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e  Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n a p p l i e s t o t h e p r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , coupled w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t t h e g r e a t e r p a r t o f B r i t i s h Columbia has never been f o r m a l l y s u r r e n d e r e d through the I n d i a n s , would suggest a broader  t r e a t i e s made w i t h  ambit o f f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t y  i n r e l a t i o n t o 'lands r e s e r v e d f o r t h e I n d i a n s ' than i s g e n e r a l l y conceded.(11) Legal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a b o r i g i n a l peoples  i s assigned to  the f e d e r a l government under s e c t i o n 91(24) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867.(12) T h i s s e c t i o n g i v e s t h e f e d e r a l  Parliament  j u r i s d i c t i o n over two d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t m a t t e r s : Lands r e s e r v e d f o r I n d i a n s .  I n d i a n s and  I t can be argued t h a t i n g r a n t i n g  the P a r l i a m e n t of Canada t h e power t o l e g i s l a t e w i t h r e s p e c t t o I n d i a n s t h e U n i t e d Kingdom P a r l i a m e n t i n t e n d e d and assumed i t would r e s p e c t I n d i a n t i t l e .  That a c c o r d i n g l y i t would honour  e x i s t i n g o b l i g a t i o n s w i t h t h e I n d i a n s and c o n t i n u e t h e B r i t i s h  (10) Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 7 October 1763, t e x t g i v e n i n Brigham, ed., B r i t i s h R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n s R e l a t i n g t o A m e r i c a , 212-8. Text a l s o g i v e n i n R.S.C. 1970, Appendix I I , No. 1. See Appendix I . (11) Lysyk, Kenneth, "The I n d i a n T i t l e Q u e s t i o n i n Canada: An A p p r a i s a l i n L i g h t o f C a l d e r " (1973), L I Canadian Bar Review 450. (12) C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 V i c t . , c. 3.  PAGE 4 p o l i c y , expressed  i n t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763, o f  p r o t e c t i n g I n d i a n l a n d s from p r i v a t e encroachment and o f t h e i r purchase o n l y i n t h e name o f the Crown and a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o r m a l procedure  f o r such purchases  t h e r e i n enunciated.  i t i s c l e a r t h a t s. 91(24) a l o n e c r e a t e s no l e g a l l y  Although  enforceable  duty i n t h e f e d e r a l government as regards I n d i a n s , by t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 (and t h e v a r i o u s I n d i a n A c t s ) a f i d u c i a r y duty i s p l a c e d upon the f e d e r a l government i n r e g a r d t o t h e a b o r i g i n a l peoples and t h e i r l a n d s . ( 1 3 ) R e c e n t l y t h e Supreme Court o f Canada a p p l i e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d o c t r i n e o f l e g i s l a t i o n by r e f e r e n c e i n a way t h a t p e r m i t s t h e P a r l i a m e n t o f Canada t o abandon i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e a b o r i g i n a l  peoples  to t h e p r o v i n c e s . ( 1 4 ) The c o u r t i g n o r e d c o m p l e t e l y t h e i m p o r t a n t h i s t o r i c a l evidence t h a t f e d e r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r I n d i a n s i s touched by a s p e c i a l charge t o p r o t e c t t h e a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s and t h e i r c u l t u r e , a charge t h a t t r a c e s from t h e b e g i n n i n g o f B r i t i s h r u l e i n N o r t h America.  The C o u r t s have y e t t o r u l e on whether  f e d e r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r 'lands r e s e r v e d f o r I n d i a n s ' ( s . 91(24)) can be l i k e w i s e abandoned t o t h e p r o v i n c e s .  In the S t .  C a t h e r i n e s ( 1 5 ) case Lord Watson ( P r i v y C o u n c i l ) p o i n t e d o u t t h a t the l a t t e r words were not synonymous w i t h ' I n d i a n r e s e r v e s ' but were t o be more b r o a d l y c o n s t r u e d .  He h e l d t h a t "the words used  (13) G u e r i n , s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 1, c f . MacDonald J.A. d i s s e n t i n g i n R^ v. M o r l e y , [1932] 2 W.W.R. 193 a t 218. (14) Dick v. The Queen (1985), 23 D.L.R. ( 4 t h ) 33  (S.C.C.).  (15) S t . C a t h e r i n e ' s M i l l i n g and Lumber Co. v. R^ (1888), 14 A.C. 46 (P.C.); 10 O.R. 196 (Ont. Ch. D i v . ) .  PAGE 5 are a c c o r d i n g  t o t h e i r n a t u r a l meaning s u f f i c i e n t t o i n c l u d e a l l  lands r e s e r v e d , upon any  terms or c o n d i t i o n s , f o r  Indian  occupation..." The R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n  of 1763  may  have an even g r e a t e r  s i g n i f i c a n c e i f i t i s h e l d a p p l i c a b l e t o B r i t i s h Columbia. argument can can be made t h a t as a P r e r o g a t i v e i n s t r u m e n t the Great S e a l , t o the e x t e n t  An under  t h a t i t i s i n t r a v i r e s and a v a l i d  e x e r c i s e of the Crown's p r e r o g a t i v e power, i t enjoyed the  force  and e f f e c t of an I m p e r i a l S t a t u t e a p p l y i n g p r o p r i o v i g o r e t o a l l B r i t i s h Colonies  throughout N o r t h A m e r i c a .  That as such i t  o p e r a t e d to v o i d i n c o n s i s t e n t c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t i o n , a r u l e contained  i n p a r t i n the C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865,(16)  and t h e r e f o r e served  t o i n v a l i d a t e the l a n d l e g i s l a t i o n r e l i e d  on  by the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia as e x t i n g u i s h i n g a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e p r i o r to Confederation.  I t thus becomes i m p o r t a n t  e x p l o r e the a p p l i c a t i o n of the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n B r i t i s h Columbia and the s t a t u s and  to  of 1763  to  scope of the I n d i a n r i g h t s  articulated therein. The  Royal Proclamation  of 1763  announced a s e r i e s of  p o l i c i e s i n r e s p e c t of B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i e s i n N o r t h A m e r i c a . part i t provided newly a c q u i r e d  f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n and government of  Britain's  t e r r i t o r i e s a r i s i n g out of F r e n c h c e s s i o n s  the T r e a t y of P a r i s ( s i g n e d on 19th F e b r u a r y 1763). i m p o r t a n t l y the P r o c l a m a t i o n  formally enunciated  In  under  More  Imperial p o l i c y  i n r e l a t i o n t o those l a n d s i n B r i t i s h N o r t h America i n a b o r i g i n a l  (16) C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865, Appendix I I .  28 & 29 V i c t . , c. 63.  See  PAGE 6 possession.  In r e l a t i o n to i t s 'Indian p o l i c y ' , the Proclamation  i s d e c l a r a t i v e of p r i n c i p l e s already w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n the common law.  I t merely gave s t a t u t o r y e x p r e s s i o n t o t h e common  law concept o f a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , which d e r i v e s from t h e f a c t the I n d i a n s were i n o c c u p a t i o n  and use o f t h e l a n d s p r i o r t o t h e  s e t t l e m e n t or conquest o f North America by European S t a t e s . I n d i a n s were r e c o g n i z e d  that  The  from e a r l i e s t times as p o s s e s s i n g a  degree o f s o v e r e i g n t y which n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e i r consent as a pre-condition to the v a l i d a c q u i s i t i o n of land i n t h e i r possession.  Such r e f l e c t e d contemporary p r i n c i p l e s o f  i n t e r n a t i o n a l law which found i n a l l p e o p l e s w i t h a s u f f i c i e n t l y developed p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a degree o f s o v e r e i g n t y t h a t c o n s t i t u t e d a bar t o t h e f r e e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e i r by more h i g h l y c i v i l i z e d  such territory  people.  I n d i a n r i g h t s t o l a n d i n t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n were always r e c o g n i z e d by t h e B r i t i s h Crown.  The i n v a r i a b l e p r o c e d u r e  adopted by t h e B r i t i s h Crown i n i t s e a r l y r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e I n d i a n N a t i o n s had, p r i o r t o 1763,  a l r e a d y hardened i n t o  s u b s t a n t i v e r u l e s o f common law which a r t i c u l a t e d a s u i g e n e r i s Indian i n t e r e s t .  Such has now been c o n f i r m e d  Court o f Canada i n t h e G u e r i n d e c i s i o n .  by t h e Supreme  Because o f the p r i n c i p a l  of d i s c o v e r y , which gave t o t h e European d i s c o v e r e r t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o purchase v i s a v i s o t h e r European n a t i o n s , such I n d i a n t i t l e was s u b j e c t t o t h e s o l e r e s t r i c t i o n as t o i t s a l i e n a b i l i t y to  a l l save the Crown.  Such r e s t r i c t i o n d i d not extend t o a  d e n i a l o f the r i g h t o f t h e a b o r i g i n a l p o s s e s s o r purchase was premised upon I n d i a n c o n s e n t .  to s e l l :  rather,  This notion of  PAGE 7 "title"  i s c l e a r l y r e f l e c t e d i n the c o n t r a c t s between the Crown  and the I n d i a n N a t i o n s i n the s i x t e e n t h and centuries.  seventeenth  Such then must i n f o r m the debate on the n a t u r e  scope of the I n d i a n r i g h t s a r t i c u l a t e d i n the R o y a l of  and  Proclamation  1763. In  the opening  r e c i t a l t o the I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s , the  P r o c l a m a t i o n s t a t e s t h a t the I n d i a n s s h o u l d not be m o l e s t e d d i s t u r b e d i n the p o s s e s s i o n of such p a r t s of the  King's  t e r r i t o r i e s "as, not having been ceded t o , or purchased  by  are r e s e r v e d " t o the I n d i a n s as t h e i r h u n t i n g grounds.  The  P r o c l a m a t i o n then r e c o g n i z e s as  ' I n d i a n Country'  c o l o n i a l b o r d e r s and i n t h i s a r e a I n d i a n t i t l e  us,  land outside  i s unequivocally  a f f i r m e d and w h i t e s e t t l e m e n t , a t l e a s t f o r the (presumably  or  present  u n t i l f u r t h e r c o n s e n s u a l arrangements) p r o h i b i t e d .  F u r t h e r the P r o c l a m a t i o n r e c o g n i z e s I n d i a n t i t l e  to a l l unceded  l a n d s i n a b o r i g i n a l p o s s e s s i o n w i t h i n the bounds of the c o l o n i e s and l a y s down d e t a i l e d procedures  f o r i t s purchase.  t e r r i t o r i a l i n t e g r i t y of ' I n d i a n ' l a n d s was  p r o t e c t e d by  r e s t r i c t i o n s on g r a n t s , s e t t l e m e n t s and p u r c h a s e s . noted t h a t the ' I n d i a n Country' colonial  The  I t i s t o be  i s not brought w i t h i n any  jurisdiction.  The Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763  recognizes then, Indian  i n a l l those areas of B r i t i s h N o r t h America i n which the r e t a i n p o s s e s s i o n of t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l l a n d s . i s t o be a l l o w e d i t p r o v i d e s f o r the c o n s e n s u a l those l a n d s by the Crown. the 'Indian Country'  Arguably  title  Indians  Where s e t t l e m e n t a c q u i s i t i o n of  the P r o c l a m a t i o n , i n l e a v i n g  out of the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the  settled  PAGE 8 c o l o n i e s , a l s o r e c o g n i z e s a degree o f I n d i a n t r i b a l s o v e r e i g n t y . In so doing t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n i s d e c l a r a t i v e o f a p r e - e x i s t i n g l e g a l r i g h t i n the a b o r i g i n a l  people.  C o n f u s i o n e x i s t s as t o t h e g e o g r a p h i c  scope t o be a t t r i b u t e d  to t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n and more s p e c i f i c a l l y i t s I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s . The major problem o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t h e meaning t o be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e p h r a s i n g o f t h e opening  r e c i t a l t o the Indian  p r o v i s i o n s , t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t I n d i a n s l i v i n g under  British  p r o t e c t i o n s h o u l d not be d i s t u r b e d " i n t h e P o s s e s s i o n o f Such P a r t s o f Our Dominions and T e r r i t o r i e s a s , not h a v i n g been ceded t o , o r purchased  by u s , a r e r e s e r v e d t o them, or any o f them, as  t h e i r Hunting Grounds,...".  I t might be suggested  that B r i t i s h  Columbia i s e x c l u d e d from t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n s because t h a t a r e a was t e r r a i n c o g n i t a , o r not o t h e r w i s e f i r m l y under B r i t i s h s o v e r e i g n t y , as o f 7 October 1763 when t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n was i s s u e d . T h i s argument cannot be r e s o l v e d through an e x a m i n a t i o n o f the t e x t a l o n e .  C l e a r l y on i t s terms t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n i s  u n c e r t a i n and ambiguous as t o i t s g e o g r a p h i c to argue t h a t t h e ' I n d i a n Country' westwards, an argument s u p p o r t e d  reach.  I t i s open  stretched i n d e f i n i t e l y  by the absence o f e x p r e s s  terms  i n the Proclamation suggesting otherwise, d e s p i t e the f a c t that a western boundary had been proposed i n t h e documentation l e a d i n g to t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n .  Or a l t e r n a t i v e l y t h a t  p a r t s o f B r i t i s h Columbia were brought w i t h i n t h e Hudson Bay's t e r r i t o r y , as t h i s was d e s c r i b e d i n t h e mid 1 8 t h c e n t u r y , o r w i t h i n t h e t e r r i t o r y covered by t h e New England  C h a r t e r o f 1620.  PAGE 9 A much more c o m p e l l i n g argument, however, can be mounted. Whether or not the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 o r i g i n a l l y a p p l i e d to B r i t i s h Columbia, i t n o n e t h e l e s s s u b s e q u e n t l y a s s e r t i o n of B r i t i s h s o v e r e i g n t y over t h a t a r e a .  a p p l i e d w i t h the T h i s r e s t s on  the f a c t t h a t the P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763 was a law o f m a n i f e s t l y u n i v e r s a l a p p l i c a t i o n broad enough t o p r o t e c t the j u s t r i g h t s and c l a i m s of those I n d i a n s who came under B r i t i s h s o v e r e i g n t y a t any time d u r i n g the P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s  life.  Such i s s u p p o r t e d  by t h e  C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865 which g i v e s s t a t u t o r y e x t e n s i o n to those I m p e r i a l A c t s i n which a n e c e s s a r y inferred.  intendment can be  By v i r t u e o f s e c t i o n 2 of the A c t , t h i s i m p l i e d  intendment a p p l i e s a l s o t o those I m p e r i a l Orders h a v i n g the f o r c e and e f f e c t of I m p e r i a l S t a t u t e s i n the c o l o n i e s . C e r t a i n l y s i n c e 1763 the p r o v i s i o n s o f the P r o c l a m a t i o n governing  I n d i a n l a n d purchases  have been w i d e l y a p p l i e d , as  r e f l e c t e d i n the t r e a t y making p r o c e s s .  Between 1680 and 1923,  over 480 t r e a t i e s , g r a n t s and s u r r e n d e r s were made upon terms and c o n d i t i o n s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the P r o c l a m a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n s .  The  Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 c o n t i n u e s today as p a r t of Canada's constitution.  As an i n s t r u m e n t h a v i n g the f o r c e of an I m p e r i a l  S t a t u t e and r e c o g n i z e d i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1982 as a document of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l importance,  i t s h o u l d be a p p l i e d  l i b e r a l l y i n favour o f those I n d i a n s throughout possession of t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l lands.  Canada who  retain  PAGE 10 PART I ; 1.  THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763  Introduction  The R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763(17) was promulgated  by George  I I I o f Great B r i t a i n i n r e l a t i o n t o B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i e s i n N o r t h America  i n g e n e r a l , and i n p a r t i c u l a r t o those r e c e n t l y a c q u i r e d  from France under t h e T r e a t y o f P a r i s o f 10 F e b r u a r y 1763. By A r t i c l e IV o f t h i s t r e a t y , t h e K i n g o f France ceded t o B r i t a i n , Canada, w i t h a l l i t s dependencies,  as w e l l as ....  i s l a n d , and a l l o t h e r i s l a n d s i n t h e S t . Lawrence G u l f , and i n g e n e r a l e v e r y t h i n g t h a t depended on t h e s a i d c o u n t r i e s , l a n d s , i s l a n d s , by t r e a t y o r o t h e r w i s e , which t h e K i n g o f France had u n t i l then over t h e s a i d i s l a n d s , c o u n t r i e s , e t c . , and t h e i r i n h a b i t a n t s so t h a t t h e K i n g o f France thus ceded and made over t o t h e B r i t i s h K i n g , and t o t h e Crown o f Great B r i t a i n , and t h a t i n t h e most ample manner and form, w i t h o u t r e s t r i c t i o n , and w i t h o u t any l i b e r t y t o depart from t h e c e s s i o n and g u a r a n t y  under  any p r e t e n c e , o r t o d i s t u r b Great B r i t a i n i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n s above mentioned.  Under A r t i c l e X, t h e Spanish K i n g made a  s i m i l a r c e s s i o n o f Spanish F l o r i d a , w i t h F o r t S t . A u g u s t i n , and the Bay o f P e n t a g o n a l , as w e l l as a l l t h a t S p a i n p o s s e s s e d on t h e C o n t i n e n t o f N o r t h America, t o t h e e a s t o r t o t h e s o u t h e a s t o f the M i s s i s s i p p i , and, i n g e n e r a l , e v e r y t h i n g t h a t depends on t h e s a i d c o u n t r i e s and l a n d s , w i t h t h e S o v e r e i g n t y , p r o p e r t y and p o s s e s s i o n , and a l l r i g h t s a c q u i r e d by t r e a t y o r o t h e r w i s e , which the C a t h o l i c K i n g and Crown o f S p a i n had t i l l  (17) Supra, f o o t n o t e 10.  then.  A l t h o u g h by  PAGE 11 the t r e a t y t h e K i n g o f France  r e t a i n e d L o u i s i a n a t o t h e West o f  the M i s s i s s i p p i , i t had been ceded i n s e c r e t t o t h e S p a n i s h i n 1762 and 1763.  I t then f e l l  King  t o t h e B r i t i s h Crown t o f o r m u l a t e  a coherent p o l i c y f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and government o f i t s new possessions. 1763  T h i s was e f f e c t e d i n t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n s o f  (the P r o c l a m a t i o n ) .  The P r o c l a m a t i o n was not l i m i t e d t o the  e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f such governments but addressed  a series of  d i v e r s e and unconnected i s s u e s ; each w i t h i t s own preamble. One o f t h e main g o a l s o f t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n was t h e establishment of a uniform, c o n s o l i d a t e d p o l i c y with regard to I n d i a n o c c u p i e d l a n d s i n i t s American p o s s e s s i o n s .  While t h e  P r o c l a m a t i o n i s a b a s i c c o n s t i t u t i o n a l document e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e government f o r t h e t e r r i t o r i e s a c q u i r e d from France  f o l l o w i n g the  T r e a t y o f P a r i s , a most i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t h e document i s t h e announcement o f new r e g u l a t i o n s i n r e s p e c t t o I n d i a n s and t h e i r lands.  One s c h o l a r thus noted;  "The f i r s t thought  of the  framers was t o a l l a y t h e alarms o f t h e I n d i a n s , and t h e a r t i c l e s , concerned  w i t h I n d i a n r e l a t i o n s , form t h e c o r e o f t h e document  and o f i t s p o l i c y . ( 1 8 ) The " I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s " which came 1 1  towards t h e end o f t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n g i v e s t a t u t o r y f o r c e t o I m p e r i a l p o l i c i e s , developed  over a l o n g p e r i o d o f t i m e , o f  r e s p e c t f o r t h e I n d i a n c l a i m t o l a n d i n t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n and thus of the n e c e s s i t y f o r I n d i a n consent  to i t s alienation.  Improved  (18) A l v o r d , The Genesis o f t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 ( M i c h i g a n P i o n e e r and H i s t o r i c a l S o c i e t y : 1908), p. 22, c i t e d i n Cumming, P.A. and M i c k e n b e r g , N.H., N a t i v e R i g h t s i n Canada, 2nd ed. T o r o n t o : The Indian-Eskimo A s s o c i a t i o n o f Canada, 1972 ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as N a t i v e R i g h t s i n Canada).  PAGE 12 r e l a t i o n s w i t h the I n d i a n s , e s s e n t i a l t o t h e peace and s e c u r i t y of B r i t i s h N o r t h A m e r i c a , had been t h e s u b j e c t o f ongoing concern t o t h e B r i t i s h government and t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n means t o express  was s e i z e d as a  formally Imperial i n t e n t i o n i n this  regard,  hastened perhaps by news o f t h e P o n t i a c r e b e l l i o n on t h e mid-western f r o n t i e r .  Indian complaints  of fraudulent land  g r a n t s , made by t h e v a r i o u s c o l o n i a l g o v e r n o r s w i t h o u t  concern  f o r t h e r i g h t s o f the I n d i a n o c c u p i e r s , had been l o n g v o i c e d and the I m p e r i a l government had made v a r i o u s ad hoc a t t e m p t s a t i t s solution. S l a t t e r y and L e s t e r have d e a l t e x t e n s i v e l y w i t h t h e h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g of the Proclamation preparatory  and t h e documentation  t o i t s enactment.(19) I t i s i n t e n d e d here t o  underline the f a c t that the Indian p r o v i s i o n s of the Proclamation,  though perhaps made more urgent by t h e news o f  I n d i a n h o s t i l i t y on t h e mid-western f r o n t i e r , were not c o n c e i v e d i n haste.  They d e c l a r e d what was indeed  t h e law. The I m p e r i a l  Government had l o n g debated t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t which was u n i f o r m  o f an I n d i a n p o l i c y  throughout t h e c o l o n i e s and had as i t s major  component r e s p e c t f o r I n d i a n  lands.  (19) S l a t t e r y , B r i a n , The Land R i g h t s o f Indigenous Canadian P e o p l e s , as A f f e c t e d by t h e Crown's A c q u i s i t i o n o f T h e i r T e r r i t o r i e s (PhD T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Oxford 1979) ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as S l a t t e r y ) . L e s t e r , G e o f f r e y , The T e r r i t o r i a l R i g h t s o f t h e I n u i t o f the Canadian Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s : A L e g a l Argument (J.D. t h e s i s , Osgoode H a l l Law S c h o o l , York U n i v e r s i t y , 1981) ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as L e s t e r ) .  PAGE 13 The f i r s t s t e p i n t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f t h e s e p o l i c i e s was the c a l l i n g o f t h e A l b a n y Congress i n June, 1754, t o e s t a b l i s h the j o i n t Management o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s . ( 2 0 ) U n l a w f u l l a n d g r a n t s and purchases were major problems on t h e agenda o f t h e Albany Conference o f 1754 which a l t h o u g h a f a i l u r e i n many r e s p e c t s ( 2 1 ) n e v e r t h e l e s s f o r m u l a t e d a p r o c e d u r e t o govern f u t u r e I n d i a n l a n d purchases.  A l l f u t u r e p u r c h a s e s from t h e I n d i a n s would be v o i d  u n l e s s executed i n t h e name o f t h e government w i t h i n which t h e l a n d s were s i t u a t e , and u n l e s s i n p u b l i c c o u n c i l .  This policy  was put i n t o e f f e c t through t h e i s s u e o f new i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e Governors.  Throughout  the e i g h t e e n t h century a s e r i e s of  t r e a t i e s had been c o n c l u d e d w i t h t h e I n d i a n s , f o l l o w i n g such p r o c e d u r e , by which t h e i r l a n d was ceded t o t h e Crown.(22) A l t h o u g h t h e s e t r e a t i e s went some way t o a l l a y I n d i a n f e a r s about encroachments  upon t h e i r l a n d s , the problem was not f u l l y  r e s o l v e d and news o f I n d i a n h o s t i l i t y c o n t i n u e d t o r e a c h t h e I m p e r i a l Government. In 1761, as an immediate r e a c t i o n t o proposed l a n d g r a n t s i n the Colony o f New York, the Board o f Trade wrote a comprehensive r e p o r t t o t h e K i n g , s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e b a s i c p o l i c i e s which  ought  (20) Supra, f o o t n o t e 18, N a t i v e R i g h t s i n Canada, p. 23 c i t i n g A l v o r d p. 24. (21) K e i t h , A. B e r r i e d a l e , The F i r s t B r i t i s h Empire, O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1930, p. 334 e t s e q . (22) See f o r example t h e T r e a t y o f E a s t o n , O c t . 1758, a t which P e n n s y l v a n i a agreed t o r e l i n q u i s h c l a i m s t o p a r t o f t h e l a n d i t had purchased ( f r a u d u l e n t l y ) a t - a n e a r l i e r c o n g r e s s a t Albany. Text i n I n d i a n T r e a t i e s , p r i n t e d by Benjamin F r a n k l y n , 1736-1762, w i t h an i n t r o d u c t i o n by C a r l Van Doren (Philadelphia H i s t o r i c a l Society of Pennsylvania).  PAGE 14 to be pursued lands.  i n a l l t h e American c o l o n i e s as regards  N o t i n g t h a t t h e main reason prompting  Indian  t h e I n d i a n s t o make  war on t h e E n g l i s h was t h e " C r u e l t y and i n j u s t i c e w i t h which they have been t r e a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r h u n t i n g grounds, i n v i o l a t i o n o f those solemn compacts by which they have y i e l d e d t o us t h e Dominion, but not t h e P r o p e r t y o f those Lands" t h e Board commented t h a t : ... t h e g r a n t i n g o f Lands h i t h e r t o u n s e t t l e d and e s t a b l i s h i n g C o l o n i e s upon t h e F r o n t i e r s b e f o r e t h e c l a i m s o f the I n d i a n s a r e a s c e r t a i n e d appears t o be a measure o f t h e most dangerous tendency, and i s more p a r t i c u l a r l y so i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , as these S e t t l e m e n t s now proposed t o be made, e s p e c i a l l y those upon t h e Mohawk R i v e r a r e i n t h a t p a r t o f t h e Country o f the P o s s e s s i o n o f which t h e I n d i a n s a r e most j e a l o u s h a v i n g a t d i f f e r e n t times e x p r e s s e d i n the most s t r o n g e s t terms t h e i r R e s o l u t i o n t o oppose a l l s e t t l e m e n t s t h e r e o n as a m a n i f e s t v i o l a t i o n of t h e i r Rights.(23) T h e i r L o r d s h i p s went on t o recommend t h a t t h e K i n g  immediately  i s s u e o r d e r s " f o r p u t t i n g a s t o p t o a l l S e t t l e m e n t s " upon l a n d still  i n Indian possession. T h i s r e p o r t was adopted by Order i n C o u n c i l on 3  December(24) and l e d t o t h e i s s u i n g o f R o y a l I n s t r u c t i o n s which r e f e r t o t h e K i n g ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o support and p r o t e c t t h e I n d i a n s " i n t h e i r j u s t r i g h t s and p o s s e s s i o n s " , f o r b i d d i n g t h e Governors o f t h e v a r i o u s c o l o n i e s from p a s s i n g any g r a n t s o f lands possessed  by t h e I n d i a n s .  Added t o t h i s i n j u n c t i o n was an  order t h a t t h e Governors promulgate a p r o c l a m a t i o n i n t h e King's  (23) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, L e s t e r . (24)  Ibid.  PAGE 15 name s t r i c t l y e n j o i n i n g and r e q u i r i n g a l l persons whatever, may  " i n a d v e r t e n t l y have s e a t e d themselves  who  upon any l a n d s so  r e s e r v e d or c l a i m e d by the I n d i a n s , w i t h o u t any l a w f u l a u t h o r i t y f o r t h w i t h t o remove t h e r e f r o m " .  And  further required a l l  a p p l i c a t i o n s t o purchase I n d i a n l a n d s t o be f i r s t t r a n s m i t t e d t o the Crown f o r s c r u t i n y and p e r u s a l . be made p u b l i c throughout I n d i a n s , t h a t the l a t t e r  These i n s t r u c t i o n s were t o  the c o l o n y and made known t o the "may  be a p p r i z e d of Our  determined  R e s o l u t i o n t o support them i n t h e i r j u s t R i g h t s , and t o observe The  inviolably  our Engagements w i t h them."(25)  l a t t e r i s c l e a r l y a f o r e r u n n e r of the  Proclamation's  s t r i c t u r e s ; any a p p l i c a t i o n t o purchase l a n d s from the  Indians  had t o r e c e i v e p r i o r a p p r o v a l from the Crown, through the  Lords  of Trade, and be communicated t o the Governor b e f o r e such  licence  could issue.  And more i m p o r t a n t l y , the Governors were not t o  make g r a n t s of any l a n d s "possessed  or o c c u p i e d " by the I n d i a n s  or " r e s e r v e d to or c l a i m e d by them".(26) S e v e r a l of the Governors i s s u e d p r o c l a m a t i o n s i n the terms o r d e r e d by the December i n s t r u c t i o n s . ( 2 7 ) The  same concern  i s evidenced  documents p r e p a r a t o r y t o the P r o c l a m a t i o n .  A l e t t e r from L o r d  Egremont, S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e f o r the Southern Board of Trade, 5 May  (25)  Ibid.  (26)  Ibid.  1763,  i n the v a r i o u s  Department, t o the  a s k i n g f o r a r e p o r t on v a r i o u s  (27) e.g. see Gov. B e l c h e r ' s p r o c l a m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o Nova S c o t i a i n N a t i v e R i g h t s i n Canada, 2nd ed. Toronto: The Indian-Eskimo A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada, 1972, pp. 287-288.  PAGE 16 q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o the p o l i c i e s t o be adopted f o r the r e c e n t l y ceded t e r r i t o r y i n North America c o n t a i n e d the f o l l o w i n g passage: H i s M a j e s t y ' s J u s t i c e & M o d e r a t i o n i n c l i n e s Him t o adopt the more e l i g i b l e Method of c o n c i l i a t i n g the Minds of the I n d i a n s by the M i l d n e s s of H i s Government, by p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r Persons & P r o p e r t y & s e c u r i n g t o them a l l the P o s s e s s i o n s , R i g h t s and P r i v i l e d g e s [ s i c ] they have h i t h e r t o e n j o y e d , and a r e e n t i t l e d t o , most c a u t i o u s l y g u a r d i n g a g a i n s t any I n v a s i o n or O c c u p a t i o n of t h e i r Hunting Lands, the P o s s e s s i o n o f which i s t o be a c q u i r e d by f a i r Purchase o n l y ; and i t has been thought so h i g h l y e x p e d i e n t t o g i v e them the e a r l i e s t and most c o n v i n c i n g P r o o f s of H i s M a j e s t y ' s G r a c i o u s and F r i e n d l y I n t e n t i o n s on t h i s Head, t h a t I have a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d and t r a n s m i t t e d the K i n g ' s Commands t o t h i s Purpose t o the Governors of V i r g i n i a , the Two C a r o l i n a s and G e o r g i a , and t o the Agent of I n d i a n A f f a i r s i n the Southern Department, as your L o r d s h i p s w i l l see f u l l y i n the i n c l o s e d Copy of my C i r c u l a r L e t t e r t o them on t h i s S u b j e c t . T h i s shows I m p e r i a l r e c o g n i t i o n of the I n d i a n c l a i m and  evidences  the King's power t o command the observance of such p o l i c y . a l t h o u g h news i n B r i t a i n of the P o n t i a c r e b e l l i o n on mid-western f r o n t i e r ( 2 8 ) may  Thus  the  have prompted the B r i t i s h Crown t o  take immediate a c t i o n i n t h i s r e g a r d , a c t i n g under the P r e r o g a t i v e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t the r e s u l t i n g R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n 1763,  of  i n the I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s , r e f l e c t e d a l o n g e r h i s t o r y of  I m p e r i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the problem. The  reasons adopted by the Board of Trade f o r i t s d e c i s i o n  to i s s u e a P r o c l a m a t i o n  r a t h e r than some o t h e r P r e r o g a t i v e  (28) K e i t h , The F i r s t B r i t i s h Empire, s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 21 a t p. 334 et seq; and see S l a t t e r y , p. 201 where he s t a t e s t h a t news of the r e b e l l i o n reached i n England i n the l a t t e r p a r t of J u l y . (May 1763)  PAGE 17 i n s t r u m e n t a r e not made c l e a r . ( 2 9 ) The Board wanted t o make an a u t h o r i t a t i v e p u b l i c statement c o l o n i a l governors  t h a t would s e r v e t o b i n d a l l  t o a u n i f o r m procedure when d e a l i n g w i t h l a n d  burdened by I n d i a n t i t l e .  S l a t t e r y suggests a P r o c l a m a t i o n  an o b v i o u s and a p p r o p r i a t e c h o i c e , i t b e i n g an  was  official  e x p r e s s i o n of the S o v e r e i g n w i l l i n m a t t e r s f a l l i n g w i t h i n the Crown's p e c u l i a r a u t h o r i t y . ( 3 0 ) As an i n s t r u m e n t under the Great S e a l i t c a r r i e d the l e g a l a u t h o r i t y of a Commission — i t had i n the c o l o n i e s t o which  i t r e l a t e d the f o r c e and  of an I m p e r i a l S t a t u t e , a f a c t s u b s e q u e n t l y confirmed.(31) S e a l and f u l f i l  that i s , effect  judicially  To be v a l i d , a P r o c l a m a t i o n must pass the Great requirements  regarding i t s p u b l i c a t i o n .  c l e a r t h a t the R o y a l p r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763  I t seems  s a t i s f i e s the f o r m a l  requirements a t t e n d i n g i t s i s s u e and p u b l i c a t i o n . ( 3 2 ) The  f i n a l amended d r a f t of the P r o c l a m a t i o n was. read  and  approved by the K i n g i n C o u n c i l on 5 October, and H a l i f a x  was  o r d e r e d t o p r e p a r e a d r a f t f o r the K i n g ' s s i g n a t u r e . ( 3 3 ) I t was immediately approved and s i g n e d on 7 October  1763.  Copies were  p r i n t e d and o r d e r e d t o be sent t o the Governors of the K i n g s ' s e v e r a l c o l o n i e s and p l a n t a t i o n s i n America Indian A f f a i r s .  and t o the agents  As t o the l e g a l i t y of i t s c o n t e n t s ,  (29) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y p. 200 e t seq. (30) I b i d , p.  200.  (31) R^ v. Lady McMaster, [1926] Ex. C.R. (32) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y , p.  68 (Can. E x . ) .  287.  (33) P r o c e e d i n g s i n the P r i v y C o u n c i l , 5 Oct. 1763, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Documents, p. 158.  Canadian  of  PAGE 18 A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l Yorke when asked t o review i t by t h e Board o f Trade commented t h a t t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n " c o n t a i n s n o t h i n g c o n t r a r y t o law."(34)  (34) Yorke t o t h e Board o f Trade, 3 O c t . 1763. 323/16, p. 337.  P.R.O. Co. 0.  PAGE 19 2.  C o n s t r u c t i o n of  the  Royal Proclamation of  The q u e s t i o n t o be asked  1763  i s : t o what p e o p l e s and t o what  t e r r i t o r i e s does the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763 answer may  apply?  The  be found i n p a r t by f o c u s i n g on the words used i n  l i g h t of e v e n t s l e a d i n g up t o i t s enactment and f r e e z i n g i t s geographic  scope and I n d i a n b e n e f i c i a r i e s as of t h i s  date.  However, i t i s m i s l e a d i n g t o f o c u s s o l e l y on the g e o g r a p h i c  scope  as e x p l a i n e d i n the document i t s e l f .  will  The  P r o c l a m a t i o n , as  be seen, i s b r o a d l y enough worded t o a l l o w f o r a l t e r e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s whether as t o p e o p l e s or t e r r i t o r i e s c o v e r e d . as a document which i s of c o n t i n u i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  And  significance  and which r e l a t e s t o I n d i a n s i t s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d so as t o g i v e the most b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t i t s words w i l l p e r m i t .  The  f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s of the scope of the I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s as expressed  i n the document i t s e l f ,  i s undertaken  t h a t even on i t s f a c e the g e o g r a p h i c expressed  merely  e x t e n t i s not  t o show  clearly  so as t o e x c l u d e i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o l a n d s i n the west  and northwest  o f modern day Canada.  To the e x t e n t t h a t the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763  is intra  v i r e s and a v a l i d e x e r c i s e of the p r e r o g a t i v e l e g i s l a t i v e power, i t s e f f e c t and o p e r a t i o n are t o be determined  a c c o r d i n g t o the  w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o l e g a l instruments.  In a l l cases the o b j e c t i s t o determine  l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i o n as expressed document.  the  by the words used i n the  However i t seldom happens t h a t the framers have i n  PAGE 20 t h e i r contemplation  a l l the cases t h a t a r e l i k e l y t o a r i s e .  Moreover, from the i m p e r f e c t i o n o f language i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o know f o r c e r t a i n t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i o n w i t h o u t some i n q u i r y as t o the c i r c u m s t a n c e s  o f the enactment and the m i s c h i e f i t was  aimed t o c o r r e c t . ( 3 5 ) The R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 i s a composite document falling  i n t o s e v e r a l d i s t i n c t p a r t s w i t h d i s t i n c t p u r p o s e s , each  p r e f a c e d w i t h i t s own preamble or r e c i t a l i n t r o d u c i n g p r o v i s i o n s , of v a r y i n g scope.  I t i s c l e a r t h a t the v a r i o u s p a r t s , c o v e r i n g  d i v e r s e and unconnected i s s u e s , a r e not a l l t o be r e s t r i c t e d t o the t e r r i t o r i e s ceded t o B r i t a i n from France i n 1763.  In i t s  I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s , the P r o c l a m a t i o n g i v e s s t a t u t o r y e x p r e s s i o n t o Imperial r e c o g n i t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o lands i n B r i t i s h North America i n I n d i a n p o s s e s s i o n , and f u r t h e r p r e s c r i b e s the procedure whereby such l a n d s might be a c q u i r e d by the Crown.(36) The problem t h a t a r i s e s i s whether such p r o v i s i o n s a r e t o be read n a r r o w l y and c o n f i n e d t o t h e peoples  and t e r r i t o r i e s  contemplated  i n 1763 o r a r e t o be c o n s t r u e d more b r o a d l y so as t o a l l o w f o r a l t e r e d circumstances spread west.  as B r i t i s h c o l o n i z a t i o n o f North America  To answer t h i s q u e s t i o n i n i t i a l l y , one must look t o  the document and t o the l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t h e r e  expressed,  b e a r i n g i n mind t h a t words o f a wide and g e n e r a l meaning i n a r e m e d i a l s t a t u t e s h o u l d be g i v e n a broad c o n s t r u c t i o n so as t o b e n e f i t t h e g r e a t e s t numbers o f p e o p l e s .  Such i s mandatory where  (35) R i v e r Wear Commrs. v. Adamson (1877), 2 App. Cas. 743, a t 763 per L o r d B l a c k b u r n . (36) See Appendix I .  PAGE 21 the s t a t u t e t o be c o n s t r u e d r e l a t e s t o I n d i a n s . expressed  As most r e c e n t l y  by t h e S.C.C.:  I t i s l e g a l l o r e t h a t , t o be v a l i d , exemptions to t a x laws s h o u l d be c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d . I t seems t o me, however, t h a t t r e a t i e s and s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o I n d i a n s s h o u l d be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d and d o u b t f u l e x p r e s s i o n s r e s o l v e d i n favour o f t h e I n d i a n . I f t h e s t a t u t e c o n t a i n s language which can r e a s o n a b l y be c o n s t r u e d t o c o n f e r t a x exemption, t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n my view, i s t o be f a v o u r e d over a more t e c h n i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n which might be a v a i l a b l e t o deny exemption. I n Jones v. Meeham, (1891), 175 U.S. 1, i t was h e l d t h a t I n d i a n t r e a t i e s 'must ... be c o n s t r u e d , not a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t e c h n i c a l meaning o f t h e i r words ... but i n t h e sense i n which they would n a t u r a l l y be understood by t h e I n d i a n s ? ( 3 7 ) I t i s t o be noted t h a t t h e narrow t e c h n i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n was open to t h e Court on t h e words o f t h e s t a t u t e t o be t h e r e c o n s t r u e d . I t i s suggested  t h a t t h e words o f t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763  admit o f a wide g e o g r a p h i c  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and evidence s e e k i n g t o  narrow such a c o n s t r u c t i o n i s o n l y t o be found i n t h e documentation l e a d i n g up t o i t s enactment. The P r o c l a m a t i o n c o n t i n u e s as a s i g n i f i c a n t document i n our C o n s t i t u t i o n . ( 3 8 ) I t s words, as s t a t e d above, a r e t o be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d w i t h d o u b t f u l e x p r e s s i o n s r e s o l v e d i n favour o f t h e Indians.(39 )  (37) N o w e g i j i c k v. The Queen, [1983] S.C.C. 29, 144 D.L.R. (3d)193, [1983] C.T.C. 20, 83 D.T.C. 5041, 46 N.R. 41, [1983] 2 N.L. ( S . C . C ) , a t p. 198 D.L.R. per D i c k s o n J . (38) See R.S.C. 1970, App. I I and C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1982, s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 9. (39) Supra, f o o t n o t e 37.  PAGE 2 2 For the f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , the t e r r i t o r i a l I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s ( P a r t IV) of the P r o c l a m a t i o n  e x t e n t of the ( P a r t IV)  be g i v e n a broad c o n s t r u c t i o n so as t o b e n e f i t those whose r i g h t i t was  designed  to p r o t e c t .  should  peoples  PAGE 23 3.  G e o g r a p h i c Scope o f t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f  (i)  Introduction  1763  I t i s not i n t e n d e d here t o a n a l y z e a l l t h e s u b s t a n t i v e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n , but s e v e r a l p r o v i s i o n s a r e r e l e v a n t when s e e k i n g t o i n t e r p r e t P a r t IV, the s o - c a l l e d  Indian  provisions. Part I of the Proclamation r e l a t e s t o the t e r r i t o r i e s a c q u i r e d by B r i t a i n from France under t h e then r e c e n t l y s i g n e d Treaty of P a r i s .  I t s opening  recital  states:  Whereas We have taken i n t o Our Royal C o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e e x t e n s i v e and v a l u a b l e A c q u i s i t i o n s i n A m e r i c a , secured t o Our Crown by t h e l a t e D e f i n i t i v e T r e a t y o f Peace, c o n c l u d e d a t P a r i s t h e Tenth Day o f February l a s t ; and b e i n g d e s i r o u s , t h a t a l l Our l o v i n g S u b j e c t s , as w e l l o f Our Kingdoms as o f Our C o l o n i e s i n America ... . I t then p r o v i d e s f o r t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e governments o f these  areas: To e r e c t w i t h i n t h e C o u n t r i e s and I s l a n d s ceded and c o n f i r m e d t o Us by t h e s a i d T r e a t y , Four d i s t i n c t and s e p a r a t e Governments, s t i l e d and c a l l e d by t h e Names o f Quebec, East F l o r i d a , West F l o r i d a , and Grenada, ...  P o r t i o n s o f t h e newly ceded t e r r i t o r i e s a r e thus brought w i t h i n f o u r new c o l o n i e s whose boundaries  a r e then d e s c r i b e d .  Other  areas a r e t o be annexed t o e x i s t i n g c o l o n i e s and t h e remaining a r e a s , by f a r t h e l a r g e s t p a r t , a r e l e f t i n an u n o r g a n i z e d state.(40)  (40) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y , p. 205 e t s e q .  PAGE 24  P a r t I I of the P r o c l a m a t i o n b e g i n s w i t h the r e c i t a l And whereas i t w i l l c o n t r i b u t e t o the speedy s e t t i n g Our s a i d new Governments... and proceeds t o e s t a b l i s h the c o n s t i t u t i o n s of the " s a i d c o l o n i e s " , c l e a r l y r e f e r r i n g s o l e l y t o the new  colonies  e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n the r e c e n t l y a c q u i r e d t e r r i t o r i e s  ( T r e a t y of  Paris) . Power i s g i v e n t o the Governors of the s a i d c o l o n i e s t o c a l l g e n e r a l a s s e m b l i e s i n "such Manner and Form as i s used and d i r e c t e d i n those C o l o n i e s and P r o v i n c e s i n America, which a r e under Our Immediate Government." law-making near as may  The governors were then g i v e n  powers w i t h the r e s t r i c t i o n t h a t such s h o u l d be be a g r e e a b l e t o the Laws of England".  "as  Further that  such powers, i n a d d i t i o n , were t o be e x e r c i s e d "under  such  R e g u l a t i o n s and R e s t r i c t i o n s as a r e used i n o t h e r C o l o n i e s " . These p r o v i s i o n s a r e i n t e r e s t i n g i n t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o the need for  c o n f o r m i t y between the governor's powers i n the newly c r e a t e d  c o l o n i e s w i t h t h o s e of the g o v e r n o r ' s of the e s t a b l i s h e d colonies.  I t e v i d e n c e s an i n t e n t i o n on the p a r t of the B r i t i s h  Crown t h a t a l l B r i t i s h dominions i n N o r t h America were t o be a d m i n i s t e r e d i n a c o n s i s t e n t manner. Power was  then g i v e n t o the Governors of the " s a i d  new  C o l o n i e s " t o s e t t l e l a n d s upon the i n h a b i t a n t s t h e r e o f l i m i t i n g such g r a n t s t o "such Lands, Tenements, and H e r e d i t a m e n t s , as a r e now,  or h e r e a f t e r s h a l l be i n Our Power t o d i s p o s e o f . . . "  PAGE 25 I t i s u n c l e a r as t o what f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n the u n d e r l i n e d words were r e f e r a b l e .  They c o u l d a p p l y e q u a l l y t o l a n d s coming  w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the " s a i d " t e r r i t o r i e s d e s c r i b e d through f u t u r e boundary a l t e r a t i o n s or t o l a n d s which, a l r e a d y w i t h i n the t e r r i t o r i a l  l i m i t s of the new  although  governments were  not p r e s e n t l y i n the B r i t i s h power t o g r a n t as b e i n g unceded and unpurchased from the I n d i a n s .  What i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note i s the  e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t of f u t u r e a p p l i c a t i o n . The P r o c l a m a t i o n goes on t o s t a t e t h a t such g r a n t s be upon "such Terms, and under such moderate Q u i t Rents, S e r v i c e s , and Acknowledgments as have been a p p o i n t e d and s e t t l e d i n Our C o l o n i e s ...  T h i s a g a i n e v i d e n c e s the framers i n t e n t i o n t h a t  c o l o n i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was N o r t h America.  other  And  t h i s was  t o be c o n s i s t e n t throughout  t o be the case not o n l y as of  but a l s o as t o "such l a n d s " as a r e " h e r e a f t e r " w i t h i n power t o d i s p o s e o f .  British 1763  British  Even though these statements were c l e a r l y  r e f e r a b l e t o l a n d s w i t h i n the e x i s t i n g or f u t u r e t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s of the new  c o l o n i e s , they show an i n t e n t i o n t h a t  f u t u r e l a n d s were t o be g r a n t e d i n the same  way.  P a r t I I I of the p r o c l a m a t i o n d i f f e r s from the p r e c e d i n g p a r t s i n s u b j e c t matter and scope.  I t begins  And whereas We are d e s i r o u s upon a l l O c c a s i o n s to t e s t i f y Our R o y a l Sense and A p p r o b a t i o n of the Conduct and B r a v e r y of the O f f i c e r s and S o l d i e r s of Our A r m i e s , and t o reward the same, We do hereby command and impower Our Governors of Our S a i d Three New C o l o n i e s , and a l l o t h e r Our Governors of Our S e v e r a l P r o v i n c e s on the C o n t i n e n t of N o r t h America....  PAGE 26 P a r t I I I c l e a r l y r e f e r s both t o t h e Governors o f t h e " s a i d " new c o l o n i e s and t o t h e Governors o f o t h e r B r i t i s h p r o v i n c e s continent of North America. and cannot be c o n s t r u e d  on t h e  The words a r e c l e a r and unambiguous  so as t o l i m i t t h e o p e r a t i o n o f P a r t I I I  to t h e t e r r i t o r i e s ceded by F r a n c e .  The wording i s comprehensive  and prima f a c i e would i n c l u d e a l l B r i t i s h c o l o n i e s i n N o r t h America i n c l u d i n g R u p e r t ' s Land. T h i s p a r t goes on t o p r o v i d e m i l i t a r y men who s e r v e d  f o r free land grants to  i n t h e war i n A m e r i c a , s p e c i f i c a l l y t o  those "as have been o r s h a l l be disbanded i n A m e r i c a , and a r e actually residing there...".  C l e a r l y t h i s p a r t covers  those  q u a l i f y i n g o f f i c e r s who a t any time h e r e a f t e r might be disbanded i n America.  The same q u a n t i t i e s o f l a n d , upon t h e same  c o n d i t i o n s a r e then g i v e n t o Navy O f f i c e r s o f l i k e rank served  having  i n t h e l a t e war.  P a r t I I I i s important  t o an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f P a r t IV i n  t h a t i t c l e a r l y a p p l i e s t o a wider g e o g r a p h i c a r e a than t h e preceding  p a r t s , suggesting  t h a t each P a r t must be read i n l i g h t  of t h e r e c i t a l o f t h a t P a r t and not t o t h e r e c i t a l a t t h e opening of t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n . Proclamation (ii)  The f o u r t h and f i n a l p a r t o f t h e  deals with a v a r i e t y of matters r e l a t i n g t o Indians.  Indian P r o v i s i o n s of the Royal Proclamation - Part  The  IV  I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s came towards the end o f t h e  Proclamation  ( P a r t IV) and c o n t a i n a s e r i e s o f d i s t i n c t  with varying geographic  reach.  clauses  PAGE 27 The g e n e r a l scheme of the I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s of the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n r e f l e c t both I m p e r i a l p o l i c y t o r e g u l a t e Western c o l o n i a l e x p a n s i o n and t o r e c o g n i z e a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s over  lands  i n I n d i a n p o s s e s s i o n which had not been ceded to or purchased the Crown.  by  To t h i s end i t c r e a t e s an i n t e r i o r I n d i a n r e s e r v e  w i t h u n c e r t a i n western  boundaries  i n t o which no s e t t l e m e n t was  be a l l o w e d f o r an u n s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d .  A rough boundary was  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the f r o n t i e r of expansion a l o n g the A t l a n t i c seaboard A l l e g h e n y mountains.  The  was  drawn  f o r the o l d c o l o n i e s  to be, t e m p o r a r i l y a t l e a s t ,  s e v e r a l c l a u s e s r e l a t i n g t o these  two d i s t i n c t problems of c o n s t r u c t i o n .  to  The  the raise  f i r s t l i e s i n just  what l a n d s a r e i n c l u d e d i n the c r e a t e d r e s e r v e and the second to what e x t e n t l a n d s i n I n d i a n p o s s e s s i o n i n North America e i t h e r w i t h i n c o l o n i a l boundaries  or o u t s i d e t h e r e o f are r e s e r v e d .  P r o c l a m a t i o n makes i t c l e a r t h a t n e i t h e r l a n d i n the r e s e r v e nor l a n d s t i l l  i n I n d i a n p o s s e s s i o n was  from the I n d i a n s except through  The  interior  t o be a c q u i r e d  the Crown and w i t h I n d i a n  consent. To determine Indian t i t l e ,  the c h a r a c t e r and e x t e n t of the r e g u l a t i o n of  the r e s t r i c t i o n s upon w h i t e encroachment on  l a n d s and the procedures Crown, i t i s n e c e s s a r y  to be adopted f o r i t s purchase by  these the  to f o c u s on the i n d i v i d u a l e n a c t i n g  p r o v i s i o n s of P a r t IV and t h e i r scope as t h e r e i n e x p r e s s e d .  In  so d o i n g i t s h o u l d be noted t h a t no g r e a t e r l i m i t a t i o n s on I n d i a n t i t l e s h o u l d be imposed than i s rendered necessary by the  nature  of the p r o v i s i o n , i t s s u b j e c t matter and the words used.(41)  PAGE 28 P a r t IV begins w i t h t h e r e c i t a l : And whereas i t i s j u s t and r e a s o n a b l e , and e s s e n t i a l t o Our I n t e r e s t and t h e S e c u r i t y o f Our C o l o n i e s , t h a t t h e s e v e r a l N a t i o n s or T r i b e s o f I n d i a n s , w i t h whom we a r e connected, and who l i v e under Our P r o t e c t i o n , s h o u l d not be m o l e s t e d or d i s t u r b e d i n t h e P o s s e s s i o n o f such P a r t s o f Our Dominions and T e r r i t o r i e s a s , not h a v i n g been ceded t o , or purchased by Us, are r e s e r v e d t o them, o r any o f them as t h e i r H u n t i n g Grounds; T h i s p a r t then goes on t o g i v e a s e r i e s o f c l a u s e s r e l a t i n g t o Indians. and  The q u e s t i o n t o be i n i t i a l l y asked i s t o what t e r r i t o r y  t o what p e o p l e s d i d t h e framers i n t e n d t h e v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s  of P a r t IV t o a p p l y .  Arguably  such a q u e s t i o n cannot be answered  i n a comprehensive f a s h i o n u n l e s s the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e B r i t i s h and t h e I n d i a n s o f North America and the h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t i n which the P r o c l a m a t i o n  developed a r e c l e a r l y u n d e r s t o o d .  C e r t a i n l y i n the Indian p r o v i s i o n s the Proclamation  l a y s down  v e r y l i t t l e t h a t i s new i n p r i n c i p l e o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .  The main  elements o f P a r t IV can be found i n e a r l i e r p r e c e d e n t s and i n long s e t t l e d Imperial Indian p o l i c y .  The P r o c l a m a t i o n  merely  entrenched t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f I n d i a n t i t l e and the requirement o f I n d i a n consent t o i t s abridgement, such being reasonable"  " j u s t and  and " e s s e n t i a l t o the ( B r i t i s h ) i n t e r e s t and s e c u r i t y  of ( B r i t i s h ) C o l o n i e s " . That even h o s t i l e t r i b e s were t o be e n t i t l e d t o t h e Crown's p r o t e c t i o n i s c l e a r from t h e e n a c t i n g c l a u s e s o f t h e Proclamation,  t h e purposes o f which, as s t a t e d i n t h e preamble,  (41) S u l l i v a n v. M i t c a l f e (1880), 5 C.P.D. 455 C.A. a t p. 459. Such p r o v i s i o n s must be i n t e r p r e t e d i n favour o f t h e I n d i a n b e n e f i c i a r i e s (Nowejegick, s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 3 7 ) .  PAGE 29 i s t h a t the I n d i a n s not be "molested or d i s t u r b e d i n the P o s s e s s i o n of such P a r t s of Our Dominions  and T e r r i t o r i e s a s , not  h a v i n g been ceded t o or purchased by Us, a r e r e s e r v e d t o them, or any of them, as t h e i r Hunting  Grounds.  Preambles, or opening r e c i t a l s , e s p e c i a l l y i n the e a r l i e r A c t s , have been regarded as of g r e a t importance as g u i d e s t o construction.  They were used t o s e t out the f a c t s or s t a t e of  the law f o r which i t was proposed t o l e g i s l a t e by the s t a t u t e . ( 4 2 ) A c c o r d i n g t o normal r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n where the words of the e n a c t i n g s e c t i o n s a r e u n c l e a r the words of the preamble  r e c i t a l prima f a c i e g i v e the scope of the s e c t i o n s t h a t  f o l l o w . ( 4 3 ) The words of the preamble  i n P a r t IV a r e wide  and  g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e prima f a c i e t h a t l a n d s i n I n d i a n p o s s e s s i o n throughout B r i t i s h N o r t h A m e r i c a , which have not been ceded t o or purchased by the Crown, a r e r e s e r v e d f o r I n d i a n use. t o be noted here t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n the opening  And i t i s preamble  nor i n the e n a c t i n g p r o v i s i o n s of P a r t IV t h a t suggest such " r e s e r v a t i o n " i s r e f e r a b l e s o l e l y t o l a n d s r e s e r v e d by reason of antecedent t r a n s a c t i o n such as by t r e a t y or o t h e r c o u r s e of dealing. The words of the r e c i t a l a r e however not e n t i r e l y f r e e of uncertainty.  The major problem l i e s i n what meaning i s t o be  a s c r i b e d t o the p h r a s i n g of the opening r e c i t a l .  (42) S a l k e l d v. Johnson C.B.  The p e o p l e t o  (1848), 2 Ex. 256, a t 283 per P o l l o c k  (43) Crowder v. Stewart (1880), 16 Ch. D. 368, 50 L . J . Ch. 29 W.R. 331.  136;  PAGE 30 whom p a r t IV i s a p p l i c a b l e a r e s t a t e d t o be "the s e v e r a l  Nations  or T r i b e s o f I n d i a n s , w i t h whom We a r e connected, and who l i v e under our P r o t e c t i o n " . words:  The g e o g r a p h i c e x t e n t i s g i v e n i n t h e  "Such P a r t s o f Our Dominions o r T e r r i t o r i e s . . . "  The  o r d i n a r y and l i t e r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f such  expressions  would have P a r t IV, a p p l y t o a l l I n d i a n s i n p o s s e s s i o n o f l a n d s anywhere i n B r i t i s h North America.  Any r e s t r i c t i o n s or  l i m i t a t i o n s must then be found i n t h e e n a c t i n g p r o v i s i o n s o r i n the c i r c u m s t a n c e s  j u d i c i a l l y c o g n i s a b l e under which t h e v a r i o u s  p r o v i s i o n s were i n s e r t e d .  In l o o k i n g t o the p r o v i s i o n s of Part  IV no g r e a t e r r e s t r i c t i o n s h o u l d be imposed than i s rendered necessary  by t h e nature and s u b j e c t matter o f t h e p r o v i s i o n . ( 4 4 )  The p r e s u m p t i o n i s t h a t i n t h e absence o f express  words, t h e  e x t e n t o f a s t a t u t e and t h e l i m i t s o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a r e prima f a c i e t h e same. (iii)  The I n d i a n B e n e f i c i a r i e s o f p a r t  IV  We t u r n f i r s t t o t h e persons t o whom P a r t IV a p p l i e s . i s t o be gathered  Such  from t h e language and purview o f P a r t I V , which  r e c i t e s t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s a r e d i r e c t e d a t "the s e v e r a l  Nations  or T r i b e s o f I n d i a n s , w i t h whom we a r e connected, and who l i v e under our P r o t e c t i o n " .  Where, an A c t uses, as here words  r e f e r r i n g t o g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s or s e t s of t h i n g s , r a t h e r than t o p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t s , the categories designated  will  normally  encompass t h i n g s not s p e c i f i c a l l y contemplated by t h e maker who  (44) S u l l i v a n v. M i t c a l f e (1880), 5 C.P.D. 455, C.A. a t p. 459; Warburton v. L o v e l a n d (1828), 1 Hud. & B. 623, (Ex. C h . ) , a t 648 5 E.R. 499.  PAGE 31 cannot imagine a l l p o s s i b i l i t i e s or a n t i c i p a t e every e v e n t u a l i t y —  no l e g i s l a t u r e has a mind except t h a t which i s e x p r e s s e d .  Here t h e e n a c t i n g p r o v i s i o n s which f o l l o w t h e r e c i t a l t o P a r t IV shed no l i g h t on t h e c a t e g o r y o f I n d i a n s t o whom i t a p p l i e s , referring  merely t o t h e " s a i d " I n d i a n s .  We need t h e r e f o r e t o  ask what i s meant by t h e term " I n d i a n s " and by the phrase  "with  whom we a r e connected and who l i v e under Our P r o t e c t i o n " . ( 4 5 ) As t o t h e term I n d i a n s , t h e Supreme Court o f Canada i n Reference re Term " I n d i a n s " , ( 4 6 ) h e l d t h a t " I n d i a n s " as used i n s. 91(24) o f t h e B r i t i s h N o r t h America A c t 1867, encompassed Eskimos.  S i g n i f i c a n t l y , the p r i n c i p a l o p i n i o n c o n s i d e r e d and  r e j e c t e d t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e p h r a s e , "the s e v e r a l N a t i o n s o r T r i b e s o f I n d i a n s , ..." as used i n t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763, d i d not cover  Eskimos.(47)  As t o t h e phrase r e s t r i c t i n g t h e c a t e g o r y o f I n d i a n s t o those " w i t h whom we a r e connected and who l i v e under Our P r o t e c t i o n " , an i n i t i a l  i n t e r p r e t i v e problem t o be a d d r e s s e d i s  whether, i f t h e l i n k e d phrases a r e not synonymous, e i t h e r o r both c r i t e r i a a r e r e q u i r e d , i . e . d i d t h e framers o f P a r t IV i n t e n d t o reach both those I n d i a n s w i t h whom t h e B r i t i s h Crown was f a c t u a l l y connected and those I n d i a n s i n h a b i t i n g t e r r i t o r y over which t h e B r i t i s h Crown a s s e r t e d s o v e r e i g n t y and who thus  fell  (45) See g e n e r a l l y S l a t t e r y s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 19, c h . 14, p. 231 e t seq. (46) [1939] S.C.R. 104, sub nom "Re Eskimos" (47) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y , p. 232 and f o o t n o t e 7 a t t h a t page.  PAGE 32 w i t h i n B r i t i s h p r o t e c t i o n ; or d i d the framers i n t e n d the P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s p r o v i s i o n s t o reach o n l y those I n d i a n s s a t i s f y i n g both c r i t e r i a ?  Grammatically e i t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s c o r r e c t .  The manner of e x p r e s s i o n , n e v e r t h e l e s s , suggests an i n t e n t i o n t o p r o t e c t a l l I n d i a n s who dominions  i n f a c t possess p a r t s of B r i t i s h  i n N o r t h America  i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e i r f a c t u a l  ties  w i t h B r i t i s h a u t h o r i t i e s . ( 4 8 ) S l a t t e r y addresses the p e c u l i a r consequences of e x t e n d i n g P a r t IV t o o n l y those I n d i a n s meeting both c r i t e r i a . ( 4 9 ) S l a t t e r y a s s e r t s moreover t h a t the t r a v a u x p r e p a r a t o i r e s t o the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n do not support the view t h a t the problems r e l a t i n g t o N o r t h American  I n d i a n s were p e r c e i v e d by the Crown as  c o n f i n e d t o one or more p a r t i c u l a r a r e a or group of i n d i g e n o u s peoples.  Rather they suggest t h a t the " m i s c h i e f " was  considered  t o be g e n e r a l i z e d , and common t o a l l I n d i a n s l i v i n g under B r i t i s h protection.  B a s i c a l l y , the c o n f i d e n t i a l m i n i s t e r i a l  correspondence  i n d i c a t e s t h a t the I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s were d e s i g n e d  t o c o n c i l i a t e and p r o t e c t the I n d i a n s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y . ( 5 0 ) S l a t t e r y notes t h a t as e a r l y as 1765 and 1766 " c o n n e c t i o n " was dropped  the term  and the P r o c l a m a t i o n s I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s  i n t e r p r e t e d as r e l e v a n t t o a l l I n d i a n s l i v i n g under H i s M a j e s t y ' s p r o t e c t i o n . ( 5 1 ) S l a t t e r y c o n c l u d e s t h a t the c a t e g o r y of I n d i a n s  (48) I b i d . , p.  234.  (49) I b i d . , p. 234-5. (50) I b i d . , p.  240.  (51) I b i d . , p.  243.  PAGE 33 recited  i n t h e p r e a m b l e encompasses a l l i n d i g e n o u s  occupying  t e r r i t o r i e s c l a i m e d by t h e B r i t i s h Crown a s o f O c t o b e r  1763.(52) Such i s c o n s i s t e n t perceived  general  the extent of the 'mischief' and i s s u p p o r t e d by  exposition.  Geographic  The  with  by t h e Crown i n N o r t h A m e r i c a  contemporaneous (iv)  groups  Reach o f P a r t IV o f t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n  r e c i t a l t o P a r t IV g i v e s t h e g e o g r a p h i c terms;  not h a v i n g  t o , or purchased  them, o r any o f them, a s t h e i r facie  such  by Us, a r e r e s e r v e d t o  Hunting  Grounds;..."  words r e c o g n i z e I n d i a n t i t l e  Indian p o s s e s s i o n throughout  B r i t i s h North  to land i n  America.  g e n e r a l words o f t h e r e c i t a l a r e , however, l i m i t e d extent  i n the enacting c l a u s e s , although  entirely  free  i n wide  "Such P a r t s o f Our D o m i n i o n s a n d T e r r i t o r i e s a s ,  been ceded  Prima  reach  of uncertainty.  to varying  not always  The c o n f u s i o n o v e r  reach of the v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s i s r e a d i l y  The w i d e ,  i n words  the geographic  apparent  i nthe  d i v e r g e n c e o f j u d i c i a l o p i n i o n on t h e m a t t e r s . Norris  J.A. o f t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a  W h i t e and Bob h e l d t h a t Vancouver in  Court  t h e terms o f t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n  I s l a n d . ( 5 3 ) H i s judgment was a c c e p t e d  t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada.  Attorney-General  of Appeal  Hall  i n R^ v .  extended  without  to  reasons  J . i n C a l d e r v.  f o r B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ( 5 4 ) was w i l l i n g  (52)  Ibid.,  p . 243.  (53)  (1964),  50 D.L.R. (2d) 613 a t 638; 52 W.R.R. 493.  (54)  (1973),  34 D.L.R. (3d) 145, a t 203.  t o extend  PAGE 34 i t s p r o t e c t i o n t o the Naas V a l l e y . was,  however, u n w i l l i n g t o extend  Judson J . i n t h e same case i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o B.C. I n  v. D i s c o n and Baker,(55) d i s c u s s e d by H a l l J . i n C a l d e r , ( 5 6 ) Schulz Co. C t . J . r e j e c t e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n t o B r i t i s h Columbia. S i k y e a ( 5 7 ) and H a l l J . i n R^ v.  Johnson J.A. i n Rj_ v. Sigeareak,(58)  r e j e c t e d the  c o n t e n t i o n accepted by the lower c o u r t s t h a t the P r o c l a m a t i o n a p p l i e d t o t h e l a n d s o f the Hudson's Bay Company alhough l a t e r t o have changed h i s mind, see Narvey).(59)  he seems  H a l l ' s judgment  s h o u l d p r o b a b l y be read as r e f e r r i n g o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e I n d i a n T e r r i t o r y , from which Rupert's  Land was c l e a r l y  excluded  r a t h e r than as r e f e r r i n g t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s as a whole. The P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s l a n d purchases  were not a t i s s u e .  I n R^ v.  S y l i b o y ( 6 0 ) t h e c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e argument t h a t t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n Nova S c o t i a , though P a t t e r s o n , A c t i n g Co. C t . J . r e c o g n i z e d t h a t i t might so a p p l y i n  (55) (1968), 63 W.W.R. 488, a t 495; 67 D.L.R. (2d) 619. (56) I b i d . , a t pp. 206-208. (57) (1964), 43 D.L.R. (3d) 150, a t 152; [1964] 2 C.C.C. W.W.R. 65. (58) [1966] S.C.R. 645, 49 C R .  325; 46  271; 56 W.W.R. 478, a t 483.  (59) Narvey, Kenneth M. 'The Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 7 October 1763: The Common Law, and N a t i v e R i g h t s t o Land w i t h i n t h e T e r r i t o r y Granted t o the Hudson's Bay Company' 38 Sask. Law Review 1973-4, 123, a t p. 230. (60) 50 C.C.C 389, a t 393; [1929] 1 D.L.R. 307. (61) (1975), 13 N.S.R. (2d) 460 a t 478 (N.S.S.C. App.) however i t was h e l d t o be a p p l i c a b l e t o Nova S c o t i a . And see R_^ v.  PAGE 35 Quebec. (61) In R^ v. Isaac and  i n War man  v.  F r a n c i s (62)  c o u r t h e l d t h a t the terms of the P r o c l a m a t i o n Brunswick.  the  d i d apply to  New  There has yet t o be an a u t h o r i t a t i v e j u d i c i a l  statement by the Supreme Court of Canada on the g e o g r a p h i c scope of the P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s  Indian p r o v i s i o n s .  I t seems c l e a r t h a t the v a r i o u s c l a u s e s of P a r t IV do have the same geographic i n t e n t i o n .  The  i n q u i r y here as  not  to  g e o g r a p h i c a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l be l i m i t e d t o the c l a u s e which g i v e s the widest expresses  r e c o g n i t i o n to Indian t i t l e  (clause 2).  This  clause  the g e n e r a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t g r a n t i n g l a n d s i n  I n d i a n p o s s e s s i o n which have not been made the s u b j e c t of c e s s i o n or purchase.  The  c l a u s e i s d i r e c t e d a t a l l c o l o n i a l g o v e r n o r s or  commanders-in-chief i n B r i t i s h North America.  The  clause s t a t e s ;  We do t h e r e f o r e , w i t h the A d v i c e of Our P r i v y C o u n c i l , d e c l a r e i t to be Our Royal W i l l and P l e a s u r e , t h a t ( i ) no Governor or Commander i n C h i e f i n any of Our C o l o n i e s of Quebec, East F l o r i d a , or West F l o r i d a , do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, t o g r a n t Warrants of Survey, or pass any P a t e n t s f o r Lands beyond the Bounds of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e Governments, as d e s c r i b e d i n t h e i r Commissions; as a l s o , ( i i ) t h a t no Governor or Commander i n C h i e f i n any of Our other C o l o n i e s or P l a n t a t i o n s i n A m e r i c a , do presume, f o r the p r e s e n t , and u n t i l Our f u r t h e r P l e a s u r e be known, t o g r a n t Warrants of Survey, or ( i i i ) pass P a t e n t s f o r any Lands beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the R i v e r s which f a l l i n t o the A t l a n t i c k Ocean from the West and North-West, or upon any Lands whatever, w h i c h , not having been ceded t o , or purchased by Us as a f o r e s a i d , are r e s e r v e d t o the s a i d I n d i a n s , or any of them.(63)  (62)  Smith (1980), 113 D.L.R. (3d) 522 a t 528,  548-50  (1958), 20 D.L.R. (2d) 627  634.  (63) See Appendix I .  (N.B.S.C.) a t  (F.C.A.).  PAGE 36 Before proceeding  w i t h t h e i n q u i r y as t o g e o g r a p h i c r e a c h , a  p o i n t o f minor r e l e v a n c e i s t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o be p u t on t h e phrase " f o r the p r e s e n t and u n t i l our f u r t h e r p l e a s u r e be known". I t seems t o c a s t a "temporary" l i g h t on t h e e f f e c t o f c l a u s e 2. Such i s r e a d i l y e x p l a i n a b l e .  The I m p e r i a l government  recognized  t h a t t h e move t o westward e x p a n s i o n c o u l d not be stopped f o r a l l times —  t h a t a t some f u t u r e time l a n d w i t h i n t h e r e s t r i c t e d  areas might be needed f o r s e t t l e m e n t .  However i t seems c l e a r ,  g i v e n t h e m i s c h i e f aimed a t , where such l a n d was needed i t would have t o be premised upon c e s s i o n and purchase w i t h consent.  Indian  The phrase i t s e l f i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h such an  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and should be so i n t e r p r e t e d .  To suggest t h a t i t  i m p l i e d , r a t h e r , a temporary r e c o g n i t i o n o f I n d i a n t i t l e would be to c o n s t r u e  the document t o the d e t r i m e n t  o f t h e I n d i a n s a course  no l o n g e r open t o the c o u r t s u n l e s s such i s c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d t o be the i n t e n t i o n . ( 6 4 ) Moreover, t o i n t e r p r e t t h i s ambiguous e x p r e s s i o n i n favour o f t h e I n d i a n s i s t o g i v e i t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n most c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i n t e n t expressed r e c i t a l , i t being j u s t and reasonable  i n the  and c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e  Imperial p o l i c y of recognizing land i n Indian  possession.(65)  This clause i s r i f e with t e x t u a l ambiguity.  C l e a r l y the  governors o f Quebec, East F l o r i d a and West F l o r i d a a r e p r o h i b i t e d from g r a n t i n g lands beyond t h e boundaries o f t h e i r  (64) N o w e j i g i c k ,  respective  s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 37.  (65) c f . S t . C a t h e r i n e ' s M i l l i n g and Lumber Co. v. (1888), 14 A.C. 46 (P.C.); (1887), 13 S.C.R. 577 (Can. S . C ) ; (1886), 13 O.A.R. 148 (Ont. C A . ) ; (1885), 10 O.R. 196 (Ont. Ch. D i v . ) .  PAGE 37 commissions.  T h i s s t i p u l a t i o n i s f o l l o w e d by a s e m i c o l o n .  c l a u s e then proceeds t o p r o h i b i t " f o r the p r e s e n t . . . "  The  "the  Governor or Commander-in-Chief i n any of Our o t h e r C o l o n i e s or P l a n t a t i o n s i n America"  from g r a n t i n g l a n d s west o f a d e s c r i b e d  watershed ( A l l e g h e n y Mountains) or "Upon any Lands Whatever, which not having been ceded t o or purchased  by Us as a f o r e s a i d  are r e s e r v e d to the S a i d I n d i a n s , , or any of them." The u n d e r l i n e d p o r t i o n of the c l a u s e r e f e r s t o l a n d s p r e v i o u s l y mentioned ("as  a f o r e s a i d " ) and can o n l y r e f e r t o the  words i n the r e c i t a l - t h a t i s - "such P a r t s of our Dominions and T e r r i t o r i e s a s , not having been ceded t o , or purchased r e s e r v e d to them....".  by Us,  Thus " f o r the p r e s e n t " the g o v e r n o r s  B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i e s throughout  are of  North America a r e p r o h i b i t e d from  granting lands i n Indian possession. However a problem l i e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h i s g e n e r a l p r o h i b i t i o n , g i v e n i n the u n d e r l i n e d phrase of c l a u s e 2, ( i i i ) i s r e f e r a b l e s o l e l y t o the immediately p r e c e d i n g phrase ( i i ) or i s a l s o r e f e r a b l e t o phase ( i ) ( s u p r a , p. 40) so as t o a p p l y r e s t r i c t i o n s west of the A p p a l a c h i a n d i v i d e to both the New  and  Old C o l o n i e s . Grammatically  both i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are open but the  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has much t o commend i t —  latter  i t i s consistent with  the m i s c h i e f as e x p l a i n e d i n the preamble to p r o t e c t I n d i a n i n a l l of B r i t i s h North America and i t i s the  title  interpretation,  open on the words, t h a t most b e n e f i t the I n d i a n b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f P a r t IV. sense.  I t i s a l s o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which makes the most The Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n c l e a r l y l a i d down the  boundaries  PAGE 38 of the new p r o v i n c e s - why then e n j o i n t h e governors g r a n t i n g l a n d o u t s i d e such b o u n d a r i e s , governor's  an a c t u l t r a v i r e s t h e  powers on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s ?  p r e s e n t s evidence  Slattery  showing t h a t contemporary o f f i c i a l s i n Quebec  b e l i e v e d t h a t c l a u s e 2 prevented t h e i r boundaries,  merely from  still  them from g r a n t i n g l a n d s , w i t h i n  i n Indian  possession.(66)  An argument can be made t h a t i t i s o n l y t h e Governors o f t h e old  c o l o n i e s and p l a n t a t i o n s t h a t a r e e n j o i n e d from g r a n t i n g  lands w i t h i n t h e i r boundaries  i n I n d i a n p o s s e s s i o n or indeed upon  any lands "whatever" i n I n d i a n p o s s e s s i o n where such have not been ceded t o or purchased by the Crown.  On t h i s narrow  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e c l a u s e then p r o t e c t s l a n d s i n I n d i a n p o s s e s s i o n , o u t s i d e o f t h e boundaries  o f t h e newly e s t a b l i s h e d  c o l o n i e s , which i s s u b j e c t t o an I n d i a n  title.  Of major importance then i s t h e meaning t o be g i v e n t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n i n c l a u s e 2 ( i i ) "Our C o l o n i e s o r P l a n t a t i o n s i n America" s i n c e i n such areas I n d i a n t i t l e i s r e c o g n i z e d t o t h e extent of p r o h i b i t i n g land grants.  B l a c k s t o n e t r e a t s t h e words  " p l a n t a t i o n s " and " c o l o n i e s " as synonymous.(67) H o l t d e f i n e s "colony" or " p l a n t a t i o n " t o mean "any l a n d , t e r r i t o r y , i s l a n d o r p o s s e s s i o n beyond t h e sea, b e l o n g i n g t o , o r under t h e dominion o f Great B r i t a i n " . ( 6 8 ) On such a d e f i n i t i o n Rupert's S c o t i a , Newfoundland and t h e Coast o f Labrador  Land, Nova  would a l l be  (66) See S l a t t e r y s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 19, p. 246. (67) I b i d . , p. 245 c i t i n g B l a c k s t o n e , Commentaries, 1 s t e d . , I , 104, 1765. (68) I b i d . , c i t i n g H o l t , N a v i g a t i o n Laws, (1820), I , a t p. 80.  PAGE 39 i n c l u d e d , as w e l l of c o u r s e as the American c o l o n i e s .  A g a i n the  c o n s t r u c t i o n adopted s h o u l d be t h a t which o f f e r s the g r e a t e s t p r o t e c t i o n t o I n d i a n h e l d l a n d s ( N o w e j i g i c k ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , the b e t t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t h a t any unceded and unpurchased whatever  lands  a r e immune from b e i n g g r a n t e d away by the g o v e r n i n g  a u t h o r i t y of B r i t i s h p o s s e s s i o n s ( o t h e r than Quebec, East F l o r i d a and West F l o r i d a where by v i r t u e of ( i ) above the r e s t r i c t i o n i s l i m i t e d t o l a n d g r a n t s beyond t h e i r b o u n d a r i e s i f a  narrow  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c l a u s e 2 i s a d o p t e d ) . I do not propose t o f u l l y e x p l o r e B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i a l  Claims  i n North America i n 1763 but a b r i e f r e v i e w of such shows t h a t the g e o g r a p h i c e x t e n t of B r i t i s h dominions was u n c e r t a i n as of 1763.  Such s u p p o r t s a l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the  P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s a p p l i c a t i o n as of 1763 t o meet the e x p r e s s e d aim of the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n , t h a t b e i n g t o r e c o g n i z e and 'Indian t i t l e '  throughout N o r t h America.  protect  F u r t h e r , such  u n c e r t a i n t y as t o i n t e n d e d g e o g r a p h i c scope i s o f f e r e d as s u p p o r t f o r a p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n of the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n , whereby the i n q u i r y as t o a c t u a l g e o g r a p h i c scope i n 1763 becomes an exercise i n f u t i l i t y .  Even the b o u n d a r i e s of New  France or  Canada, a t i t s c e s s i o n t o Great B r i t a i n i n 1763, were u n d e f i n e d on the n o r t h and west, and the boundaries g i v e n by the Quebec A c t , 1774 were not n e c e s s a r i l y those o f Canada i n 1763. In 1763 B r i t a i n c o u l d p o i n t t o wide c l a i m s i n N o r t h America based on the wide wording of the e a r l y c h a r t e r s and  particularly  t h a t of the V i r g i n i a C h a r t e r of 1609 which d e s c r i b e s the t e r r i t o r i e s t o be c o l o n i z e d as e i t h e r p e r t a i n i n g t o the Crown or  PAGE 40 not a c t u a l l y possessed by any C h r i s t i a n p r i n c e or p e o p l e . ( 6 9 ) T h i s c h a r t e r and subsequent  c h a r t e r s were d i f f e r e n t from  their  p r e d e c e s s o r s i n d e s i g n a t i n g s p e c i f i c b o u n d a r i e s f o r the t e r r i t o r i e s t o which they r e f e r r e d , and a s s u r i n g e x c l u s i v e for  rights  the E n g l i s h Crown w i t h i n such b o u n d a r i e s . ( 7 0 ) They thus  r e p r e s e n t a R o y a l a s s e r t i o n v i s - a - v i s o t h e r C h r i s t i a n s t a t e s , of e x c l u s i v e r i g h t s of c o l o n i z a t i o n , t r a d e and t e r r i t o r i a l  expansion  w i t h i n a d e s i g n a t e d a r e a , r i g h t s which i n t u r n a r e c o n f e r r e d upon the company.(71) The V i r g i n i a C h a r t e r of 1609 would seem t o c o n f e r r i g h t s t o a l l l a n d s s i t u a t e d upon a s e c t o r of the East Coast s t r e t c h i n g m i l e s n o r t h and south of Cape Comfort  200  "up i n t o the Land  throughout from Sea t o Sea, West and N o r t h West".(72) On  one  common i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , w h i l e the s o u t h e r n boundary ran due west to the P a c i f i c , the n o r t h e r n boundary extended  in a  n o r t h - w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n t a k i n g up a l a r g e p a r t of Western Canada.(73) The New  England C h a r t e r of 1620  i s e x p r e s s e d t o cover  t e r r i t o r y between the 40th and 48th p a r a l l e l s "and i n l e n g t h by a l l the Breadth a f o r e s a i d throughout the M a i n l a n d , from Sea t o Sea",(74) thus s u g g e s t i n g t h a t B r i t a i n viewed i t s American  (69) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y p. 102 et seq. (70) I b i d . , p.  103.  (71) I b i d . (72) I b i d . , c i t i n g Thorpe, C h a r t e r s , V I I , 3795. (73) I b i d .  PAGE 41 dominions as s t r e t c h i n g i n d e f i n i t e l y westward t o t h e P a c i f i c Ocean.(75) The p r i n c i p a l E n g l i s h C h a r t e r o f t h e 1 7 t h Century was t h a t g r a n t e d t o the Hudson Bay Company i n 1670, f o r R u p e r t ' s  Land.  T h i s C h a r t e r g i v e s i t s g e o g r a p h i c scope i n vague terms: The s o l e Trade and Commerce o f a l l those Seas S t r e i g h t e s Bayes R i v e r s Lakes Creekes and Soundes i n whatsoever L a t i t u d e they s h a l l bee t h a t l y e w i t h i n the e n t r a n c e o f t h e S t r e i g h t e s commonly c a l l e d Hudsons S t r e i g h t e s t o g e t h e r w i t h a l l t h e Landes and T e r r i t o r y e s upon t h e Countryes Coastes and confynes o f t h e Seas Bayes Lakes R i v e r s Creekes and Soundes a f o r e s a i d t h a t a r e not a l r e a d y a c t u a l l y possessed by or g r a n t e d t o any o f our S u b j e c t e s or possessed by t h e ' S u b j e c t e s o f any o t h e r C h r i s t i a n P r i n c e or S t a t e . . . . ( 7 6 ) (My emphasis). The t e x t e n v i s a g e s not merely l a n d s b o r d e r i n g d i r e c t l y upon t h e Sea, but a l l t e r r i t o r i e s whose waters d r a i n i n t o t h e seas  lying  w i t h i n t h e Hudson S t r a i t except those l a n d s a l r e a d y p o s s e s s e d o r granted t o B r i t i s h s u b j e c t s ; and 2) those p o s s e s s e d by t h e s u b j e c t o f o t h e r C h r i s t i a n S o v e r e i g n s . ( 7 7 ) The o n l y o t h e r C h r i s t i a n s t a t e e n t e r t a i n i n g serious claims w i t h i n the designated r e g i o n was France and i n 1763 a l l t e r r i t o r i e s c l a i m e d by France i n t h i s a r e a had been ceded t o B r i t a i n . "lands and t e r r i t o r i e s "  In r e f e r e n c e t o these  (mentioned i n t h e C h a r t e r , above) Mr.  J u s t i c e Monk, o f Lower Canada s a i d i n C o n n o l l y v.  Woolrich,(78)  (74) I b i d . , c i t i n g Thorpe C h a r t e r s , I I I , 1829. (75) I b i d . (76) The'Royal C h a r t e r i s g i v e n i n R i c h , H.B.C. Minutes 1671-74, 131-53, c i t e d i n S l a t t e r y a t p. 149. (77) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y , p. 185.  PAGE 4 2 "The  western boundaries  have never been c l e a r l y s e t t l e d or  d e f i n e d by j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n or o t h e r w i s e " . Columbia case of Sheppard v. t h a t the l i m i t s of Rupert's  In the  British  Sheppard(79) M a r t i n J . , i n h o l d i n g l a n d d i d not extend t o what became  B r i t i s h Columbia n e v e r t h e l e s s i n c l u d e d w i t h i n such "the p r e s e n t P r o v i n c e s of Manitoba,  boundaries  A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan  much more) g r a n t e d t o them by . t h e i r C h a r t e r of 2nd May,  (and  1670."  Arguably such l a n d s were not w i t h i n B r i t i s h S o v e r e i g n t y as of 1763. The Hudson's Bay t e r r i t o r y c l e a r l y can be brought w i t h i n c l a u s e 2 ( i i ) of the Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n as a matter of construction.  The  legal  t e r r i t o r y g r a n t e d to the Hudson's Bay Company  i s i n c l u d e d i n the e x p r e s s i o n "any of Our o t h e r C o l o n i e s or P l a n t a t i o n s i n America" C h a r t e r of 1670  by v i r t u e of the words i n the Company's  " t h a t the s a i d l a n d s be h e n c e f o r t h reckoned  and  reputed as one of Our P l a n t a t i o n s or C o l o n i e s i n America c a l l e d 'Rupert's  Land'".(80) I n d i a n h e l d l a n d s w i t h i n the b o u n d a r i e s  of  company l a n d c o u l d not be g r a n t e d away u n t i l some f u r t h e r Imperial e d i c t i n t h i s regard (clause 2 ( i i ) ) . What a r e a s , then d i d the Hudson's Bay Company t e x t of encompass?  T h i s i s a d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n t o answer w i t h  degree of c e r t a i n t y . concludes  1670  any  S l a t t e r y has reviewed v a r i o u s o p t i o n s  and  t h a t " c o n s i d e r i n g the c l o s e a s s o c i a t i o n between the  (78) C o n n o l l y v. Wool r i c h  (1867), 11 L.C.  (79) (1908), 13 B.C.R. 486 a t  J u r . 197  (Que.  S.C).  496.  (80) Narvey s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 59, p. 129, c i t i n g company c h a r t e r , i n B e c k l e s W i l s o n - The Great Company, v o l . 2 (London, 1900), pp. 318-336 a t p. 326.  PAGE 43 C h a r t e r o f 1670 and t h e e a r l i e r a t t e m p t s a t d i s c o v e r i n g a Northwest Passage, t h e r e would seem t o be some b a s i s , prima  facie  f o r a d o p t i n g an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t extends i t s g e o g r a p h i c r e a c h t o t h e A r c t i c d r a i n a g e b a s i n , thus i n c l u d i n g l a n d s f u r t h e r west."(81) In 1719 B r i t a i n o f f i c i a l l y p r e s e n t e d t o France a c l a i m to a l l t e r r i t o r i e s n o r t h o f t h e 49th p a r a l l e l west o f Lake Mistassini.  At t h i s time B r i t a i n thus a s s e r t e d e x c l u s i v e  rights  t o t h e whole o f Western Canada n o r t h o f t h e 49th p a r a l l e l . B r i t i s h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were d i r e c t e d t o c l a i m a l l l a n d s n o r t h o f a l i n e drawn from t h e c o a s t o f Labrador a t 58 1/2 degrees n o r t h l a t i t u d e running i n a s o u t h w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n so as t o b i s e c t Lake M i t a s s i n i , and then i n d e f i n i t e l y west a l o n g t h e 49 degree p a r a l l e l . ( 8 2 ) At t h i s time then t h e Company a s s e r t e d r i g h t s t o the whole o f western Canada n o r t h o f 49 degrees l a t i t u d e .  One  s c h o l a r has noted t h a t i n 1763 t h e r e were two common v e r s i o n s o f the s o u t h e r n l i m i t o f R u p e r t ' s Land west o f Lake S u p e r i o r . ( 8 3 ) One he says "had t h e boundary  proceed i n d e f i n i t e l y west a l o n g t h e  49 degree n o r t h l a t i t u d e " and p o i n t s t o t h e contemporary maps o f Bowan, K i t c h e n and o t h e r s as e v i d e n c i n g t h i s .  On a n o t h e r  contemporary map ( M i t c h e l l ) t h e s o u t h e r n l i m i t i s drawn f o l l o w i n g the h e i g h t o f t h e l a n d —  from t h e w e s t e r n end o f S u p e r i o r t h e  u n d u l a t i n g l i n e on M i t c h e l l ' s map drops from almost 51 degrees  (81) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y , p. 186. (82) I b i d . (83) Greenwood, Murray, Summary o f an O p i n i o n , O c t . 3 1 s t , 1986, u n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t on t h e Geographic Scope o f t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763, a t p. 41.  PAGE 44 n o r t h t o about 49 degrees n o r t h when i t l e a v e s t h e map j u s t  north  of the Lake o f t h e Woods. On e i t h e r account  t h e western boundary was u n s p e c i f i e d .  There were no competing c l a i m s i n 1763 from o t h e r European n a t i o n s t h a t suggest one s h o u l d be i m p l i e d . 2 of t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s  Arguably  Indian p r o v i s i o n s operates t o p r o t e c t  lands i n I n d i a n p o s s e s s i o n above 49 degrees n o r t h indefinitely  then c l a u s e  latitude  west.(84)  V a r i o u s arguments have been r a i s e d t o suggest  that the  Hudson's Bay t e r r i t o r y d i d not f a l l w i t h i n t h e scope o f c l a u s e 2 ( i i ) or ( i i i ) (see p. 40 above).  F i r s t l y the clause p r o h i b i t s  l a n d g r a n t s and as one s c h o l a r has p o i n t e d o u t , s e t t l e m e n t had been p r o h i b i t e d by t h e Hudson's Bay s i n c e 1680.(85) However t h e r e was  n o t h i n g t o p r e v e n t the Hudson's Bay Company from  this provision.  altering  By t h e i r C h a r t e r o f 1670 t h e Hudson's Bay  Company were a l l o w e d " t o e r e c t and b u i l d  such  castles,  f o r t i f i c a t i o n s , f o r t s , g a r r i s o n s , c o l o n i e s or p l a n t a t i o n s , towns or v i l l a g e s " as they s h o u l d t h i n k f i t w i t h i n t h e t e r r i t o r y granted t o them.(86) I n 1763,  the t e r r i t o r y granted t o the  (84) For j u d i c i a l statements c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s v i e w , see v. White & Bob (1964), 50 D.L.R. (2d) 613 B.C.C.A. a t 639 per N o r r i s J.A.; C a l d e r v. A.G.B.C. (1973), 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145 (S.C.C.), per H a l l J . a t 204 Re P a u l e t t e and R e g i s t r a r o f T i t l e s (No. 2)P 1973 42 D.L.R. (3d) 8 (N.W.T.S.C.) a t 24-5. cf. Rex v. Wesley, [1932] 4 D.L.R. 774 a t 786; Regina v. S i k y e a (1964), 43 D.L.R. (2d) 150; Sigeareak E l - 5 3 v. The Queen, [1966] S.C.R. 645 a t 650 per H a l l . (85) Supra, f o o t n o t e 83 a t p. 22. (86) Narvey s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 59 p. 138 c i t i n g Company C h a r t e r i n B e c k l e s W i l s o n - The Great Company, v o l . 2 (London, 1900), p. 334.  PAGE  Hudson's in  B a y C o m p a n y was  British  North America  were  Company s e r v a n t s  from  private  situation Charles  unique  trade.  rested  on  in  among  that  whose  its  following  various  only  contracts  The company's the  the  of  right words  jurisdictions  non-native service to  in  inhabitants  debarred  maintain their  4  them  this  Charter  from  II: And f u r t h e r , o f o u r more e s p e c i a l g r a c e , we have c o n d e s c e n d e d and g r a n t e d , and by t h e s e presents, forms, our h e i r s and s u c c e s s o r s , do g r a n t unto the s a i d g o v e r n o r and company, and t h e i r s u c c e s s o r s , t h a t we o u r h e i r s a n d s u c c e s s o r s w i l l not grant l i b e r t y , l i c e n c e or power t o any p e r s o n , o r p e r s o n s whatsoever, c o n t r a r y to the tenor of these our l e t t e r s patent, to t r a d e , t r a f f i c or or i n h a b i t ! , unto or upon any o f t h e t e r r i t o r i e s , l i m i t s , or places afore specified, c o n t r a r y to the true meaning of these p r e s e n t , without the consent o f t h e s a i d G o v e r n o r a n d Company o r t h e most part of them...  It  would  whether  thus  settlement  Clause thus to  2(ii)  necessary  prohibit  Indian  which  It would  territorial  was  completely  to  be  (iii)  at  allowed of  Part to  the  or  company's  discretion  prohibited.  IV of  the  Company f r o m g i v i n g  the  Proclamation  Hudson's land  Bay C o .  grants  on  lands  in  were  unceded  and u n p u r c h a s e d  by  certainly  then  less  an  clause  have  the  facie  with land  defined  grants,  a  of sole  purpose  boundaries, power  anomaly  denied  from them  that  of  at  the  preventing  issuing  are  territory  which  prima  colonies,  be  and a p p l i c a b l e  the  is  to  and  possession  Crown.  new  seem  2(i) the  extra  law,  was  included. In  the  "Plan for  the  future  management  of  Indian  Affairs"  PAGE 46 i s s u e d by the Lords of Trade i n 1764,(87) none of the  tribes  i n h a b i t i n g the Hudson's Bay t e r r i t o r y were l i s t e d i n the Appendices.  T h i s o m i s s i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g when i t i s  r e a l i z e d t h a t two of the t r i b e s i n v o l v e d — the Cree —  the A s s i n b o i n e s  and  were w e l l known and t h e i r h u n t i n g grounds were  i n v a r i a b l y i n d i c a t e d on contemporary maps ( i n c l u d i n g Bowens) as being i n Rupert's  Land.(88) P r o f e s s o r Greenwood has argued t h a t  s i n c e the appendix l i s t e d a l l the I n d i a n t r i b e s save those i n Rupert's Land, thought America,  t o be w i t h i n B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i e s i n N o r t h  t h e i r o m i s s i o n may  Hudson's Bay  be taken as an e x c l u s i o n of the  Territory.  In answer A r t i c l e 2 of the P l a n p r o v i d e d f o r the d i v i s i o n of "the B r i t i s h Dominion i n N o r t h America"  i n t o two d i s t r i c t s  "to  comprehend and i n c l u d e " the s e v e r a l t r i b e s of I n d i a n s mentioned i n the Appendix.  I t was  thus not seen t o be e x h a u s t i v e of the  t r i b e s of I n d i a n s then i n B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i e s — i t s words l i m i t e d t o the mentioned t r i b e s . 1764  list  And  i t was  not  not o n l y was  on the  i t s e l f not e x h a u s t i v e , i t a l r e a d y i n c l u d e d t r i b e s which  had l i t t l e ,  i f any, c o n t a c t w i t h the B r i t i s h a t the time of the  P r o c l a m a t i o n a year  earlier.(89)  (87) See Narvey s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 59, p. 139. (88) Supra, f o o t n o t e 83, a t p.  f o o t n o t e 51.  25.  (89) M o r r i s o n , J i m , Research R e p o r t , The P r o s p e c t i v e A p p l i c a t i o n of the Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763, u n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , p. 8.  PAGE 47 For the f o r e g o i n g reason i t seems t h a t the b e t t e r view i s t h a t the Hudson's Bay t e r r i t o r y was  comprehended by the g e n e r a l  terms " c o l o n i e s and p l a n t a t i o n s " even i f e x c l u d e d from the d e s c r i p t i o n of ' I n d i a n C o u n t r y ' .  A g a i n the I n d i a n s of the  Hudson's Bay t e r r i t o r i e s s h o u l d n o t , i f a t a l l p o s s i b l e the words of the p r o c l a m a t i o n , be d e n i e d i t s b e n e f i t s s o l e l y on grounds of a narrow c o n s t r u c t i o n . Narvey h o l d s t h a t as a matter of i n t e n t i o n the  Proclamation  i n the u n d e r l i n e d phrase of c l a u s e 2 above r e c o g n i z e d ,  confirmed  and d e c l a r e d I n d i a n t i t l e over a l l unceded and unpurchased l a n d . "Whatever".  That i s :  . .. a l l l a n d s i n the p o s s e s s i o n of the I n d i a n s as t h e i r h u n t i n g grounds were i n t e n d e d t o be i p s o f a c t o r e s e r v e d t o them .... u n t i l ceded t o or purchased by competent a u t h o r i t y .  PAGE 48 4. (i)  Prospective A p p l i c a t i o n of the Royal Proclamation  o f 1763  Introduction  The  argument i s here made t h a t even i f t h e I n d i a n  p r o v i s i o n s of the Royal Proclamation  land  o f 1763 d i d not a p p l y on  t h e i r terms t o Western Canada, such a r e a s were  nevertheless  brought w i t h i n t h e i r scope upon t h e a s s e r t i o n o f B r i t i s h Sovereignty  over t h i s a r e a .  As a law o f m a n i f e s t l y u n i v e r s a l  p o l i c y r e f e r a b l e t o a major Crown P r e r o g a t i v e ( 9 0 )  i t was "a law  which f o l l o w e d t h e f l a g as England assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n over newly d i s c o v e r e d o r a c q u i r e d  l a n d s or t e r r i t o r i e s " , ( 9 1 )  applying  p r o p r i o v i g o r e t o b i n d such t e r r i t o r i e s r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r d a t e of a c q u i s i t i o n , a r u l e c o n t a i n e d  i n p a r t i n t h e C o l o n i a l Laws  V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865. Such a c o n c l u s i o n i s not f o r e c l o s e d by t h e wording of the t e x t and i s c l e a r l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t s s p i r i t as determined from an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e s t a t e o f a f f a i r s which l e d t o the passage o f t h e s t a t u t e and t h e e v i l i t was d e s i g n e d t o remedy.(92) From t h i s p o i n t o f view t h e s p e c i f i c problems o f l e g a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as t o i t s g e o g r a p h i c scope as o f 1763, assume a secondary p l a c e .  (90) See d i s c u s s i o n i n f r a p. 144 e t s e q . (91) Supra, f o o t n o t e 8, 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145 a t p. 203 p e r Mr. Justice Hall. (92) See g e n e r a l l y S l a t t e r y s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 19, c h s . 1  11, 14.  PAGE 49 I t w i l l elsewhere be argued t h a t c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s were p o w e r l e s s t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h any o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e R o y a l Proclamation Prerogative  both because o f t h e p r o t e c t i o n a f f o r d e d such major i n s t r u m e n t s by t h e C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t ,  1865,(93) and upon t h e f u r t h e r ground t h a t i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h a major P r e r o g a t i v e would be repugnant "not merely t o t h e law o f England but t o t h e a u t h o r i t y o f the Crown as an e s s e n t i a l p a r t of the c o u n t r i e s  constitution."(94)  L e g i s l a t i o n under t h e p r e r o g a t i v e  powers o f t h e Crown i s ,  l i k e s t a t u t e s , o r i g i n a l i n character(95) i n l i k e manner.  The P r o c l a m a t i o n  and i s t o be  construed  i s on i t s f a c e ambiguous as t o  i t s g e o g r a p h i c reach and temporal a p p l i c a t i o n , many o f i t s p r o v i s i o n s being  framed i n g e n e r a l  terms.  A l t h o u g h i t d i d not  e x p r e s s l y address i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o f u t u r e cases such does not preclude construed  i t s application thereto.  The P r o c l a m a t i o n  must be  i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t s s p i r i t and t h e  l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t as t o cases not e x p l i c i t l y p r o v i d e d discovered, according  for,  or presumed i n l i g h t o f i t s purpose o r o b j e c t  t o t h e well-known r u l e s o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n .  (ii) C o n s t r u c t i o n of the T e r r i t o r i a l E f f e c t of the Royal Proclamation's Indian Provisions i n Light of Their L e g i s l a t i v e Purpose  (93) See d i s c u s s i o n i n f r a p. 211 e t s e q . (94) Roberts-Wray, S i r Kenneth, Commonwealth and C o l o n i a l Law London: Stevens and Sons, 1966, a t p. 381. (95) C r a i e s , S t a t u t e Law, 7 t h ed. e d i t e d by S.G.G. Edgar, London: Sweet & M a x w e l l , 1971, a t p. 52 c i t i n g Hawkins, p r e f a c e t o s t a t u t e s (1735).  PAGE 50 When s e e k i n g t o c o n s t r u e l e g i s l a t i o n , a fundamental distinction  t o be made i s t h a t between i n t e n t i o n as meaning and  i n t e n t i o n as g o a l .  The l a t t e r may n e c e s s a r i l y d e f i n e t h e meaning  of t h e words used, e s p e c i a l l y where g e n e r a l e x p r e s s i o n s , r e f e r e n c e t o p a r t i c u l a r c a s e s , a r e used.  without  The c o n s t r u c t i o n p l a c e d  upon such g e n e r a l words s h o u l d then be t h a t b e s t d e s i g n e d t o reach a l l cases w i t h i n t h e m i s c h i e f t o be remedied. R e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e importance o f l e g i s l a t i v e purpose was f i r s t expressed 1584,  i n Heydons c a s e , an Exchequer Court d e c i s i o n o f  where i t was s t a t e d i n L o r d Coke's r e p o r t t h a t : And i t was r e s o l v e d by them [ t h e Barons o f t h e Exchequer], t h a t f o r t h e sure and t r u e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e s i n g e n e r a l (be they p e n a l or b e n e f i c i a l , r e s t r i c t i v e o r e n l a r g i n g o f t h e common law,) f o u r t h i n g s a r e to be d i s c e r n e d and c o n s i d e r e d : 1 s t . What was t h e common law b e f o r e t h e making of t h e A c t . 2nd. What was the m i s c h i e f and d e f e c t f o r which t h e common law d i d not p r o v i d e . 3 r d . What remedy t h e P a r l i a m e n t hath r e s o l v e d and a p p o i n t e d t o cure t h e d i s e a s e o f the commonwealth. And, 4 t h . The t r u e reason o f the remedy; and then t h e o f f i c e o f a l l t h e Judges i s always t o make such c o n s t r u c t i o n as s h a l l suppress t h e m i s c h i e f , and advance t h e remedy, and t o suppress s u b t l e i n v e n t i o n s and e v a s i o n s f o r c o n t i n u a n c e o f the m i s c h i e f , and pro p r i v a t o commodo, and t o add f o r c e and l i f e to t h e cure and remedy, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t r u e i n t e n t o f t h e makers o f t h e A c t , p r o bono publico.(96)  The c o u r t s have s i n c e made f o r c e f u l d e c l a r a t i o n s a d v o c a t i n g t h e primacy o f l e g i s l a t i v e purpose as an i n t e r p r e t i v e t o o l . clearly  (96)  expressed  i n W i l l i a m s v.  T h i s was  Box(97) by I d i n g t o n J :  (1584), 3 Co. Rep. 7a, 7b, 76 E.R. 637 a t 638.  (97) (1910), 44 S.C.R. 1, 10 and see H i r s c h v. P r o t e s t a n t Board  PAGE 51 I f we would i n t e r p r e t c o r r e c t l y t h e meaning o f any s t a t u t e o r o t h e r w r i t i n g we must u n d e r s t a n d what those f o r m i n g i t were about, and t h e purpose i t was i n t e n d e d t o e x e c u t e . The r u l e s i n Heydon's Case have been a p p l i e d i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s . ( 9 8 ) The Canadian  ' m i s c h i e f r u l e ' has s i n c e been c o d i f i e d i n v a r i o u s Interpretation Acts.  S e c t i o n 11 o f t h e f e d e r a l  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Act reads: Every enactment s h a l l be deemed r e m e d i a l , and s h a l l be g i v e n such f a i r , l a r g e and l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as b e s t ensures the a t t a i n m e n t o f i t s o b j e c t s . ( 9 9 ) T h i s i s d e r i v e d from t h e o r i g i n a l Canadian  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Act of  1849:(100) ...and every such A c t and e v e r y p r o v i s i o n o r enactment t h e r e o f , s h a l l be deemed r e m e d i a l , whether i t s immediate p u r p o r t be t o d i r e c t t h e  o f S c h o o l Commissioner o f M o n t r e a l , [1926] S.C.R. 246 a t 266 where Mr. J u s t i c e A n g l i n c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l t h e words o f L o r d B l a c k b u r n i n B r a d l a u g h v. C l a r k e (1883), 8 A.C. 354 a t 372: A l l s t a t u t e s a r e t o be c o n s t r u e d by the C o u r t s so as t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e i n t e n t i o n which i s e x p r e s s e d by t h e words used i n t h e s t a t u t e . But t h a t i s not t o be d i s c o v e r e d by c o n s i d e r i n g these words i n t h e a b s t r a c t , but by i n q u i r i n g what i s the i n t e n t i o n e x p r e s s e d by those words used i n a s t a t u t e w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s u b j e c t matter and f o r t h e o b j e c t w i t h which t h a t s t a t u t e was made; i t b e i n g a q u e s t i o n t o be determined by t h e C o u r t , and a v e r y i m p o r t a n t one, what was t h e o b j e c t f o r which i t appears t h a t t h e s t a t u t e was made. See a l s o A.G. f o r Canada v. H a l l e t t & Carey, [1952] A.C. 427, a t 449 per L o r d R u d c l i f f e . and Toronto T r a n s i t Commission v. C i t y o f T o r o n t o , [1971] S.C.R. 746 a t 752 per Spence J .  PAGE 5 2 d o i n g o f a n y t h i n g which t h e l e g i s l a t u r e may deem t o be f o r t h e p u b l i c good or t o p r e v e n t or p u n i s h t h e d o i n g o f a n y t h i n g which i t may deem c o n t r a r y t o t h e p u b l i c good, and s h a l l a c c o r d i n g l y r e c e i v e such f a i r , l a r g e and l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as w i l l b e s t ensure t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e o b j e c t o f t h e Act and o f such p r o v i s i o n o r enactment, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r t r u e i n t e n t , meaning and spirit... Thus the e v i l o r abuse t h a t was t o be remedied must be i d e n t i f i e d , so t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r c o n s t r u c t i o n may f o l l o w t h e " i n t e n t , meaning and s p i r i t " o f t h e enactment.  I t would appear  that Parliament,  by c o d i f y i n g t h e M i s c h i e f R u l e , sought t o remedy  an o v e r l y s t r i c t  and l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s t a t u t e s .  course c o d i f i c a t i o n of the mischief  Of  r u l e does not a b s o l v e t h e  i n t e r p r e t e r o f t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o comply w i t h t h e w r i t t e n expression  o f t h e t e x t whose words may c i r c u m s c r i b e  a p p l i c a t i o n of the rule.(101) construed  the f u l l  However where t h e i n s t r u m e n t t o be  i s one o f p u b l i c concern t h e words used s h o u l d be  l i b e r a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d t o best a t t a i n the l e g i s l a t i v e purpose.(102) Where,, as here t h e i n s t r u m e n t r e l a t e s t o I n d i a n s and p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e i r l a n d r i g h t s , t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r such a  (98) F e d e r a t e d Saw M i l l Employes v. James Moore and Son (1908), 8 C.L.R. 465, a t 486. (99) F e d e r a l  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t , s. 11.  (100)  12 V i c t . , c. 10, s. 5.  (101)  See W e l l e s l e y H o s p i t a l v. Lawson, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 893 a t 904 where t h e Court s t a t e s : "There i s n o t h i n g i n t h i s p r o v i s i o n t h a t would tend t o d i s p l a c e t h e r u l e t h a t t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s t o be g a t h e r e d from t h e words used."  (102)  See Mackenzie v. Mackenzie (1951), 5 De G. & Sm. 338; 21, L . J . Ch. 385; 64 E.R. 1143 c o n c e r n i n g v a r i o u s A n n u i t y A c t s and S h i p p i n g A c t s .  PAGE 53 l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n f a v o u r of the I n d i a n s , i s even stronger.(103) B e f o r e mounting an argument f o r a p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n of the I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n of the P r o c l a m a t i o n then i t i s n e c e s s a r y address the m i s c h i e f sought t o be remedied t h e r e b y .  The  to  preamble  to P a r t IV of the P r o c l a m a t i o n s t a t e s : And whereas i t i s j u s t and r e a s o n a b l e , and e s s e n t i a l t o Our I n t e r e s t and S e c u r i t y of Our C o l o n i e s , t h a t the s e v e r a l N a t i o n s or T r i b e s of I n d i a n s , w i t h whom we are connected, and who l i v e under Our P r o t e c t i o n , s h o u l d not be molested or d i s t u r b e d i n the P o s s e s s i o n of such P a r t s of Our Dominions and T e r r i t o r i e s , as not h a v i n g been ceded t o , or purchased by Us, a r e r e s e r v e d t o them, or any of them, as t h e i r Hunting Grounds; As n o t e d , preambles,  e s p e c i a l l y i n e a r l i e r A c t s , have been  g e n e r a l l y regarded as of g r e a t importance  as g u i d e s t o  c o n s t r u c t i o n , b e i n g a r e c i t a l of the f a c t s o p e r a t i v e on the mind of  the framers a t the time of enactment and t h e r e f o r e of the  l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t of the e n a c t i n g p r o v i s i o n s . ( 1 0 4 ) Where the i n t e n t i s e x p r e s s e d i n v e r y g e n e r a l terms, such as t h e s e , they a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y v u l n e r a b l e t o t h e i r l e g a l environment and may l i m i t e d by the p a r t i c u l a r e n a c t i n g p r o v i s i o n s .  The  be  actual  language of the I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s w i l l be d e a l t w i t h i n more d e t a i l l a t e r : s u f f i c e i t t o say here t h a t they l a y out a g e n e r a l scheme f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of I n d i a n i n t e r e s t s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the  (103) N o w e g i j i c k v. The Queen (1983), 144 D.L.R. (3d) 193, [1983] C.T.C. 20, 83 D.T.C. 5041, 46 N.R. 41 [1983] 2 C.N.L.R. 89 (S.C.C.). (104) L.C.C. v. Bermondsey B i o s c o p e Co., 451 per L o r d A l v e r s t o n e C.J.  [1911] 1 K.B.  445 a t p.  PAGE 54 broad purpose r e c i t e d i n t h e preamble.  The l a t t e r d e s c r i b e s t h e  I n d i a n b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f P a r t IV as "The s e v e r a l N a t i o n s or T r i b e s of I n d i a n s , w i t h whom We a r e c o n n e c t e d , and who l i v e under Our P r o t e c t i o n " , and t h e l a n d s a f f e c t e d as "Such P a r t s o f Our Dominions and T e r r i t o r i e s , as not having been ceded t o , or purchased by Us, a r e r e s e r v e d t o them, o r any o f them, as t h e i r H u n t i n g Grounds." Indian possession ensuing  I t thus r e c o g n i z e d  'Indian t i t l e  1  t o land i n  throughout B r i t i s h N o r t h America and i n t h e  p r o v i s i o n s aimed a t a u n i f o r m p r o c e d u r e f o r Crown  purchase o f such l a n d s w i t h I n d i a n c o n s e n t .  As one s c h o l a r  notes: I t may be remembered t h a t t h e measures i n P a r t IV a r e f o r t h e most p a r t h a r d l y n o v e l . They r e p r e s e n t a c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f p r i n c i p l e s and p r a c t i c e s a l r e a d y p r e v a i l i n g i n many o l d c o l o n i e s . The i n t e n t i o n was t o b r i n g t h e v a r i o u s B r i t i s h h o l d i n g s i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , both new and o l d , under a u n i f o r m regime r e g a r d i n g I n d i a n l a n d s , and t o i n f u s e t h e whole w i t h p o l i c i e s c o n c e i v e d i n a g l o b a l manner, r a t h e r than p i e c e m e a l and h a p h a z a r d l y . There i s no i n d i c a t i o n that Indian lands acquired a f t e r October 1763 were meant t o be t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y from those a c q u i r e d previously.(105) G i v e n then t h a t one o f t h e c h i e f purposes o f t h e Proclamation reasonable  was t o e s t a b l i s h a u n i f o r m  Indian p o l i c y , i s i t  t h a t t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e Crown i n t h i s r e g a r d  should  be c o n s i d e r e d as f i x e d as o f 1763 and t o have no r e l e v a n c e or a p p l i c a t i o n t o s i t u a t i o n s a r i s i n g subsequent t o t h i s d a t e ? i s no express  (105)  language i n t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n  There  t h a t s u g g e s t s such a  Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y , p. 338-9.  PAGE 55 l i m i t e d temporal a p p l i c a t i o n .  Moreover, t o impute such  limited  i n t e n t i o n t o t h e Crown i s t o deny both t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n and t h e dynamics o f change i n t h e l a t e 1 8 t h c e n t u r y i n B r i t i s h N o r t h America.  I n f a c t , c o l o n i a l p o l i c y and events  subsequent t o 1763 e v i d e n c e a r e l i a n c e on the p r i n c i p l e s down i n t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n .  laid  The P l a n o f 1764 and the numerous  t r e a t i e s , g r a n t s and s u r r e n d e r s were made w i t h the I n d i a n s on terms and c o n d i t i o n s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the P r o c l a m a t i o n s provisions.  The 1847 Commission on I n d i a n A f f a i r s i n Canada  concluded  i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e Crown's p o s i t i o n v i s a v i s l a n d s  possessed  by t h e I n d i a n s t h a t :  A l t h o u g h t h e Crown c l a i m s t h e t e r r i t o r i a l s t a t e and eminent dominion i n Canada, as i n o t h e r o f the o l d e r c o l o n i e s , i t has ever s i n c e i t s p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o v i n c e , conceded t o t h e I n d i a n s t h e r i g h t t o occupancy upon t h e i r o l d h u n t i n g grounds, and t h e i r c l a i m t o compensation f o r i t s s u r r e n d e r , r e s e r v i n g t o i t s e l f the e x c l u s i v e p r i v i l e g e of t r e a t i n g w i t h them f o r t h e s u r r e n d e r o r purchase o f any p o r t i o n of the l a n d . This i s d i s t i n c t l y l a i d down i n the P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763, and t h e p r i n c i p l e has s i n c e been g e n e r a l l y acknowledged and r a r e l y i n f r i n g e d upon by the government.(106) I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n s s t r i c t u r e s as t o a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n g e n e r a l were thought  to apply to Indian land  p o l i c y i n t h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia.  The f e d e r a l  government e x e r c i s e d i t s power o f d i s a l l o w m e n t  o f p r o v i n c i a l laws  i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e B.C. Land a c t o f 1874 on t h e b a s i s t h a t i t d i d not a d e q u a t e l y  recognize the a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s of the n a t i v e  (106) J a c k s o n , M., u n p u b l i s h e d memo, 1982.  PAGE  peoples of B r i t i s h Columbia as e x p r e s s e d  i n the  56  Proclamation.  The M i n i s t e r of J u s t i c e s t a t e d i n h i s o p i n i o n t h a t : There i s no shadow of a doubt, t h a t from the e a r l i e s t times England has always f e l t i t i m p e r a t i v e t o meet the I n d i a n s i n C o u n c i l , and to o b t a i n s u r r e n d e r s of t r a c t s of Canada as from time t o time were r e q u i r e d f o r the purposes of s e t t l e m e n t . The M i n i s t e r went on t o r e c i t e the p r o v i s i o n s of the P r o c l a m a t i o n and  Royal  concluded:  The u n d e r s i g n e e d f e e l s t h a t he cannot do o t h e r w i s e than a d v i s e t h a t A c t i n q u e s t i o n i s o b j e c t i o n a b l e , as t e n d i n g t o d e a l w i t h l a n d s which a r e a s s u r e d t o be the a b s o l u t e p r o p e r t y of the P r o v i n c e , an assumption which c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e s , as a p p l i c a b l e t o the I n d i a n s of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , the honour and good f a i t h which the Crown has, i n a l l o t h e r cases s i n c e i t s s o v e r e i g n t y i n North America, d e a l t w i t h t h e i r various Indian t r i b e s . C l e a r l y , as of 1874, was  i n s o f a r as the f e d e r a l M i n i s t e r of J u s t i c e  concerned, a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e had not been e x t i n g u i s h e d i n  B r i t i s h Columbia. Proclamation  The  ongoing c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the  i s evidenced  by i t s i n c l u s i o n i n the  1982  Constitution Act. The p u r p o s e , t h e n , of the I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s of P r o c l a m a t i o n was  the  c l e a r l y t o p r o t e c t I n d i a n l a n d from u n l a w f u l  w h i t e encroachment and adopted when such was  t o govern s t r i c t l y the p r o c e d u r e t o be a l i e n a t e d t o the Crown.  Such purpose must  i n f o r m the i n q u i r y i n t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the P r o c l a m a t i o n more p a r t i c u l a r l y i t s p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n . (iii) B a s i c Rules of Application  Statutory Construction  re  Temporal  and  PAGE 57 The  r u l e u n i v e r s a l l y adopted as t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f w i l l s ,  s t a t u t e s and indeed a l l w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t s , i s t h a t t h e grammatical and o r d i n a r y sense o f t h e word, a t t h e time o f t h e i r enactment,(107) i s t o be adhered  t o u n l e s s such l e a d s t o some  a b s u r d i t y , repugnance o r i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h t h e r e s t o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t . ( 1 0 8 ) But merely because t h e meaning o f l e g i s l a t i o n a t the time o f i t s enactment must be r e s p e c t e d , i n no way suggests t h a t t h e s t a t u t e ' s e f f e c t i s c o n f i n e d t o m a t e r i a l or s o c i a l or events then e x i s t i n g .  facts  I t i s necessary t o d i s t i n g u i s h the  meaning o f a term from t h e t h i n g s t h a t may be i n c l u d e d i n i t s ambit. I t i s a r u l e of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n that a s t a t u t e i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d as always s p e a k i n g and a p p l i c a b l e t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s as they a r i s e ( t h i s r u l e i s not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r u l e t h a t an A c t must be c o n s t r u e d t h e day a f t e r i t was p a s s e d ) .  This rule  i s s t a t u t o r i l y r e c o g n i z e d i n v a r i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t s : "the law i s ever commanding", and "whatever be t h e tense o f t h e v e r b or verbs c o n t a i n e d i n a p r o v i s i o n , such p r o v i s i o n s h a l l be deemed t o be i n f o r c e a t a l l times and under a l l c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o which i t may a p p l y . " ( 1 0 9 ) The use o f t h e p r e s e n t tense i n l e g i s l a t i v e  (107) Sharpe v. W a k e f i e l d (1889), 22 Q.B.D. 239, a t 242, c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l by M a r t l a n d i n Bogoeh Seed Co. v. Canadian P a c i f i c R a i l w a y Co., [1963] S.C.R. 247. (108)  [1857] 6 H.L.C. 61, 106 E.R. 1216 a t 1234.  (109) I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t , R.S.Q., c. T-16, s. 49 and see s. 10 f e d e r a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t t o t h e same e f f e c t , R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-23, s. 10. See a l s o Watson v. U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a , [1981] 2 F.C. 431 ( C A . ) c i t e d i n C o t e , J.E. R e c e p t i o n o f E n g l i s h Law, 1977, XV A l b e r t a Law Rev. 29 a t p. 54.  PAGE 58 d r a f t i n g i s e x p l a i n e d p r i m a r i l y by t e c h n i c a l reasons — i t p r o v i d e s no b a s i s f o r c o n c l u s i o n s about t h e temporal o p e r a t i o n o f the law.  The f a c t t h a t a law i s w r i t t e n i n t h e p r e s e n t does not  imply t h a t i t s h o u l d r e c e i v e a r e t r o a c t i v e e f f e c t o r be c o n s i d e r e d d e c l a r a t o r y . ( 1 1 0 ) And i t s h o u l d not be presumed t h a t the e f f e c t o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i s exhausted  after i t s i n i t i a l  a p p l i c a t i o n , n o r m a l l y a s t a t u t e a p p l i e s as f r e q u e n t l y as circumstances  require.  a p p l i e s o n l y t o persons enactment.  There i s no presumption  that a s t a t u t e  o r p r o p e r t y e x i s t i n g a t t h e time o f i t s  I t may govern new s i t u a t i o n s i f i t s s p i r i t so  r e q u i r e s and i t s wording  does not e x p l i c i t l y  i n d i c a t e the  c o n t r a r y . ( I l l ) Not o n l y can a s t a t u t e a p p l y t o s i t u a t i o n s which do not e x i s t when i t was e n a c t e d , i t can a l s o govern phenomena which were v i r t u a l l y  unimaginable  a t t h e time.  Thus, i f  j u s t i f i e d by i t s aim and c o m p a t i b l e w i t h i t s purpose, a s t a t u t e w i l l a p p l y t o any f u t u r e s i t u a t i o n s t h a t f a l l w i t h i n t h e ambit o f its  words.(112) In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e i s a presumption  t h a t where a s t a t u t e i s  b e n e f i c i a l and r e m e d i a l i t s h o u l d be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d , and d o u b t f u l e x p r e s s i o n s i n t e r p r e t e d i n t h e l a r g e s t sense which t h e words w i l l p r o p e r l y bear.  Thus a p u b l i c enactment  employing  (110) J o i n t Committee v. A. Cohen & Co., [1951] 3 D.L.R. 133 (Que. S . C ) ; G r a v e l v. C i t y o f S t . Leonard, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 660. (111) Re O n t a r i o M e d i c a l A c t , (1907), 13 O.L.R. 501 (Ont. C.A.). (112) C h a p p e l l & Co. L t d . v. A s s o c i a t e d Radio Co. o f A u s t r a l i a L t d . , [1925] V.L.R. 350; 47 A.L.T. 12; 31 Argus L.R. 297 (Aust.).  PAGE 59 g e n e r a l words i s u s u a l l y understood t o a p p l y t o a l l e n t i t i e s f a l l i n g w i t h i n i t s scope a t any time d u r i n g i t s l i f e , even t o t h i n g s which d i d not e x i s t and c o u l d not have been a n t i c i p a t e d a t the time o f enactment, u n l e s s a narrower e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d or n e c e s s a r i l y  temporal compass i s  implied.(113)  The s u b j e c t o f e x t e n d i n g s t a t u t e s by i n f e r e n c e t o i n c l u d e cases not o r i g i n a l l y contemplated  i s one which has g i v e n r i s e t o  s e v e r a l d e c i s i o n s , t h e l e a d i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f which i s , t h a t the e a r l i e r s t a t u t e d e a l s w i t h a genus w i t h i n which a new s p e c i e s i s brought by a subsequent  a c t or circumstance.  The T e l e g r a p h A c t 1869 was passed b e f o r e t e l e p h o n e s were i n v e n t e d , but i n A.G. v. E d i s o n Telephone Co.(114) i t was h e l d t h a t t h e p r i v i l e g e s t h e A c t c o n f e r r e d on the P o s t m a s t e r - G e n e r a l extended  t o messages sent by phone.  Thus Steven J . , s a i d :  Of c o u r s e no one s u s p e c t s t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t o r e f e r s p e c i f i c a l l y t o telephones many y e a r s b e f o r e they were i n v e n t e d , but i t i s h i g h l y p r o b a b l e t h a t they would, and i t seems t o us t h a t they a c t u a l l y d i d , use language embracing f u t u r e d i s c o v e r i e s as t o t h e use o f e l e c t r i c i t y f o r t h e purpose o f conveying intelligence. The same has been h e l d t o a p p l y t o s o c i a l changes. bylaw, r e f e r r i n g t o t h e " f a m i l y " was extended  Thus a Quebec  t o cover  "foster  f a m i l i e s " . ( 1 1 5 ) I t has been h e l d t h a t e x p r e s s i o n s such as  (113) Maxwell S t a t u t e s 1 2 t h ed., 102, c i t e d i n S l a t t e r y s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 9, p. 336 and see Dawes v. P a i n t e r (1674), 89 E.R. 126. (114)  (1860), 6 Q.B.D. 244.  (115) V i l l e de St-Hubert v. R i b e r d y , [1977] Que. S.C. 409, c i t e d i n Cote s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 109, a t p. 205.  PAGE 60 " p r a c t i c e of m e d i c i n e " ( 1 1 6 ) and  farming(117) s h o u l d  be  i n t e r p r e t e d i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s o c i a l development  and  not by r e f e r e n c e t o the s i t u a t i o n a t the time of enactment.(118) T h i s same r e a s o n i n g was  a p p l i e d i n A s s o c i a t e d Newspapers  L t d . v. C i t y of London C o r p o r a t i o n ( 1 1 9 ) matter  i n r e l a t i o n to taxes, a  u s u a l l y subject to a s t r i c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  q u e s t i o n was  whether the Act of 7 Geo.  Ill,  The  issue i n  c. 37, s. 51, which  p r o v i d e d t h a t l a n d r e c l a i m e d from p a r t of the bed of the Thames s h o u l d v e s t i n the owners of a d j o i n i n g grounds " f r e e from a l l taxes and assessments whatsoever", r e f e r r e d o n l y t o taxes e x i s t i n g a t the time of the A c t or t o t a x e s s u b s e q u e n t l y  imposed.  The E n g l i s h Court of A p p e a l had h e l d the exemption d i d not  extend  t o f u t u r e r a t e s and t a x e s , l i m i t i n g i t s o p e r a t i o n t o taxes e x i s t i n g when the Act was  p a s s e d , based l a r g e l y on the  settled  c o n s t r u c t i o n of such words. The  House of Lords r e v e r s e d t h i s judgment, f i n d i n g  "the  n a t u r a l meaning" of " a l l taxes and assessments whatsoever" extended t o i n c l u d e f u t u r e as w e l l as e x i s t i n g r a t e s . doing the Court noted  In so  t h a t the words appear i n a p u b l i c s t a t u t e ,  t h a t the phrase c o n t a i n s  'words of w i d e s t p o s s i b l e meaning'  and  (116) Re O n t a r i o M e d i c a l Act (1907), 13 O.L.R. 501, a t 506-7 (Ont. C.A.) per Moss J . (See Cote p. 205). (117) H i l l v. L e t h b r i d g e M u n i c i p a l D i s t r i c t No. 25 (1955), W.W.R. 577 ( A l t a . S.C.) (see Cote p. 205). (118) See a l s o Synder v. M o n t r e a l G a z e t t e L t d . , [1978] Que. 32.  14 S.C.  (119) A s s o c i a t e d Newspapers L t d . v. C i t y of London C o r p o r a t i o n , [1916] 2 A.C. 429 (H.L.).  PAGE 61 i m p o r t a n t l y t h a t the s t a t u t e , l i k e any o t h e r s t a t u t e , c o u l d r e p e a l e d by subsequent A c t .  be  Lord Sumner, d i s s e n t i n g , gave the  words a more l i m i t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n h o l d i n g t h a t " i t i s more n a t u r a l t o read the words as o n l y p u r p o r t i n g t o do t h a t which the L e g i s l a t u r e , when i t uses them, i s competent t o do..."(120) and h e l d t h a t i t i s not competent to b i n d f u t u r e l e g i s l a t i o n . does, however, note t h a t t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n may  He  be s e t a s i d e  where the exemption appears i n an Act of fundamental, g e n e r a l p u b l i c concern  c i t i n g among o t h e r examples the exemption g i v e n i n  the Merchant S h i p p i n g A c t , 1894,  s.  731.(121) There are many  other examples of A c t s b e i n g extended to cover f u t u r e s i t u a t i o n s f a l l i n g n a t u r a l l y w i t h i n i t s terms. In W i l l i a m s v.  P a i n e ( 1 2 2 ) an Act of Congress to q u i e t  t i t l e s i n f a v o u r of persons i n a c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n of l a n d s i n the d i s t r i c t was  a p p l i e d p r o s p e c t i v e l y t o b e n e f i t persons coming i n t o  p o s s e s s i o n of l a n d s subsequent to the p a s s i n g of the A c t . So a l s o , the o p e r a t i o n of a law f o r r e g u l a t i n g " a l l  existing  r a i l r o a d c o r p o r a t i o n s " i n r e s p e c t t o r e q u i r i n g them to e x e r c i s e c e r t a i n c a r e and  t o take c e r t a i n p r e c a u t i o n s f o r the p r o t e c t i o n  of the p u b l i c , was  h e l d t o extend and c o n t r o l r a i l r o a d s  i n c o r p o r a t e d a f t e r as w e l l as b e f o r e i t s passage ( u n l e s s e x c e p t i o n had been made i n t h e i r c h a r t e r s ) . ( 1 2 3 ) And a s t a t u t o r y  (120)  I b i d , a t 452, per L o r d Sumner.  (121)  Ibid.  (122) W i l l i a m s v. P a i n e , 169 U.S. 658. (123)  I n d i a n a p o l i s and S t . L.R.  66, 18 Sup.  C t . 279,  42 L.  Co. v. B l a c k r a m , 63 111,  117.  Ed.  PAGE  provision two  years"  estate as  that  shall  the  alien be  same as  to past  the  an  "who  capable of a citizen,  residence.(124)  obvious  grammatical  shall  i n t e n t i o n of  the  holding was  In  have r e s i d e d  so  held  and  within  transmitting  to apply  holding,  the  the  as  focused  l e g i s l a t u r e even t h o u g h a  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would have f a v o u r e d a  state  real  to f u t u r e  court  62  well on  strict  narrowed  interpretation. Further cities they  i n New  "already  Jersey  divided  i t was  (iv)  The  argument  legislation  was  i n t o wards b e f o r e  Prospective  not  the  passage of  favouring  is particularly  prospective relevant  c o n s t i t u t i o n should  were s i t t i n g  British  to  the  clearly  the  day  in reference  to a b o l i s h  Privy  be  No  construed  a f t e r i t was  North America Act  legislature  to c i t i e s the  which  had  statute.(125)  to  the  one  document  r i g h t of  question  appeal  be  f o r a l l t i m e as  1867(126) empowered the  the  to  would s u g g e s t  enacted.  Lord  that  if  the  Jowett  of whether  the  Canadian  from Canadian  courts  Council;  (124)  B e a r d v. Rowan, ( 1 8 3 5 ) , 1 McLean, 135 9 P e t . 301, 9 L. Ed. 135 (U.S.S.C).  (125)  Wood v.  A t l a n t i c C i t y 56  (126)  30  Vict.  & 31  wards when  a p p l i c a t i o n of  where the  a written  this  the  authorizing  A p p l i c a t i o n o f C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Documents  i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n nature.  stated  a statute  confined  construed  court  that  i n t o wards" t o s u b d i v i d e  reached a c e r t a i n s i z e ,  been d i v i d e d  held  c.  3  N.J.  (Imp.).  Law.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,  181;  PAGE 63 I t i s , as t h e i r L o r d s h i p s t h i n k , i r r e l e v a n t t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n i s one which might have seemed u n r e a l a t t h e d a t e o f the B r i t i s h N o r t h America A c t . To such an o r g a n i c s t a t u t e t h e f l e x i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n must be g i v e n t h a t changing c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e q u i r e . ( 1 2 7 ) Lord Sankey commented t o s i m i l a r e f f e c t t h a t "the B.N.A. A c t p l a n t e d i n Canada a l i v i n g t r e e c a p a b l e o f growth and e x p a n s i o n w i t h i n i t s n a t u r a l l i m i t s . " ( 1 2 8 ) P r o f e s s o r Hogg, s p e a k i n g o f the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f powers under the B.N.A. A c t 1867, s t a t e s : " i t goes w i t h o u t s a y i n g t h a t t h e framers o f t h e B.N.A. A c t c o u l d not f o r e s e e e v e r y k i n d o f law which has s u b s e q u e n t l y been e n a c t e d ; nor c o u l d they f o r e s e e s o c i a l , economic and t e c h n o l o g i c a l developments which have r e q u i r e d n o v e l forms o f r e g u l a t i o n , but ... i t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the g e n e r a l language used t o d e s c r i b e t h e c l a s s e s o f s u b j e c t s (or heads o f power) i s not t o be f r o z e n i n t h e sense i n which i t would have been u n d e r s t o o d i n 1867."(129) He c i t e s as examples t h e c o u r t ' s r e a d i n e s s t o i n c l u d e i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l t e l e p h o n e systems under 9 2 ( 1 0 ) ( a ) o f t h e B.N.A. A c t , a l t h o u g h t h e t e l e p h o n e system was unknown i n 1867;(130) t h e phrase " c r i m i n a l law" ( s . 91(27) " i s not c o n f i n e d t o what was  (127) A.G. O n t a r i o v. A.G. Canada, [1947] A.C. 127, [1947] 1 W.W.R. 305, [1947] 1 A l l E.R. 137, [1947] 1 D.L.R. 801 (P.C. ) . (128) Edwards v. A.G. Can., [1930] A.C. 124 a t 136, approved i n B r i t i s h C o a l Corp. v. The K i n g , [1935] A.C. 500 a t 518 and A.G. O n t a r i o v. A.G. Canada ( P r i v y C o u n c i l A p p e a l s ) [1947] A.C. 127, 154. (129) Hogg, P., C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law o f Canada T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l Co. L t d . , 1977, p. 96. (130) T o r o n t o v. B e l l Telephone Co., [1905] A.C. 52.  PAGE 64 c r i m i n a l by the law of England or of any p r o v i n c e and  "banking" ( s . 91(15)) i s not c o n f i n e d  i n 1867;(131)  t o "the e x t e n t and  kind  of b u s i n e s s a c t u a l l y c a r r i e d on by banks i n Canada i n 1867."(132) The  C o u r t s , moreover, were ready to apply a  progressive  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n even where t o do so meant e x t e n d i n g , c o n f e r r i n g a new,  jurisdiction.  Duff C.J.,  j u r i s d i c t i o n c o u l d come n o r m a l l y A c t . ( 1 3 4 ) The  court's readiness  i n 1867"  rather  h e l d i n the A d o p t i o n  R e f e r e n c e case (1983)(133) t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n was f r o z e n a t the l i m i t s i n e x i s t e n c e  or  "not  to  where such  w i t h i n the terms of  be  increased the  to adopt the s t a t u t e t o changing  c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s even more c l e a r l y  illustrated in relation  to  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l s , c l e a r l y i n e x i s t e n c e as of 1867, jurisdiction.  The  and a r g u a b l y o f f e n d i n g  the s. 96  the not  court's  P r i v y C o u n c i l i n Labour R e l a t i o n s Board of  Saskatchewan v. John East I r o n Works framed the q u e s t i o n  broadly  and a p p l i e d a very l i b e r a l t e s t :  the  "were the f u n c t i o n s of  board analogous t o the f u n c t i o n s of a s u p e r i o r , d i s t r i c t county c o u r t " , i m p l y i n g t h a t new 1867,  k i n d s of j u r i s d i c t i o n ,  need not be e x e r c i s e d by h i g h e r  f i n d the board was  courts.  or since  They went on  to  v a l i d l y c o n s t i t u t e d making p o s s i b l e the growth  of p r o v i n c i a l l y - a p p o i n t e d t r i b u n a l s t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n  (131)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 129, p. 98 c i t i n g P.A.T.A. v. A.G. [1913] A.C. 310 at 324.  (132)  I b i d . , p. 98 c i t i n g A.G. A l b e r t a v. A.G. B i l l of R i g h t s ) [1947] A.C. 503, 553.  (133)  R e f e r e n c e re A d o p t i o n A c t ,  (134)  And see Reference re Quebec M a g i s t r a t e s C o u r t , [1965] S.C.R. 772; (1965), 55 D.L.R. (2d) 701.  in  Canada,  Canada ( A l b e r t a  [1938] S.C.R. 398.  PAGE 6 5 a r e a s of e n l a r g e d p r o v i n c i a l government r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .  The  c o u r t examined not merely t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l o n e but i t s c o n t e x t and  s e t t i n g and c o n f o r m i t y  t o broad l e g i s l a t i v e purpose.  It is  i n c l u d e d here t o show t h a t t h e c o u r t s , i n the case o f i n s t r u m e n t s of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , a r e w i l l i n g t o c o n s t r u e progressively.  them  T h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n t o a new s i t u a t i o n depends t o a  l a r g e e x t e n t upon whether such comes w i t h i n a l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e terms used and whether such i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e aims and purposes o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n . The  words o f t h e B.N.A. A c t have thus been g i v e n a  p r o g r e s s i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by t h e c o u r t s so as t o c o n t i n u a l l y adapt t o new c o n d i t i o n s and i d e a s .  I n so d o i n g , t h e C o u r t s ,  P r o f e s s o r Hogg n o t e s , have g e n e r a l l y r e j e c t e d t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f t h e B.N.A. A c t as an a i d t o i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n ( 1 3 5 ) and although  he sees l i t t l e  reason f o r i t s e x c l u s i o n , concludes  as time goes by t h i s i s o f l i t t l e  that  r e l e v a n c e as "the p r i n c i p l e s o f  p r o g r e s s i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n undermine t h e r e l e v a n c e o f t h e material."  The p o i n t i s t h a t t h e B.N.A. A c t i s a " c o n s t i t u e n t "  or " o r g a n i c " s t a t u t e which has t o p r o v i d e t h e b a s i s f o r t h e e n t i r e government o f a n a t i o n over a long p e r i o d o f time and an i n f l e x i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r o o t e d i n t h e past would o n l y s e r v e t o withhold necessary  powers from the P a r l i a m e n t  or l e g i s l a t u r e and  d e f e a t i t s purpose.(136)  (135) Hogg, s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 129, p. 98 c i t i n g L a s k i n , Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law (4th ed. r e v . , 1975) a t pp. 59-65 ( a t f o o t n o t e 114) . (136)  v. B i g M Brug Mart L t d . , 1985 1 S.C.R. 295, [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481, 37 A l t a . L.R. (2d) 97; Southam I n c . v. D i r . o f  PAGE 66 I t i s e l s e w h e r e argued t h a t t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 f u l f i l l e d a s i m i l a r f u n c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to the Indian peoples of Canada, as i s e v i d e n c e d by i t s mention i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1982.  I t was a " c o n s t i t u e n t "  instrument expressed i n general  terms, w e l l a b l e t o i n c l u d e and make p r o v i s i o n f o r new (and even unforeseen) c i r c u m s t a n c e s . not be f o r e c l o s e d sovereignty  L i k e t h e B.N.A. A c t , 1867 i t s h o u l d  i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n by the l i m i t s o f B r i t i s h  i n existence  i n 1763. As a l r e a d y  s t a t e d , the  a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f a s t a t u t e t o a new s i t u a t i o n depends i n l a r g e p a r t upon whether i t f i t s w i t h i n the aims or purposes o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n and t h e terms used t o express such. C l e a r l y , l e g i s l a t i o n can be expressed so as t o e x c l u d e a prospective  application.  There appears t o be n o t h i n g  a c t u a l language o f t h e e n a c t i n g defeat a prospective  i n the  clauses of the Proclamation t o  interpretation.  A justification for giving  an extended meaning t o i t s words o f p u b l i c p o l i c y i s t h a t t h e law d i f f e r e n t l y i n t e r p r e t e d would f a i l t o encompass a l a r g e proportion  o f I n d i a n s i n p o s s e s s i o n o f l a n d s , and a l l o w w h o l e s a l e  alienation to private subjects.  C l e a r l y the purpose o f the A c t  was t o p r e v e n t such and pave the way f o r a " j u s t and e q u i t a b l e " determination  (v)  Extension  of this r i g h t .  of T e r r i t o r i a l Limits of B r i t i s h J u r i s d i c t i o n  I n v e s t i g a t i o n and Research o f the Combines I n v e s t i g a t i o n Branch, [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577.  PAGE 67 A l e g i s l a t u r e i s presumed t o enact f o r p e r s o n s , p r o p e r t y and events w i t h i n t h e t e r r i t o r i a l  boundaries o f i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n .  Prima f a c i e an E n g l i s h s t a t u t e a f f e c t s o n l y E n g l i s h s u b j e c t s or f o r e i g n e r s w i t h i n t h e a l l e g i a n c e o f the E n g l i s h Crown(137) and i n the absence o f words t o t h e c o n t r a r y e x p r e s s or i m p l i e d , i t i s t o be c o n s t r u e d as a p p l y i n g o n l y t o the U n i t e d Kingdom.  A statute  a p p l i c a b l e t o Her M a j e s t y ' s dominions i s , i f t h e c o n t e x t p e r m i t s , to be c o n s t r u e d t o a p p l y t o a l l B r i t i s h S u b j e c t s ( 1 3 8 ) throughout such t e r r i t o r y ( 1 3 9 ) u n l e s s such an a p p l i c a t i o n i s c i r c u m s c r i b e d i n the e n a c t i n g p r o v i s i o n s . There a r e , however, g r e a t d i f f i c u l t i e s  i n practice  associated with determining a statute's actual effect.  territorial  T h i s i s o b v i o u s when d i s c u s s i n g t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s  i n t e n d e d g e o g r a p h i c reach as o f 1763 - t h e boundaries t o B r i t i s h j u r i s d i c t i o n b e i n g even a t t h a t time u n c e r t a i n (see d i s c u s s i o n above on g e o g r a p h i c s c o p e ) . I t i s c l e a r t h a t i t l i e s w i t h i n the Crown's p r e r o g a t i v e t o make d e c l a r a t i o n s o f s o v e r e i g n t y from time t o time over new areas.  Such w i l l n o r m a l l y conform t o the i n t e r n a t i o n a l law  c u r r e n t a t the time but i n any event, m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s a r e bound  (137) Sawers, Ex. p. B l a i n (1879), 12 Ch. D. 522; 41 L.T. 46; 28 W.R. 334 (C.A.). (138) R^ v. Jameson, [1896] 2 Q.B. 425; 65 L.J.M.C. 218; 75 L.T. 77; 60 J.P. 662; 12 T.L.R. 551; 18 Cox. (139) T h i s i s s e t out i n t h e form o f a presumption i n t h e f e d e r a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t , s. 9 ( 1 ) : "Every enactment a p p l i e s t o the whole o f Canada, u n l e s s i t i s o t h e r w i s e e x p r e s s e d therein".  PAGE 68 to e n f o r c e such d e c l a r a t i o n s . ( 1 4 0 ) The q u e s t i o n then becomes whether I m p e r i a l l e g i s l a t i o n expressed t o a p p l y , i n g e n e r a l terms to B r i t i s h territories  dominions, a p p l i e s o n l y so as t o b i n d those falling  w i t h i n such d e f i n i t i o n a t t h e time o f t h e  enactment o r whether i t a p p l i e s t o b i n d those t e r r i t o r i e s w i t h i n such d e f i n i t i o n a t any subsequent In  falling  period.  v. Kent J u s t i c e s ( 1 4 1 ) the c o u r t s had t o determine t h e  meaning o f " t e r r i t o r i a l w a t e r s " i n t h e W i r e l e s s Telegraphy A c t , 1949  t h e e x p r e s s i o n not h a v i n g been d e f i n e d i n t h e A c t .  The  Court c o n c l u d e d , Salmon L . J . , d i s s e n t i n g , t h a t the words must mean t e r r i t o r i a l waters over which from time t o time the Crown may d e c l a r e s o v e r e i g n t y .  L o r d P a r k e r reached t h i s c o n c l u s i o n  f i r s t l y on the b a s i s t h a t i f i t was i n t e n d e d t h a t t h e e x p r e s s i o n " t e r r i t o r i a l w a t e r s " was t o be c o n f i n e d t o a p r e c i s e l i m i t ,  then  known, i t would have been p e r f e c t l y easy t o so p r o v i d e and no such s p e c i f i c l i m i t a t i o n was g i v e n i n the A c t .  Secondly t h a t t h e  boundaries o f t e r r i t o r i a l waters "must i n e v i t a b l y have been expected t o change from time t o time and may do so i n t h e f u t u r e " , ( 1 4 2 ) thus i m p l y i n g i t c o u l d not have been the i n t e n t i o n of  the l e g i s l a t u r e t o f i x a l i m i t  the a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e A c t ,  even though P a r l i a m e n t i n 1949 d i d not have i n mind t h e p a r t i c u l a r future s i t u a t i o n that d i d a r i s e .  T h i r d l y , t h e Court  noted t h a t t h e matter o f the e x t e n s i o n o f s o v e r e i g n t y over t h e  (140) [1967] 1 A l l E.R. 560. (141)  Ibid.  (142) I b i d . , per L o r d P a r k e r a t p. 564.  PAGE 69 open seas i s a matter f o r t h e Crown from time t o time t o determine under t h e p r e r o g a t i v e and t h a t such c o u l d s u r e l y be done w i t h o u t  t h e need f o r s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n .  I t would be  anomalous t o r e c o g n i z e t h i s and y e t l e a v e such new a r e a s unregulated.  The b e t t e r p o s i t i o n i s c l e a r l y t h a t t h e W i r e l e s s  Telegraphy A c t , 1949 a l o n g w i t h a l l I m p e r i a l expressed  legislation  i n g e n e r a l terms would f l o w i n t o such areas i p s o f a c t o  upon the d e c l a r a t i o n o f s o v e r e i g n t y .  The C o u r t s h e l d , i n s p i t e  of the f o r c e f u l argument t o the c o n t r a r y , t h a t because o f t h e p e n a l n a t u r e o f t h e p r o v i s i o n i n q u e s t i o n t h a t i t s h o u l d be construed  s t r i c t l y because o f the need f o r c e r t a i n t y on the law  where c r i m i n a l s a n c t i o n s were t o be imposed. T h i s h o l d i n g was l a t e r approved i n Post O f f i c e v. E s t u a r y Radio, L t d . ; ( 1 4 3 ) t h e c o u r t t h e r e h o l d i n g t h a t where an A c t o f Parliament adjacent  r e f e r s t o the U n i t e d Kingdom or the t e r r i t o r i a l w a t e r s  t h e r e t o , those e x p r e s s i o n s a r e t o be c o n s t r u e d  prima  f a c i e as i n c l u d i n g such areas o f l a n d or sea as from time t o time are f o r m a l l y d e c l a r e d by t h e Crown t o be s u b j e c t t o i t s Sovereignty  and j u r i s d i c t i o n as p a r t o f t h e U n i t e d Kingdom o r i t s  t e r r i t o r i a l waters,  r a t h e r than t h e p r e c i s e area o f these a t t h e  moment when t h e A c t r e c e i v e d Royal a s s e n t .  Lord D i p l o c k , noted  t h a t i t l a y w i t h i n the p r e r o g a t i v e power o f t h e Crown t o extend i t s s o v e r e i g n t y and j u r i s d i c t i o n t o areas o f l a n d or sea over which i t had not p r e v i o u s l y c l a i m e d or e x e r c i s e d s o v e r e i g n t y or j u r i s d i c t i o n , ( 1 4 4 ) and the area t o which'an A c t o f P a r l i a m e n t  (143)  [1967] 3 A l l E.R. 663.  PAGE 70 a p p l i e s prima f a c i e v a r i e s a c c o r d i n g l y . There i s n o t h i n g  to d i s t i n g u i s h  these cases from the case  where the Crown, under the p r e r o g a t i v e , annexes new  t e r r i t o r y to  t e r r i t o r y over which i t p r e s e n t l y a s s e r t s j u r i s d i c t i o n .  Thus  where t e r r i t o r y i s annexed t o e x i s t i n g B r i t i s h dominions prima f a c i e I m p e r i a l laws e x p r e s s e d i n g e n e r a l terms, t o a p p l y t o M a j e s t y ' s dominions w i l l e x t e n t p r o p r i o v i g o r e t o the territories.  Her  new  Such i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the o p i n i o n s of v a r i o u s  o f f i c e r s i n t h i s regard c i t e d by Senegal was  Slattery.(145)  annexed to B r i t i s h p o s s e s s i o n s  subsequent to the I m p e r i a l Act of 1750  s u b j e c t s might l a w f u l l y t r a d e "to and  in Africa  f o r Extending  Trade.(146) S e c t i o n 1 of the Act p r o v i d e d  the A f r i c a n  that a l l B r i t i s h  from any  P o r t or P l a c e i n  A f r i c a , between the P o r t of S a l l e e i n South B a r b a r y , and  the Cape  of Good Hope ... w i t h o u t  any  expressed".  w i t h i n the expressed l i m i t s though  Senegal was  law  r e s t r a i n t whatsoever, save as  annexed subsequent t o t h i s enactment.  I t was  herein  i m p l i c i t i n the  o p i n i o n of the law o f f i c e r s as to the Crown's powers i n Senegal t h a t the A c t a p p l i e d t h e r e t o govern t r a d e  relations.(147)  Of s i m i l a r e f f e c t i s an o p i n i o n g i v e n i n 1839 of the proposed a n n e x a t i o n of New  on the  effect  Zealand t o A u s t r a l i a . ( 1 4 8 )  The  (144)  I b i d , at p. 680, per Lord  Diplock.  (145)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y at p. 342  (146)  23 Geo.  (147)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y , p. 342-3 c i t i n g ( f o o t n o t e 51) J.B.T. 1759-63, 324 and notes t h a t the o p i n i o n was r e v i v e d and r e a p p l i e d by Yorke, as A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l i n 1763.  (148)  Ibid.  I I , c. 31, s. 1 ( I m p e r i a l )  p. 343-44.  et  seq.  1750.  PAGE 71 1828  I m p e r i a l A c t ( 1 4 9 ) e s t a b l i s h i n g the L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l of  A u s t r a l i a i n s e c t i o n 20 r e f e r s t o the n e c e s s i t y of f u r n i s h i n g laws f o r the " s a i d C o l o n i e s of New Land, and  South Wales and Van  the Dependencies t h e r e o f " , and p r o v i d e s  establishment  of a C o u n c i l i n "New  Land r e s p e c t i v e l y " .  f o r the  South Wales and Van  The A t t o r n e y and  Dieman's  Dieman's  S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l Campbell  and R o l f e s t a t e d i n t h e i r o p i n i o n t h a t the word "Dependencies", "must r e c e i v e an extended c o n s t r u c t i o n so as t o i n c l u d e f u t u r e as w e l l as then e x i s t i n g dependencies" so t h a t the a u t h o r i t y i n q u e s t i o n would extend to New New  legislative  Zealand i f annexed t o  South Wales. I t seems the same holds t r u e where a p r o t e c t o r a t e i s annexed  to B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r y .  Where an I m p e r i a l Act was  expressed to  a p p l y t o the whole or p a r t of Her M a j e s t y ' s dominions but d i d  not  extend t o any p r o t e c t o r a t e u n l e s s a p p l i e d s p e c i f i c a l l y by Order i n C o u n c i l under a s t a t u t o r y power, an Order i n C o u n c i l making such an e x t e n s i o n  i s unnecessary i f the p r o t e c t o r a t e i s annexed -  the Act then a p p l y i n g t o the t e r r i t o r y of i t s own example of t h i s i s t o be found i n "the o m i s s i o n certain territories  (Cyprus,  force.  of r e f e r e n c e s  Kenya Colony, G i l b e r t and  I s l a n d s ) from the r e v i s e d schedule s u b s t i t u t e d by S.R. No.  1418  for that contained  October 1909,  S.R.  & O.  No.  1230,  extending  to  Ellice & O.  i n the Order i n C o u n c i l dated  1909,  An  1922 18th  the E v i d e n c e  ( C o l o n i a l S t a t u t e s ) A c t , 1907(150) to those t e r r i t o r i e s , which  (149)  9 Geo.  IV, c.  (150)  7 Edw.  7, c.  83. 16.  PAGE 7 2 were p r o t e c t o r a t e s at the date of the O r i g i n a l Order.(151)  (vi)  C r e a t i o n of New  C o l o n i e s and  Plantations  I t would seem t h a t the same reasoning the s i t u a t i o n  should apply  t o govern  where I m p e r i a l l e g i s l a t i o n i s e x p r e s s e d t o  apply,  i n g e n e r a l terms, to " C o l o n i e s and P l a n t a t i o n s " , i . e . t h a t such l e g i s l a t i o n b i n d s p r o p r i o v i g o r e those c o l o n i e s and  plantations  coming t o e x i s t e n c e subsequent t o the passage of the to the e x t e n t situation  t h a t the l e g i s l a t i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e t o the  and not s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded  on i t s terms.  one w r i t e r o f f e r s a d e f i n i t i o n of 'colony' or i n c l u d e s i n the d e f i n i t i o n of such any possession  legislation  beyond the sea "now  new At l e a s t  ' p l a n t a t i o n ' which  land, t e r r i t o r y island  belonging  t o , or under  dominion of the Crown of Great B r i t a i n or which may  or  the  hereafter  become permanently so".(152) Whether a s t a t u t e e x p r e s s e d i n g e n e r a l extend of i t s own  terms i s deemed t o  f o r c e t o l a t e r a c q u i r e d t e r r i t o r i e s coming  w i t h i n the d e s c r i p t i o n must be informed,  i n l a r g e p a r t , by  g e n e r a l purpose and p o l i c y of the l e g i s l a t i o n i n q u e s t i o n whether i t was  passed to curb a s p e c i f i c e v i l of p u r e l y  c h a r a c t e r or whether i t was  (151)  See H a l s . 703.  —  local  aimed at a g e n e r a l e v i l of major  I m p e r i a l concern f o r which u n i f o r m Imperial supervision.  the  treatment was  C l a r k e , w r i t i n g i n 1834  r e q u i r e d under  confirms  this  (3d) V o l . 5 - Commonwealth and Dependencies a t p.  (152) H o l t , N a v i g a t i o n Laws, I , 80; c i t e d i n S l a t t e r y , s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 19, p. 346.  PAGE 73 view: A l l s t a t u t e s which a r e m a n i f e s t l y o f u n i v e r s a l p o l i c y , and i n t e n d e d t o a f f e c t a l l our t r a n s m a r i n e p o s s e s s i o n s , a t whatever p e r i o d they s h a l l be a c q u i r e d , such f o r example, as n a v i g a t i o n a c t s , or t h e a c t s f o r a b o l i s h i n g t h e s l a v e t r a d e and s l a v e r y ... w i l l upon t h e conquest or c e s s i o n , i p s o f a c t o , and i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f p o s t e r i o r l e g i s l a t i o n , be b i n d i n g upon a conquered o r ceded c o l o n y . ( 1 5 3 ) S t a t u t e s o f u n i v e r s a l a p p l i c a t i o n would a p p l y s e t t l e d colonies.(154)  Lord M a n s f i e l d  ipso facto i n  i n Campbell v. H a l l  cited  as an example o f such ' u n i v e r s a l ' s t a t u t e s t h e A c t s o f Trade but the same r e a s o n i n g  would apply  expressed i n the same g e n e r a l Parliamentary  p o l i c y i n regard  t o extend a l l I m p e r i a l  terms and embodying u n i f o r m t o t h e treatment o f b a s i c problems  common throughout t h e ' c o l o n i e s and p l a n t a t i o n s ' . i n g r e d i e n t being Imperial  laws  The main  t h a t the problem must be such as t o demand  supervision.  In Regina v.  M i d d l e t o n ( 1 5 5 ) t h e I m p e r i a l Chinese Passenger  Act(156) was h e l d t o be i n f o r c e i n the c o l o n y o f V i c t o r i a even though no p a r t i c u l a r c o l o n y , but t h a t o f Hong Kong, was e x p r e s s l y r e f e r r e d t o i n the Act. 'colony'  S e c t i o n 1 o f the A c t d e f i n e d  as i n c l u d i n g a l l Her M a j e s t y ' s p o s s e s s i o n s  t h e word  abroad which  are not w i t h i n t h e government o f t h e East I n d i a Company. was no r e f e r e n c e  There  i n e x p r e s s terms t o any p a r t i c u l a r c o l o n y or  (153)  C l a r k , C h a r l e s , A Summary o f C o l o n i a l Law, London: M a x w e l l , and Stevens and Sons, 1834.  (154)  See d i s c u s s i o n , i n f r a , p. 133 e t seq.  (155)  Regina v. M i d d l e t o n  (156)  18 & 18 V i c , cap. c i v .  (1868), 8 Comwlth. 771.  Sweet,  PAGE 7 4 p o r t o u t s i d e the colony of Hong Kong.  S e c t i o n 13 e n a c t e d t h a t  o f f e n c e s and misdemeanours were t o be t r i e d as p r o v i d e d Merchant S h i p p i n g A c t " , 1854,  Pat 10, s. 518  by  (17 & 18 V i c ,  "The cap.  c i v ) and P a r t 10 t h e r e o f i s extended by s. 517 of the same Act  to  " a l l B r i t i s h dominions not s p e c i f i c a l l y excepted". In f i n d i n g t h a t the Chinese Passenger Act was V i c t o r i a S t a w e l l C.J. h e l d t h a t "The the A c t , as r e l a t i n g  i n force i n  Imperial Parliament  passed  to m a t t e r s which r e q u i r e d the e x e r c i s e of  the supreme l e g i s l a t i v e power over the whole B r i t i s h dominions."(157) And Parliament  t h a t "no doubt, l e g i s l a t i o n of the B r i t i s h  i s not to apply to t h i s c o l o n y , u n l e s s by  express  words, or by n e c e s s a r y intendment i n t h i s c a s e , i t a p p l i e s by necessary intemdment."(158) There i s scant  j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t y upon the q u e s t i o n of  a p p l i c a t i o n of I m p e r i a l A c t s , e x p r e s s e d i n g e n e r a l terms t o  the apply  t o the N o r t h American c o l o n i e s , t o c o l o n i e s e r e c t e d subsequent t o the enactment.  The Merchant S h i p p i n g A c t , 1786,  a p p l i c a b l e t o O n t a r i o . ( 1 5 9 ) The  I m p e r i a l Act 5 Geo.  (1732) (an A c t f o r the more e a r l y r e c o v e r y M a j e s t y ' s P l a n t a t i o n s and C o l o n i e s f o r c e i n Nova S c o t i a . ( 1 6 0 ) Nova S c o t i a was  i n 1732  was  held to  be  2, c. 7  of debts i n H i s  i n America) was  h e l d t o be i n  I t i s d e b a t a b l e whether the whole of  a colony of B r i t a i n ( 1 6 1 ) and most i f not  (157)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 155 at p.  185.  (158)  I b i d . , at p.  (159)  T o r r a n c e v. Smith (1854),  (160)  Kearney v. Creelman (1886),  186. 3 CP.  411.  14 S.C.R. 33.  PAGE 75 a l l o f Upper Canada was a French c o l o n y u n t i l t h e c e s s i o n t o B r i t a i n i n 1763. S i n c e t h e A c t i s e x p r e s s e d i n g e n e r a l terms t o apply t o t h e P l a n t a t i o n s and C o l o n i e s  i n America i t seems l i k e l y  i t was g i v e n a p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n , b i n d i n g a l l c o l o n i e s coming a t any time w i t h i n i t s ambit though such i s not made c l e a r i n the d e c i s i o n s . The q u e s t i o n o f the e x t e n s i o n t o Quebec o f I m p e r i a l A c t s t o c o l o n i e s e r e c t e d l a t e r was the s u b j e c t o f v a r i o u s law o f f i c e r s ' opinions, p a r t i c u l a r l y with reference  t o the a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e  v a r i o u s I m p e r i a l A c t s r e l a t i n g t o t r a d e and n a v i g a t i o n . The  i s s u e was r a i s e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e conquered i s l a n d o f  Dominica.  Goods (sugars) were s e i z e d f o r an a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f  the A c t f o r P r e v e n t i n g  Frauds (7 & 8 W i l l i a m I I I , c. 22) and 6  the Molasses A c t , Geo. I I , c. 13, i n t h a t c e r t a i n s u g a r s were landed  i n Dominica w i t h o u t  a warrant s i g n e d by a c o l l e c t o r t o t h e  e f f e c t t h a t t h e r e q u i r e d duty had been p a i d .  The case came on  appeal b e f o r e t h e King i n C o u n c i l i n 1766.(162) C h a r l e s  Yorke,  who appeared f o r t h e respondent, a s s e r t e d t h a t from t h e moment o f conquest the i s l a n d was " s u b j e c t t o these and o t h e r laws from the N a v i g a t i o n A c t which have words of f u t u r i t y . " ( 1 6 3 ) T h i s p o s i t i o n was a c c e p t e d by L o r d P r e s i d e n t Worthington who s t a t e d i n a r e l a t i o n t o the e x t e n s i o n o f the A c t s o f Trade t h a t because t h e l e g i s l a t u r e by a "proper d e s c r i p t i o n " and " t a l k o f a f u t u r e  (161)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y , p. 247 e t s e q .  (162)  Smith, Joseph H., Appeals t o t h e P r i v y C o u n c i l from t h e American P l a n t a t i o n s New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1950, p. 496 e t seq."  (163)  Ibid.  PAGE 76 possession"  expressed an i n t e n t i o n t o b i n d f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n s  the s a i d laws "take p l a c e as soon as t h e Crown has an a c t u a l i n d i s p u t a b l e T i t l e . " ( 1 6 4 ) The emphasis upon p o s s e s s i o n  was  necessary t o b r i n g t h e cases w i t h i n t h e words o f t h e N a v i g a t i o n A c t ( 1 6 5 ) which d e f i n e d t h e c o l o n i e s as "Lands, I s l a n d s , P l a n t a t i o n s or T e r r i t o r i e s " to His Majesty belonging possession"  or i n h i s  (and s i m i l a r p h r a s e o l o g y i n t h e A c t f o r P r e v e n t i n g  Frauds, (7 & 8 W i l l i a m I I I , c. 2 2 ) . The  same reasoning  was used t o extend v a r i o u s  of t r a d e w i t h o u t e x p r e s s words of e x t e n s i o n  Imperial  to future  presumably on the b a s i s t h a t such A c t s o f m a n i f e s t l y a p p l i c a t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y had an i m p l i c i t  acts  possessions universal  extension.  Thus a law o f f i c e r ' s o p i n i o n s t a t e d t h a t t h e A c t s o f Tonnage & Poundage o f 1660, and subsequent a c t s r e l a t i n g t o t h e v a r i o u s s c a l e s o f d u t i e s f o r i m p o r t s from B r i t a i n , and f o r e i g n p l a n t a t i o n s , should a p p l y t o Guadeloupe, conquered from t h e French i n 1759: I am o f o p i n i o n , t h a t Guadaloupe i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d as a p l a n t a t i o n , or t e r r i t o r y b e l o n g i n g t o t h e K i n g , by conquest; and I am a l s o of opinion t h a t , provided the r e q u i s i t e s of t h e a c t o f n a v i g a t i o n , and t h e subsequent laws r e l a t i v e t o the same s u b j e c t m a t t e r a r e c o m p l i e d w i t h , the produce ought t o be charged w i t h t h e same d u t i e s , as i f imported from p l a n t a t i o n s o r i g i n a l l y B r i t i s h . The a c t o f n a v i g a t i o n r e l i e s not o n l y t o t h e p l a n t a t i o n s and t e r r i t o r i e s b e l o n g i n g t o , or i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f , the Crown, a t t h a t t i m e , b u t , t o f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n ; and the l a t e r a c t s , which r e l a x , or v a r y , i n some r e s p e c t s , t h e  (164)  I b i d . , a t p. 498.  (165)  12 Chas. 11, c. 4 (1660).  PAGE 77 p r o v i s i o n s of i t , are e q u a l l y extensive....(166) S l a t t e r y notes t h a t the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i n q u e s t i o n c o n t a i n e d n o t h i n g which e x p l i c i t l y extended i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o a f t e r - a c q u i r e d c o l o n i e s , i t s i m p l y employed g e n e r a l phrases  such  as "the E n g l i s h p l a n t a t i o n s " i n i t s book o f r a t e s . ( 1 6 7 ) A f u r t h e r o p i n i o n on t h e e x t e n s i o n o f A c t s o f p a r l i a m e n t t o the c o l o n i e s , when they a r e mentioned, g e n e r a l l y , as dominions o f the Crown i s g i v e n by the A t t o r n e y and S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l s , De Grey, and W i l l e s , i n 1767 i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e A c t of 12 Anne s t a t . 2, c. 18 f o r P r e s e r v i n g S h i p s Stranded  upon  Coasts o f T h i s Kingdom or Any Other o f Her M a j e s t y ' s Dominions.(168) They opined t h a t "as t h e t i t l e o f t h e a c t o f 1 2 t h of Ann. S t a t . 2, c h . 18 e x p r e s s l y i m p o r t s t o be an a c t f o r p r e s e r v i n g s h i p s and goods f o r c e d on s h o r e , or s t r a n d e d upon t h e c o a s t s o f t h i s Kingdom, or any o t h e r o f Her M a j e s t y ' s  dominions,  and t h e e n a c t i n g p a r t has words e x t e n d i n g t o Her M a j e s t y ' s dominions i n g e n e r a l , t h e s a i d A c t extends  t o , and i s i n f o r c e  i n , Her M a j e s t y ' s c o l o n i e s and p l a n t a t i o n s i n A m e r i c a , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the s p e c i a l p r o m u l g a t i o n  o f t h e law; and some  o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s i n i t a r e a p p l i c a b l e o n l y t o t h i s Kingdom.  (My  emphasis).(169)  (166) O p i n i o n o f Yorke, S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l , Aug. 1759 i n Chalmers, O p i n i o n s I I , a t 359, c i t e d i n S l a t t e r y a t p. 347. (167) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y , p. 347. (168) O p i n i o n o f A t t o r n e y and S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l De Grey and W i l l e s , June 25, 1767, Chalmers, O p i n i o n s I , 200 e t s e q . , c i t e d i n S l a t t e r y a t p. 347.  PAGE 78 Thus the o p i n i o n does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between c o l o n i e s a c q u i r e d p r i o r t o the enactment and those e s t a b l i s h e d subsequent to i t .  Nor does the o p i n i o n g i v e any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e  extension  r e l i e d i n any p a r t upon whether o r not E n g l i s h law  formed the b a s i c law o f t h e c o l o n i e s . ( 1 7 0 )  And v e r y  importantly  the o p i n i o n c l e a r l y suggests t h a t because some p r o v i s i o n s o f an I m p e r i a l A c t do not extend on t h e i r terms t o a l l the c o l o n i e s , i t does not f o l l o w t h a t other p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e same A c t must meet the same f a t e .  I f any o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s a r e e x p r e s s e d i n g e n e r a l  terms, s u f f i c i e n t t o b r i n g a l l t h e c o l o n i e s w i t h i n t h e i r a m b i t , these p r o v i s i o n s w i l l extend and be i n f o r c e i n a l l c o l o n i z e a t whatever time they a r e a c q u i r e d . S l a t t e r y notes t h a t F r a n c i s Maseres, t h e A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l  of  Quebec, i n t e r p r e t e d the above o p i n i o n t o mean t h a t t h e A c t o f 12th Ann ( s u p r a , p. 8 5 ) . extended t o Quebec, even though as he noted, the A c t was made b e f o r e  t h e conquest o f Quebec "and [was]  not extended by express words t o t h e f u t u r e dominions o f t h e Crown..."(171) He f u r t h e r notes t h a t Maseres, i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e extension  o f I m p e r i a l A c t s passed p r i o r t o t h e conquest o f  Quebec, t o Quebec remarks t h a t t h e y : Extend t o your M a j e s t y ' s f u t u r e American dominions, as w e l l as those which belonged t o the Crown o f Great B r i t a i n a t t h e times o f  (169)  Supra, f o o t n o t e  19, S l a t t e r y , p. 201.  (170)  See d i s c u s s i o n i n f r a , p. 128 e t s e q .  (171)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y p. 347-8, c i t i n g t h e d r a f t o f an i n t e n d e d r e p o r t o f t h e Governor and C o u n c i l o f Quebec t o the King c o n c e r n i n g the s t a t e o f t h e laws and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f J u s t i c e i n t h a t p r o v i n c e , Feb. 1769; C D . I , 327 a t 336.  PAGE 79 p a s s i n g them, e i t h e r by e x p r e s s words f o r t h a t purpose, or by some g e n e r a l words t h a t have been deemed by your M a j e s t y ' s m i n i s t e r s and l a w - o f f i c e r s , by j u s t c o n s t r u c t i o n i n l a w , t o comprehend them..."(172) The  issue arose i n r e l a t i o n t o the extension of v a r i o u s  Imperial r e l i g i o u s Acts.  A q u e s t i o n was asked whether t h e  S t a t u t e o f 27 Mo. E l i z . C-2 a g a i n s t Romish p r i e s t s , s t a t e d t o apply  " i n any p a r t o f t h i s realm, or any o t h e r o f her M a j e s t y ' s  dominions" a p p l i e d t o dominions l a t e r a c q u i r e d .  Attorney-General  Northey was o f t h e o p i n i o n i t would so b i n d them: I am o f the o p i n i o n t h i s law extends t o t h e p l a n t a t i o n s they being dominions b e l o n g i n g t o the realm o f England, and extends t o a l l p r i e s t s , f o r e i g n e r s , as w e l l as n a t i v e s . ( 1 7 3 ) A s i m i l a r o p i n i o n was g i v e n i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e S t a t u t e o f 11 Mo. William I I I f o r Preventing  t h e F u t u r e Growth o f Popery.(174)  O p i n i o n s o f t h i s time(175) t r e a t e d t h e American p l a n t a t i o n s as 'conquests' and t h e r e f o r e E n g l i s h law as such had no a p p l i c a t i o n unless  ' r e c e i v e d ' by I m p e r i a l or l o c a l s t a t u t e , however c e r t a i n  (172)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y p. 348.  (173)  1 Chalmers, O p i n i o n s ,  (174)  Ibid.  (175)  See f o r example B l a c k s t o n e , 105:  p. 2-5.  Commentaries, 1 s t e d . , I , a t p.  Our American p l a n t a t i o n s a r e p r i n c i p a l l y of t h i s l a t t e r s o r t [conquered or ceded t e r r i t o r i e s ] being o b t a i n e d i n the l a s t c e n t u r y e i t h e r by r i g h t o f conquest and d r i v i n g out t h e n a t i v e s .... o r by t r e a t i e s . And t h e r e f o r e t h e common law of England, as such, has no a l l o w a n c e o r a u t h o r i t y t h e r e ....  PAGE 80 s t a t u t e s expressed (or n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l i e d ) t o b i n d t h e c o l o n i e s would do so p r o p r i o v i g o r e .  S i n c e t h e o p i n i o n s above make no  d i s t i n c t i o n as t o the time o f a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e v a r i o u s p l a n t a t i o n s i t seems i m p l i c i t i n t h e o p i n i o n t h a t such  American Imperial  s t a t u t e s b i n d p r o p r i o v i g o r e a l l t e r r i t o r i e s coming w i t h i n t h e i r general  terms a t any time d u r i n g  t h e l i f e o f t h e enactment.  Where the I m p e r i a l l e g i s l a t i o n i s i n e x p r e s s terms made a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c o l o n i e s g e n e r a l l y and i t i s d i r e c t e d an an e v i l common throughout such t e r r i t o r i e s , t h e b e t t e r view i s t o impute t o the l e g i s l a t o r an i n t e n t i o n t h a t f u t u r e c o l o n i e s i f not f o r e s e e n  (even  a t t h e time o f enactment) be l i k e w i s e bound,  e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e the l e g i s l a t i o n i s a t any time s u b j e c t t o r e p e a l by s p e c i f i c enactment. T h i s p r i n c i p l e has been a c c e p t e d i n a d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f Dominion S t a t u t e s , passed  before  the a d m i s s i o n o f a ' p r o v i n c e '  i n t o t h e Dominion, t o t h e  provinces.  M c K i n l e y ( 1 7 6 ) i t was h e l d t h a t t h e  I n F i t z g e r a l d v.  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t (31 V i c . c h . 1) a p p l i e d t o s t a t u t e s o f t h e Dominion r e l a t i n g t o P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d , whether such s t a t u t e s were passed b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e I s l a n d i n t o t h e Dominion. There i s no reason why t h e same p r i n c i p l e s t h a t s t a t u t e s p r o g r e s s i v e l y t o cover new s i t u a t i o n s s h o u l d t r u e when c o n s i d e r i n g  i n s t r u m e n t s under t h e R o y a l  apply not h o l d  Prerogative  t h a t have the f o r c e o f such s t a t u t e s i n t h e c o l o n i e s t o which  (176)  F i t z g e r a l d v. M c K i n l a y (1873), Cass. D i g . 2nd ed. 107 (Can.).  PAGE 81 they r e l a t e (a r u l e c o n t a i n e d  i n p a r t i n t h e C o l o n i a l Laws  V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865). Thus i t would seem t h a t t h e I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s o f the R o y a l Proclamation  o f 1763 s h o u l d be c o n s t r u e d  p r o s p e c t i v e manner and operate possession its  life.  to operate  in a  so as t o p r o t e c t l a n d i n I n d i a n  throughout B r i t i s h North America a t any time d u r i n g  PAGE 82 5. (i)  Statutory Effect  of the Royal Proclamation of  1763  Introduction  The c o n t r o v e r s y t h a t e x i s t s as t o t h e g e o g r a p h i c  scope o f  the P r o c l a m a t i o n and t h e cases d e t e r m i n a t i v e o f t h i s q u e s t i o n f o r p a r t i c u l a r areas a r e not per se r e l e v a n t t o a d i s c u s s i o n on t h e f o r c e and e f f e c t o f the P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s p r o v i s i o n s .  The l a t t e r i s  a separate question. The  f i r s t and most famous case t o canvass t h e e f f e c t o f t h e  Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763 was Campbell v.  H a l l . ( 1 7 7 ) The  s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n t h e r e r a i s e d was t h e v i r e s o f I m p e r i a l L e t t e r s Patent o f 20 J u l y 1764 imposing  an e x p o r t duty on t h e i s l a n d o f  Grenada, subsequent t o t h e promise o f an assembly i n t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763. A l t h o u g h address  t h e case d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y  t h e s t a t u t o r y f o r c e o f the 1763 P r o c l a m a t i o n , i t was  i m p l i c i t i n the judgment t h a t i t had such f o r c e .  Thus L o r d  M a n s f i e l d , a f t e r n o t i n g t h a t "The f i r s t and m a t e r i a l i n s t r u m e n t i s t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n o f the 7 t h October 1763"....,(178) comments t h a t "The next A c t i s o f t h e 26th 1764, which, t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n having been e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n  [The R o y a l  P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763] i n v i t e s f u r t h e r , such as s h a l l be d i s p o s e d to come and purchase,  t o l i v e under t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n . . . . " ( 1 7 9 )  (177) Campbell v. H a l l (1774), L o f f t 655, 1 Cowp. 204, 98 E.R. 1045; 20 S t . T r . 239 (K.B.). (178) I b i d . , L o f f t p. 746. (179) I b i d . , p. 747.  PAGE 83 Lord M a n s f i e l d ' s r e f e r e n c e t o i t as an Act i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 18th c e n t u r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g  of the f o r c e of major P r e r o g a t i v e  legislation. I t was w i d e l y b e l i e v e d t h a t the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n of  1763  had the e f f e c t of l e g i s l a t i v e l y i n t r o d u c i n g E n g l i s h laws i n the new  c o l o n i e s of Quebec, the two F l o r i d a s and Grenada.  announcing new promised,  After  c o n s t i t u t i o n s f o r these c o l o n i e s the K i n g  u n t i l a s s e m b l i e s were summoned, t h a t a l l persons  i n h a b i t i n g i n or r e s o r t i n g t o the new  colonies could confide i n  the King's r o y a l p r o t e c t i o n f o r the. enjoyment of the b e n e f i t of the laws of England, new  and, a c c o r d i n g l y , the Governors of the f o u r  c o l o n i e s had been empowered t o e r e c t and c o n s t i t u t e c o u r t s of  j u d i c a t u r e and p u b l i c j u s t i c e f o r the h e a r i n g and d e t e r m i n i n g  of  a l l causes, both c r i m i n a l and c i v i l , a c c o r d i n g t o law and e q u i t y , and as near as may  be a g r e e a b l e to the laws of England,  l i b e r t y t o a l l persons the P r i v y  with  aggrieved, i n c i v i l cases, to appeal  to  Council.(180)  T h i s i s s u e was c o l o n y of Grenada.  first  r a i s e d i n r e l a t i o n t o the conquered  In A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l v. Stewart e t a l .  (1817)(181) S i r W i l l i a m G r a n t , Master  of the R o l l s , i n d e a l i n g  w i t h the q u e s t i o n whether the K i n g had l e g i s l a t e d by means of the Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763  so as t o i n t r o d u c e E n g l i s h laws i n t o  Grenada, commented f i r s t t h a t :  "The  case of Campbell v. H a l l  (180) Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763, (Imp.), R.S.C. 1970, I I , No. 1. See Appendix I . (181) A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l v. Stewart e t a l . (1817), 2 Mer. 157-58.  (1  Appendix 143  at  PAGE 84 Cowp. 204) determined  n o t h i n g as t o the e f f e c t of the  p r o c l a m a t i o n i n i n t r o d u c i n g the laws of England of Grenada..." England stated.  However he went on t o say:  "How  i n t o the I s l a n d the law of  became the law of the I s l a n d o f Grenada i s not Grenada was  a conquered c o l o n y , i n which French  p r e v a i l e d a t the time of the Conquest. undoubtedly their place.  abrogate And  t h e s e , and s u b s t i t u t e the laws of England  i t seems t o be supposed t h a t t h i s was  i n t r o d u c e d i s u n c o n t r o v e r t e d , he thus c o n c l u d e s : the E n g l i s h law may  done by  was  " i n whatsoever  r e c e i v e d and acknowledged law of the  For though t h e r e i s no Act of Assembly, e x p r e s s l y  r e c o g n i z e d or a d o p t i n g i t , t h a t i t was And  in  have been i n t r o d u c e d i n t o Grenada, t h e r e  can be no doubt t h a t i t was island.  laws  The K i n g might  the p r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763....".(182) That E n g l i s h law  way  distinctly  t h e r e a r e A c t s which p l a i n l y  c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g been r e c o g n i z e d and  i n the c o u r t s of j u d i c a t u r e , i t was  French law t h a t was cases."(183)  P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763,  adopted.  the E n g l i s h and not  a d m i n i s t e r e d i n c i v i l as w e l l as  One may  imply  the  criminal  ask what t h e n , o t h e r than the R o y a l i n t r o d u c e d E n g l i s h law, g i v e n t h a t i n the  absence of such i n t r o d u c t i o n , Grenada b e i n g a conquered c o l o n y , French law would have p r e v a i l e d . The q u e s t i o n of whether the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n of l e g i s l a t i v e l y i n t r o d u c e d E n g l i s h law was to Quebec.  Though Quebec was  (182) I b i d . , p. (183)  Ibid.  157.  1763  raised again i n r e l a t i o n  a ceded t e r r i t o r y , and French  law  PAGE 85 would p r e v a i l t h e r e i n the absence o f l e g i s l a t i o n t o the c o n t r a r y , subsequent t o t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n were a d m i n i s t e r e d  by the Quebec  of 1763 E n g l i s h laws  Courts.  In the l e a d i n g case o f S t u a r t v.  Bowman(184) i t was h e l d by  the t r i a l c o u r t t h a t the E n g l i s h C i v i l Laws had not been introduced  i n t o Canada by the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n  J u s t i c e Vanfelson, Proclamation:  of 1763.  Mr.  f o r the C o u r t , h o l d i n g as r e g a r d s the  " I t h o u g h t , a t the time o f the argument, t h a t the  E n g l i s h law had been i n t r o d u c e d  by t h a t P r o c l a m a t i o n ,  but upon  f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n I now b e l i e v e t h a t was an erroneous opinion.  The terms o f the P r o c l a m a t i o n  s u f f i c i e n t l y d i s t i n c t and f o r m a l  a r e by no means  t o be c o n s i d e r e d  as i n t r o d u c i n g  the body of the E n g l i s h law".(185) Mr. J u s t i c e S m i t h , d i s s e n t i n g , noted t h a t i t had been h e l d t h a t the P r o c l a m a t i o n  was a mere  d e c l a r a t i o n of i n t e n t that His Majesty's subjects  i n the then  Province  of Quebec s h o u l d  laws o f England.  be m a i n t a i n e d i n the enjoyment of the  I n response t o t h i s argument he comments t h a t  " t h i s has been c o n t r a d i c t e d by the e s t a b l i s h m e n t J u s t i c e , which a r e o r d e r e d t o a d m i n i s t e r n e a r l y as may be, i n c o n f o r m i t y and  o f C o u r t s of  j u s t i c e and e q u i t y , as  w i t h the laws o f England"(186)  continues: " I f the Crown had the r i g h t t o make such a d e c l a r a t i o n as t h a t c o n t a i n e d i n the p r o c l a m a t i o n , and i t s i n t e n t i o n t o i n t r o d u c e the E n g l i s h law, was t h e r e b y made d i s t i n c t l y  (184)  S t u a r t v. Bowman (1852), 2 L.C.R. 369 (Quebec S . C ) .  (185)  I b i d . , a t p. 443-444.  (186)  I b i d . , a t p. 394.  PAGE 86 m a n i f e s t , we have n o t h i n g t o do but t o c a r r y t h a t i n t e n t i o n i n t o e f f e c t . " These m a t t e r s were c o n s i d e r e d d u r i n g t h e debates o f the Quebec A c t o f 1774. The l a t t e r A c t enacted i n s e c t i o n 4 that l i k e p r o v i s i o n s of the Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 so f a r as r e l a t e d t o t h e c i v i l government and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e , i s revoked, a n n u l l e d and made v o i d . And i m p o r t a n t l y  notes:  Could t h i s A c t have f o r m a l l y a b r o g a t e d t h a t which had never s u b s i s t e d ? Was not t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e Crown, and t h e a c q u i e s c e n c e o f the P a r l i a m e n t up t o t h i s p e r i o d made m a n i f e s t by t h i s A c t ? I t d i d not d e c l a r e i t t o have been n u l l , but a n n u l l e d i t from and a f t e r a c e r t a i n d a t e . The mere e f f e c t o f our becoming s u b j e c t s o f t h e S o v e r e i g n o f Great B r i t a i n , renders us S u b j e c t a l s o t o t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n , i s s u e d by h i s P r i v y C o u n c i l , up t o t h e time t h a t P a r l i a m e n t saw f i t t o i n t e r f e r e , and t h i s A c t , by i t s terms, m a i n t a i n e d what had been done by v i r t u e o f t h a t p r o c l a m a t i o n , o n l y a n n u l l i n g i t f o r the f u t u r e . By t h e e i g h t h s e c t i o n t h e r i g h t t o h o l d p r o p e r t y by Canadian s u b j e c t s under t h e o l d t e n u r e i s conceded, "as i f t h e s a i d p r o c l a m a t i o n , & c , had not been made," & c , f u r t h e r o r d e r i n g , t h a t f o r t h e d e c i s i o n of matters i n dispute, r e l a t i v e t o p r o p e r t y and c i v i l r i g h t s , r e c o u r s e s h a l l be had t o t h e laws o f Canada. The I m p e r i a l Parliament p l a i n l y held, then, that i t required a d i s t i n c t enactment on t h e i r p a r t t o re-convey t o t h e Canadians t h e i r r i g h t s t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the French system o f l a w s , which they must c o n s e q u e n t l y have h e l d t o have been f o r m e r l y taken away by t h e c a p i t u l a t i o n and p r o c l a m a t i o n . ( 1 8 7 ) The words o f t h e Quebec A c t , 1774(188) e v i d e n c e an i n t e n t i o n t o abrogate c e r t a i n o f P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s p r o v i s i o n s and t h e m a j o r i t y judgment does not d e a l s a t i s f a c t o r i l y w i t h t h i s p o i n t . i n h o l d i n g t h a t E n g l i s h laws were not i n t r o d u c e d  (187)  I b i d . , a t p. 395-6.  (188)  Quebec A c t , 1774, 14 Geo. I l l ,  Moreover  i n t o Quebec by  c. 83 (U.K.).  PAGE 87 the P r o c l a m a t i o n t h e c o u r t r e l i e s t o a l a r g e e x t e n t on t h e vagueness o f t h e language p u r p o r t i n g t o do s o , a problem not encountered  on t h e wording  i n t h e I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s where t h e  ambiguity and u n c e r t a i n t y i s o n l y as t o g e o g r a p h i c  scope.  On appeal t o t h e Court o f Queen's Bench t h e t r i a l d e c i s i o n was upheld.(189) A l y w i n J . , however, h o l d i n g t h e Quebec A c t , 1774 had the e f f e c t o f a c c o r d i n g t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n  legislative  authority: T h i s s e c t i o n i n thus r e v o k i n g t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n , the governors Commission and p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e Ordinances r e l a t i v e t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e , and a l l commissions t o judges, p r o s p e c t i v e l y and from a day t o a r r i v e , v i z , 1 May 1775, i m p l i e d l y and n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t a i n s a r e c o g n i t i o n by t h e P a r l i a m e n t o f Great B r i t a i n of t h e a u t h o r i t y o f these Ordinances and Commissions and g i v e s them a L e g i s l a t i v e Sanction.(190) The p o i n t a t i s s u e i n t h e case was t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e c i v i l law i n t o Quebec and t h e case i s not a u t h o r i t y i n s o f a r as the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e c r i m i n a l law i s concerned.  In fact  E n g l i s h c r i m i n a l law. was w i d e l y b e l i e v e d t o have been i n t r o d u c e d by t h e Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763. A l t h o u g h accepted  i n Wilcox Wilcox(191)  remained.. I n Q^  v.  S t u a r t v. Bowman was  t h e u n c e r t a i n t y and c o n f u s i o n  Coote(192) (1873) t h e c o u r t suggested  that  the Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763 was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e  (189)  (1853), 3 L.C.R. 309 (Q.B.) a t p. 348 per R o l l a n d J . ; and p. 399 per Modelet J .  (190) I b i d . , per A y l w i n J . , a t p. 388. (191) W i l c o x v. W i l c o x (1858), 8 L.C.R. 34 (Q.B.) per L a f o n t a i n e C.J. a t p. 42-50. (192) Q^ v. Coote (1873), Cases i n P.C. v o l . 14.  PAGE 88 i n t r o d u c t i o n of E n g l i s h law i n t o Lower Canada.  The u n c e r t a i n t y  re the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s e f f e c t i n r e l a t i o n t o the i n t r o d u c t i o n of E n g l i s h law(193) i n t o Quebec was by passage of the Quebec A c t , 1774.  o n l y c l e a r e d up  P r o f e s s o r Hogg comments:  The R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763 ( a t l e a s t by i m p l i c a t i o n ) and an o r d i n a n c e of the f i r s t E n g l i s h Governor, imposed E n g l i s h law i n the n e w l y - a c q u i r e d c o l o n y , t h e r e b y e x c l u d i n g the p r e - e x i s t i n g French c i v i l law ... i f E n g l i s h law had not been e x p r e s s l y imposed, the g e n e r a l r u l e of the common law w i t h r e s p e c t t o a c o l o n y a c q u i r e d by conquest (as opposed t o s e t t l e m e n t ) was t h a t the p r e - e x i s t i n g law of the conquered people would c o n t i n u e i n f o r c e , except i n m a t t e r s i n v o l v i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the conquered people and t h e i r new s o v e r e i g n (Campell v. H a l l (1774) 1 Cowp. 204, 98 E.R. 1045).(194) And as to the e f f e c t of the Quebec Act of 1774  comments:  The Quebec Act of 1774 (Quebec A c t , 1774 (Imp.), R.S.C. 1970, Appendix I I , No. 2) r e p l a c e d the P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763 as the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Quebec. The Quebec A c t r e s t o r e d the pre-conquest law as the p r i v a t e law of the c o l o n y . ( 1 9 5 ) (My emphasis) thus r e i t e r a t i n g the d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n of Mr. J u s t i c e Smith i n S t u a r t v.  Bowman.(196) And  i t i s an u n c o n t r o v e r t e d f a c t t h a t  E n g l i s h laws were b e i n g a d m i n i s t e r e d by the Quebec c o u r t s of s u p e r i o r j u r i s d i c t i o n subsequent t o the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763.  The change was  e f f e c t e d by an I m p e r i a l Act of P a r l i a m e n t  (Quebec A c t , 1774).  (193) See Donegani v. Donegani (1835), 1 Can. (194) Hogg, P.W., p. 296. (195)  C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law  Ibid.  (196) Supra, f o o t n o t e  184.  Rep.  A.C.  50 a t  of Canada ( C a r s w e l l :  65.  1977)  PAGE 89 T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the judgment of Mr. J u s t i c e H a l l (Spence and L a s k i n J J . , c o n c u r r i n g ) i n C a l d e r v. who  A.G.B.C.(197)  i n commenting on the s t a t u t o r y f o r c e of the R o y a l  Proclamation  says:  That i t was regarded as being the law of England i s c l e a r from the f a c t t h a t when i t was deemed a d v i s a b l e to amend i t the amendment was e f f e c t e d by an Act of P a r l i a m e n t , namely the Quebec Act of 1774...  (ii) S t a t u t o r y E f f e c t o f the I n d i a n P r o v i s i o n s o f The P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763  Royal  I t i s c l e a r t h a t the I n d i a n P r o v i s i o n s of the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n were seen i n a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t , even i n Quebec.  The  Quebec C o u n c i l d e c l i n e d on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s i n the l a t e 1760s to accede t o l a n d g r a n t s re l a n d s c l a i m e d by the I n d i a n s . ( 1 9 8 )  The  reason f o r t h i s b e i n g t h a t : The l a n d s so prayed t o be a s s i g n e d a r e , or a r e c l a i m e d t o be the p r o p e r t y of the I n d i a n s , and as such by H i s M a j e s t y ' s express command as s e t f o r t h i n h i s p r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763, not w i t h i n t h e i r power t o g r a n t . ( 1 9 9 ) (My emphasis) I t i s i m p l i c i t i n t h i s Report P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763  t h a t the I n d i a n P r o v i s i o n s o f the  a r e of s t a t u t o r y e f f e c t  (at l e a s t i n s o f a r  areas c l e a r l y covered by the P r o c l a m a t i o n a r e c o n c e r n e d ) . s i m i l a r o p i n i o n was  (197) C a l d e r v. A.-G.  as  A  d e l i v e r e d by the Board of Trade i n 1767.(200)  B.C.  (1973), 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145, a t p.  (198) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y , p.  203.  309.  (199)  I b i d , c i t i n g Minutes of the Quebec C o u n c i l , 27 December 1766; P.A.C. RA 1, E l , V o l . 3, p. 293.  (200)  I b i d . , p. 310-11 commenting on a Board of Trade r e p o r t on the a u t h e n t i c i t y of a l a n d c e s s i o n made by the Mohawk  PAGE 90 There i s no reason why t h e Orders t h e r e i n , d i r e c t e d i n c l e a r and d i s t i n c t language a t B r i t i s h S u b j e c t s  (not t o purchase l a n d or  s e t t l e i n t h e I n d i a n r e s e r v e and t o remove themselves from s e t t l e m e n t upon any u n s u r r e n d e r e d l a n d s ) s h o u l d not be h e l d t o be of b i n d i n g s t a t u t o r y f o r c e on B r i t i s h s u b j e c t s . ( 2 0 1 )  Such has  been the e f f e c t o f j u d i c i a l o p i n i o n on t h i s s u b j e c t . The  Indian p r o v i s i o n s of the Proclamation  d i r e c t l y i n Johnson v. M c i n t o s h  were r a i s e d  (1823).(202) C h i e f J u s t i c e  M a r s h a l l r e f e r r i n g t o the e f f e c t o f t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763  throughout t h e American c o n t i n e n t , s t a t e d : The a u t h o r i t y o f t h i s p r o c l a m a t i o n , so f a r as i t r e s p e c t e d t h i s c o n t i n e n t , has never been d e n i e d , and t h e t i t l e s i t gave t o l a n d s have always been s u s t a i n e d i n our c o u r t s . ( 2 0 3 )  Chief J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l held that the Proclamation  operated  so as  t o i n v a l i d a t e c e r t a i n l a n d conveyances made t o p r i v a t e p e r s o n s by the I n d i a n s , such b e i n g  inconsistent with i t s provisions.  In Halloway v. Doe D. Buck t h e Kentucky Court o f A p p e a l came t o a s i m i l a r h o l d i n g i n r e s p e c t t o a t r a c t o f l a n d s o l d by t h e Cherokee I n d i a n s t o a p r i v a t e company.  Chief J u s t i c e Boyle  holding: The I n d i a n deed c e r t a i n l y conveyed no i n t e r e s t . . . A l l p u r c h a s e s by i n d i v i d u a l s from the I n d i a n s , were e x p r e s s l y f o r b i d d e n by t h e Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763, which remained i n  I n d i a n s t o S i r W i l l i a m Johnson, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s f o r the North. R e c i t e d i n Order i n C o u n c i l o f 26 August 1767; APC, I V , 750. (201)  See d i s c u s s i o n above, p. 88 and sequence.  (202)  8 Wheaton 543 ( U . S . S . C ) .  (203)  I b i d . , a t p. 597.  PAGE 91 f o r c e u n t i l t h e r e v o l u t i o n , by which t h e then American c o l o n i e s became independent states....(204) In  t h e l a t e r case o f U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M i t c h e l l  (1835) (205)  after  commenting t h a t t h e I n d i a n r i g h t o f occupancy was "as s a c r e d as the f e e o f t h e w h i t e s " M a r s h a l l , C.J., comments t h a t such an understanding ....  was adopted " i n t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n o f October 1763  as t h e law which s h o u l d govern the enjoyment and  t r a n s m i s s i o n o f I n d i a n and vacant In  Canada t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s  lands."(206) I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s were d i r e c t l y  r a i s e d i n t h e S t . C a t h e r i n e s M i l l i n g and Lumber case.(207) T h i s case i n v o l v e d a d i s p u t e between t h e P r o v i n c e o f O n t a r i o and t h e Government o f Canada as t o ownership o f c e r t a i n l a n d s ceded by the S a l t e a u x T r i b e i n an 1873 t r e a t y w i t h t h e Dominion. I n d i a n l a n d i n q u e s t i o n was c l e a r l y w i t h i n t h e g e o g r a p h i c of t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n . land t i t l e  The purview  The P r i v y C o u n c i l c l e a r l y a s c r i b e d I n d i a n  t o the p r o v i s i o n s of the Proclamation:  W h i l s t t h e r e has been no change s i n c e the year 1763 i n t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i n t e r e s t which i t s i n h a b i t a n t s had i n t h e l a n d s s u r r e n d e r e d by t h e t r e a t y . T h e i r p o s s e s s i o n , such as i t was, can o n l y be a s c r i b e d t o t h e g e n e r a l p r o v i s i o n s made by t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n i n f a v o u r o f a l l I n d i a n t r i b e s then l i v i n g under t h e S o v e r e i g n t y  (204)  (1823), 4 L i t t e l l 293; 14 Kentucky R. 293 a t 294 c i t e d i n S l a t t e r y a t p. 311.  (205)  34 U.S. 711, a t pp. 745-6.  (206)  I b i d , and see Montgomery v. Ives (1849), 13 Smedes & M. 161 ( M i s s . H.C.) a t pp. 174-5.  (207)  S t . C a t h e r i n e ' s M i l l i n g and Lumber Co. v. Pw (1899), 14 App. Cas. 46 (P.C.); (1887), 13 S.C.R. 577 (Can. S . C ) ; (1886), 13 O.A.R. 148 (Ont. C A . ) ; (1885) 10 O.R. 196 (Ont. Ch. D i v . ) .  PAGE 92 and p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e B r i t i s h Crown.(208) (My emphasis) The P r i v y C o u n c i l h e l d t h e l e g a l i n t e r e s t o f the I n d i a n s t o be " p e r s o n a l and u s u f r u c t u a r y " , and t o be "dependent upon t h e g o o d w i l l of the Sovereign". statements  The meaning t o be a s c r i b e d t o these  has s i n c e been q u a l i f i e d by t h e G u e r i n  decision.(209)  For our purposes i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o note t h a t t h e P r i v y C o u n c i l h e l d t h a t the I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 did  give rise to a l e g a l l y enforceable i n t e r e s t .  Such i s  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e views o f Mr. J u s t i c e S t r o n g d i s s e n t i n g i n the Supreme Court o f Canada, i n t h e S t . C a t h e r i n e ' s case.(210) Mr. J u s t i c e S t r o n g reviewed  t h e American case law as r e f l e c t i n g the  c o n s i s t e n t p o l i c y o f t h e B r i t i s h government "as c o n s i s t i n g i n the r e c o g n i t i o n by t h e Crown o f an u s u f r u c t u a r y t i t l e to  a l l unsurrendered  lands"(211)  i n the Indians  and c o n c l u d e d :  T h e r e f o r e , when we c o n s i d e r t h a t w i t h r e f e r e n c e to Canada t h e u n i f o r m p r a c t i c e has always been to r e c o g n i z e t h e I n d i a n t i t l e as one which c o u l d o n l y be d e a l t w i t h by s u r r e n d e r t o the Crown, I m a i n t a i n t h a t i f t h e r e had been an e n t i r e absence o f any w r i t t e n l e g i s l a t i v e a c t o r d a i n i n g t h i s r u l e as an e x p r e s s p o s i t i v e law [ i . e . , The R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763] we ought, j u s t as t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s c o u r t s have done, t o h o l d t h a t i t n e v e r t h e l e s s e x i s t e d as a r u l e o f u n w r i t t e n common law, which t h e c o u r t s were bound t o e n f o r c e as such....(212) (My  (208)  I b i d . 14 App. Cas. a t p. 54.  (209) G u e r i n v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335. (210) S t . C a t h e r i n e ' s M i l l i n g & Lumber Co. v. R^ S.C.R. 577 (Can. S . C ) . (211)  I b i d . , p. 608.  (212) I b i d . , p. 613.  (1887), 13  PAGE 93 emphasis). Mr.  J u s t i c e S t r o n g thus would a c c o r d t h e I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e  Proclamation s t a t u t o r y force.  And t h i s was t a k e n t o have been  d e c i d e d by t h i s case i n two l a t e r c a s e s .  In  v. Lady  McMaster(213) t h e Exchequer C o u r t o f Canada h e l d t h a t a l o n g lease,  term  ( w i t h r i g h t o f renewal) over l a n d s w i t h i n t h e I n d i a n  reserve  s e t up by t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n t h e 1763, was i n v a l i d because  i t was i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n  of the Proclamation's p r o v i s i o n s .  Mr.  J u s t i c e Maclean s t a t e d : The p r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763, as has been h e l d , has the f o r c e o f a s t a t u t e , and so f a r t h e r e i n as the r i g h t s o f t h e I n d i a n s a r e c o n c e r n e d , i t has never been r e p e a l e d . ( 2 1 4 ) (My emphasis) presumably r e f e r r i n g t o t h e d e c i s i o n i n S t . C a t h e r i n e s case as a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n as t h i s was t h e o n l y case t o which he had r e f e r r e d a t t h i s p o i n t .  And t h e Supreme Court o f Canada  i n the l a t e r case o f E a s t e r b r o o k v.  R(215) a l s o h e l d t h e I n d i a n  p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n t o have f o r c e o f s t a t u t e .  It  a g a i n concerned a l e a s e , t h e c o n t e n t s o f which need not d e t a i n us.  In holding  t h e l e a s e v o i d t h e Court s t a t e d  that:  ...the l e a s e was i n e f f e c t i v e and v o i d a t l a w , by reason o f t h e absence o f any a u t h o r i t y i n the p a r t o f t h e g r a n t o r s t o make i t , and f o r non-compliance w i t h t h e peremptory r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n [ o f 1763], which have t h e f o r c e o f s t a t u t e . . ( 2 1 6 ) (My emphasis)  (213)  [1926] Ex. C R . 68.  (214)  I b i d . , a t p. 72.  (215)  [1931] S.C.R. 210, a f f i r m i n g [1929] Ex. C R . 28.  (216)  I b i d . , a t pp. 217-8.  PAGE 94 And  as R o b e r t s o n J . s a i d i n Regina v. Kruger and Manuel(217) i t s  s t a t u t o r y f o r c e was t h a t o f an I m p e r i a l s t a t u t e : Assuming ( w i t h o u t e x p r e s s i n g any o p i n i o n ) t h a t the P r o c l a m a t i o n has t h e f o r c e o f S t a t u t e , i t cannot be s a i d t o be an A c t o f P a r l i a m e n t o f Canada: t h e r e was no P a r l i a m e n t o f Canada b e f o r e 1867 and by no s t r e t c h o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n can a p r o c l a m a t i o n made by t h e S o v e r e i g n i n 1763 be s a i d t o be an A c t o f a l e g i s l a t i v e body which was not c r e a t e d u n t i l more than 100 y e a r s l a t e r . ( 2 1 8 ) Not o n l y have j u d i c i a l s t a t e m e n t s a c c o r d e d the P r o c l a m a t i o n s I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n t h e f o r c e o f s t a t u t e , some have gone f u r t h e r and suggested i t t o be an e n t r e n c h e d c h a r t e r o f I n d i a n r i g h t s . Mr.  Thus  J u s t i c e S i s s o n s , o f t h e T e r r i t o r i a l Court o f the Northwest  T e r r i t o r i e s i n Regina v.  Koonungnak(219) s t a t e d :  T h i s p r o c l a m a t i o n has been spoken o f as t h e " C h a r t e r o f I n d i a n R i g h t s " . L i k e so many g r e a t c h a r t e r s i n E n g l i s h h i s t o r y i t does not c r e a t e r i g h t s but r a t h e r a f f i r m s o l d r i g h t s . . . ( 2 2 0 ) And  Mr. J u s t i c e N o r r i s i n R^ v. White and Bob(221) s t a t e d i n  r e l a t i o n t o the extinguishment of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s t h a t ; . . . i t would have r e q u i r e d s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n t o e x t i n g u i s h t h e a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s and i t i s d o u b t f u l whether c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t i o n , even o f a s p e c i f i c k i n d , would e x t i n g u i s h these r i g h t s i n view o f t h e f a c t t h a t such r i g h t s had been c o n f i r m e d by t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1973.(222)  (217)  [1975] 5 W.W.R. 167 B.C.C.A.  (218)  I b i d , a t p. 170.  (219)  (1964), 42 C.R. 143; (1963-64), 45 W.W.R. 282 (N.W.T. T e r r . Ct. ) .  (220)  I b i d . , a t p. 160 o f C.R.  (221)  (1965),  50 D.L.R. (2d) 613, 52 W.W.R. 193 (B.C.C.A.).  PAGE 95 C l e a r l y f o r Mr. J u s t i c e N o r r i s t h e s t a t u t o r y e f f e c t o f t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n was e q u a l t o t h a t o f an I m p e r i a l S t a t u t e s i n c e i t i s o n l y t h e l a t t e r t h a t i s p r o t e c t e d from C o l o n i a l o v e r i d e . ( 2 2 3 ) The judgment o f Mr. J u s t i c e N o r r i s was c o n f i r m e d by t h e Supreme Court of Canada w i t h o u t reasons.(224)  I n C a l d e r v. A.G.B.C. Mr.  J u s t i c e H a l l , f o r h i m s e l f and two o t h e r judges the guarantee 1763  i n commenting on  of Indian r i g h t s contained i n the Proclamation of  said: T h i s p r o c l a m a t i o n was an E x e c u t i v e Order h a v i n g the f o r c e and e f f e c t o f an A c t o f P a r l i a m e n t and was d e s c r i b e d by Gwynne J . , i n S t . C a t h e r i n e ' s M i l l i n g case a t p. 652 as t h e " I n d i a n B i l l o f R i g h t s " : see a l s o Campbell v. Hall. I t s f o r c e as a s t a t u t e i s analogous t o the s t a t u s o f Magna C a r t a which has always been c o n s i d e r e d t o be law throughout t h e Empire.(22 5)  A l t h o u g h Judson J . ( M a r t l a n d and R i t c h i e J J . c o n c u r r i n g ) i n t h e same case h e l d t h a t t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 c o u l d not a p p l y t o B r i t i s h Columbia he i m p l i c i t l y accepted force.  i t s statutory  A f t e r commenting on the judgment o f the P r i v y C o u n c i l i n  the S t . C a t h e r i n e ' s c a s e , Judson J .  stated:  There can be no doubt t h a t t h e P r i v y C o u n c i l found t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 was the o r i g i n of t h e I n d i a n t i t l e — " T h e i r p o s s e s s i o n , such as i t was, can o n l y be a s c r i b e d t o the .... r o y a l proclamation i n favour of a l l Indian  (222)  I b i d . , a t p. 662 o f Dominion Law Report's quoted i n R^ v. I s a a c (1975), 13 N.S.R. (2d) 460, a t p. 485 (N.S.S.C. App. Div.).  (223) See d i s c u s s i o n i n f r a on t h e C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865. (224)  (1966), 52 D.L.R. (2d) 481 (S.C.C.).  (225) C a l d e r v. A.G.B.C. (1973), 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145, [1973] S.C.R. 313, [1973] 4 W.W.R. 1 a t p. 203 o f D.L.R..  PAGE 96 t r i b e s then l i v i n g under t h e S o v e r e i g n t y and p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e B r i t i s h Crown..."(226) Judson J . commented t h a t t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n was n o t , however, t h e s o l e source o f I n d i a n t i t l e and a c c e p t e d a common law t i t l e on o r i g i n a l o c c u p a t i o n and use.  based  I n f i n d i n g the l a t t e r was  e x t i n g u i s h e d by t h e p r e - c o n f e d e r a t i o n l a n d l e g i s l a t i o n o f B r i t i s h Columbia Judson J . cannot be taken as s a y i n g such  legislation  would be o p e r a t i v e t o e x t i n g u i s h I n d i a n r i g h t s expressed Proclamation.  The p o i n t d i d not a r i s e t o be determined  f i n d i n g on t h e g e o g r a p h i c L o r d Denning i n  i n the given h i s  scope o f t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n .  v. S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e f o r F o r e i g n and  Commonwealth A f f a i r s , ( 2 2 7 ) s t a t e d o f t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n t h a t i t "was  e q u i v a l e n t t o an entrenched  the c o l o n i e s i n N o r t h America"  p r o v i s i o n i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n of  and t h a t i t c o n t i n u e d t o be  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y b i n d i n g on t h e dominion and p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s even a f t e r  Confederation.  Recent d e c i s i o n s have made i t c l e a r t h a t a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i s a common law r i g h t , not dependent upon t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n t h e I n d i a n A c t , o r any o t h e r l e g i s l a t i v e r e c o g n i t i o n . ( 2 2 8 ) But such i n no way negates t h e f a c t t h a t t h e common law r i g h t i s g i v e n s t a t u t o r y e f f e c t by such l e g i s l a t i o n . concluded  As Mr. J u s t i c e N o r r i s  t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 was " d e c l a r a t o r y and  c o n f i r m a t o r y o f a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . " ( 2 2 9 ) And where an A c t o f  (226) I b i d . , a t p. 152 D.L.R. (227)  [1982] 2 A l l E.R. 118 (C.A.), a t pp. 124, 125.  (228) G u e r i n v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335, a t p. 378 and C a l d e r v. A.G.B.C., [1973] S.C.R. 313.  PAGE 97 P a r l i a m e n t , a c c o r d i n g t o i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n , has embraced and c o n f i r m e d a r i g h t which p r e v i o u s l y e x i s t e d a t common law or by custom o r p r e s c r i p t i o n , such r i g h t becomes t h e n c e f o r t h a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t and t h e lower r i g h t i s merged i n and e x t i n g u i s h e d to t h e e x t e n t i t i s d e c l a r e d i n t h e s t a t u t e . ( 2 3 0 ) The R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 i s noted  ( t o g e t h e r w i t h the  Quebec A c t 1774) i n t h e Appendix t o t h e 1970 r e v i s e d s t a t u t e s of Canada.(231) Throughout t h e y e a r s s i n c e the P r o c l a m a t i o n a l l l e g i s l a t i o n i n t h e form o f t h e v a r i o u s I n d i a n A c t s o p e r a t i v e throughout  Canada c o n t i n u e d t h e l e t t e r and s p i r i t o f t h e  P r o c l a m a t i o n ' s p r o v i s i o n s . ( 2 3 2 ) The c o n t i n u i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n i s e v i d e n c e d by i t s i n c l u s i o n i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1982.(233) S e c t i o n 25 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1982 s t a t e s : 25.  The guarantee i n t h i s C h a r t e r o f c e r t a i n r i g h t s and freedoms s h a l l not be c o n s t r u e d so as t o abrogate o r derogate from any a b o r i g i n a l , t r e a t y o r o t h e r r i g h t s or freedoms t h a t p e r t a i n t o t h e a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s o f Canada i n c l u d i n g : (a) any r i g h t s o r freedoms t h a t have been r e c o g n i z e d by t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f October 7, 1763; and  (229) Supra, f o o t n o t e 221 a t p. 636 o f D.L.R. (230) See New Windsor Corpn. v. T a y l o r , [1899] A.C. 41. (231) R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763, ((Imp.), R.S.C. 1970, Appendix I I , No. 1. See Appendix I . (232) R_^ v. Lady McMaster, [1926] Ex. C R . 68 a t p. 73. (233) C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1982, b e i n g Schedule 1982, c. 11 (U.K.).  B o f t h e Canada A c t  PAGE 98 (b any r i g h t s or freedoms t h a t now e x i s t by way of l a n d c l a i m agreements or may be so a c q u i r e d . T h i s s e c t i o n , c l e a r l y i n s e r t e d t o p r o t e c t the s p e c i a l r i g h t s o f the a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s  of Canada from the a p p l i c a t i o n of the  C h a r t e r , r e c o g n i z e s t h a t the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 s t a t u t o r i l y recognized c e r t a i n a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . a r e r e c o g n i z e d and c o n f i r m e d  These r i g h t s  by s. 35 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t ,  1982 which s t a t e s : 35.  (1) The e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l and t r e a t y r i g h t s of the a b o r i g i n a l peoples o f Canada a r e t h e r e b y r e c o g n i z e d and a f f i r m e d . (2) I n t h i s A c t , " a b o r i g i n a l peoples of Canada" i n c l u d e s I n d i a n , I n u i t and M e t i s peoples o f Canada. (3) For g r e a t e r c e r t a i n t y , i n s u b s e c t i o n (1), " t r e a t y r i g h t s " includes r i g h t s that now e x i s t by way o f l a n d c l a i m s agreements or may be so a c q u i r e d (Const. A c t , 1982, as amended March 1983).  L o r d Denning s a i d of s e c t i o n 35: I t seems t o me t h a t t h e Canada B i l l i t s e l f does a l l t h a t can be done t o p r o t e c t the r i g h t s and freedoms o f the a b o r i g i n a l peoples o f Canada. I t entrenches them as p a r t o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n , so t h a t they cannot be d i m i n i s h e d or reduced except by the p r e s c r i b e d procedure and by the p r e s c r i b e d m a j o r i t i e s . In a d d i t i o n , i t p r o v i d e s f o r a c o n f e r e n c e a t the h i g h e s t l e v e l to be h e l d so as t o s e t t l e e x a c t l y what t h e i r rights are.... There i s n o t h i n g , so f a r as I can s e e , t o warrant any d i s t r u s t by the I n d i a n s o f the government o f Canada.... They w i l l be a b l e t o say t h a t t h e i r r i g h t s and freedoms have been guaranteed t o them by the Crown - o r i g i n a l l y by the Crown i n r e s p e c t o f the U n i t e d Kingdom — now by t h e Crown i n r e s p e c t of Canada — b u t , i n any c a s e , by t h e Crown. No p a r l i a m e n t s h o u l d do a n y t h i n g t o l e s s e n the worth of these guarantees. They s h o u l d be honoured by the Crown i n r e s p e c t o f Canada "so l o n g as the sun  PAGE 99 r i s e s and the r i v e r f l o w s " . never be broken.(234)  That promise must  Presumably L o r d Denning i n t a l k i n g of the guarantee  for Indian  r i g h t s o r i g i n a l l y g i v e n by the Crown i n r e s p e c t of the U n i t e d Kingdom i s t a l k i n g of the guarantee P r o c l a m a t i o n of  c o n t a i n e d i n the R o y a l  1763.  I t seems c l e a r the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763  has, i n  Canada, been t r e a t e d as h a v i n g the f o r c e and e f f e c t of an I m p e r i a l s t a t u t e r e l a t i n g t o the c o l o n i e s .  I t w i l l elsewhere  argued t h a t such major P r e r o g a t i v e l e g i s l a t i v e was  be  explicitly  r e c o g n i z e d as h a v i n g such f o r c e i n the C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865  and t h a t h a v i n g such f o r c e i t o p e r a t e d so as t o v o i d  repugnant c o l o n i a l laws to the e x t e n t of any  such  repugnancy.(235) In o r d e r t o f u l l y understand P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763  the import of the R o y a l  i t i s necessary  r o o t s of the S o v e r e i g n ' s  P r e r o g a t i v e powers and  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r u l e s governing power i n newly a c q u i r e d  t o understand  the  historical  British  the n a t u r e and e x e r c i s e of  this  territories.  (234) R^ v. S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e f o r F o r e i g n and Commonwealth A f f a i r s , [1982] 2 A l l E.R. 118 ( C A . ) a t p. 126 et seq. (235) See d i s c u s s i o n i n f r a p. 211 et seq.  PAGE  PART II; 1.  The  (i)  THE  ROYAL PREROGATIVE AS  Royal  IT  RELATES TO THE  100  COLONIES  Prerogative  Introduction Prerogative  the  e x e r c i s e by  residual and  Orders the  powers  to  consequently  statutory  Parliament the  Royal  legislate  of  B e n n i o n ( 2 3 7 ) who,  such  Prerogative, or  by  any  law  vigore  does have  legislative  operating  by  Parliament character  virtue  can and  without  original  to  a u t h o r i t y of  requirements presence  of  attendant any  ancient  Roll,  legislation.  or  i t s legislative  therefore,  S u p r a , f o o t n o t e 9 5 , C r a i e s p . 289 o f E n g l a n d , ( 3 r d e d . p. 476).  (237)  Francis  (238)  The  Bennion,  Prince's  Case  quality  Statutory (1608),  and  the  necessary  Rep.  the  s t a t u t e on  i s not  see  206.  such formal  Moreover, a  made  original  where  the  conclusive  Hals.,  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n (KF 8 Co.  so  of  only  v a l i d i t y . ( 2 3 8 ) Inasmuch as  (236)  under  legislation  deny  the  as  by  of  instrument  legislation  complies  The  made  maxim t h a t  does not  Prerogative  i t s absence  the  delegated  Thus the  Statute  such  I f an  document vouched  Parliament against  or  on  Parliament  Parliament  s t a t e , has  i t i s as  w i t h i n Crown competence and  Her  Acts  instruments  force).  Act". by  of  are  i s recognized  uniqueness of  made b y  effect,  legislate  legislation  instrument organ  of  legislation.(236)  the  They  a u t h o r i t y of  and  i t s own  an  advice)  from A c t s ,  other  of  legislation.  with the  Prerogative  no  (by  delegated  (albeit  in reference  separately,  lies  are  s t a t e s , "Apart  proprio  not  Sovereign  they  effect  are  425  for  prerogative  Statutes B465).  PAGE 101 o r d e r s , commands or p r o h i b i t i o n s have been always a c q u i e s c e d i n as u n q u e s t i o n a b l y a u t h e n t i c and a v a l i d e x e r c i s e o f the Crown's d i s c r e t i o n , t h i s u n i v e r s a l r e c e p t i o n e s t a b l i s h e s and c o n f i r m s t h e i r a u t h o r i t y . ( 2 3 9 ) Such has been e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763 by the Supreme Court of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . ( 2 4 0 ) I n Canada the P r o c l a m a t i o n has been h e l d t o have the f o r c e and e f f e c t of a S t a t u t e . ( 2 4 1 ) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h i s i t h a s , from time t o t i m e , been a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763, and more p a r t i c u l a r l y i t s ' I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s ' , does not have the f o r c e and e f f e c t o f a B r i t i s h Act of Parliament extending to the c o l o n i e s . n e c e s s a r y t o understand  I t i s thus  something o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l r o o t s o f t h e  R o y a l P r e r o g a t i v e and i t s e x e r c i s e and l e g a l e f f e c t where P r e r o g a t i v e Instruments a r e promulgated and expressed t o a p p l y t o the B r i t i s h  colonies.  (239) Supra, f o o t n o t e 95, C r a i e s , p. 52 c i t i n g Hawkins, p r e f a c e to S t a t u t e s (1735). (240) See d i s c u s s i o n , i n f r a p. 88 e t s e q . (241) Pw v. Lady McMaster, [1926] Ex. C.R. 68 (Can. E x . ) .  PAGE 10 2 (ii)  H i s t o r i c a l Roots o f t h e R o y a l The s o v e r e i g n  Prerogative  i n B r i t a i n possessed v a r i o u s e x e c u t i v e and  l e g i s l a t i v e powers d e r i v e d d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y from the p r e r o g a t i v e , g e n e r a l A c t s of P a r l i a m e n t Parliament  and S p e c i a l A c t s of  which c o n f e r r e d upon the Crown e x t r a o r d i n a r y r i g h t s  and powers. The R o y a l p r e r o g a t i v e has been v a r i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d . meant t o B l a c k s t o n e  It  the s p e c i a l preeminence of the King;(242) t o  D i c e y , the r e s i d u e of the d i s c r e t i o n a r y or a r b i t r a r y power l e g a l l y l e f t a t any time i n the hands of the Crown;(243) t o Lord Haldane i t meant the common law as d i s t i n c t from the s t a t u t o r y powers of the Crown.(244) Whatever i t s p r e c i s e meaning might be the R o y a l P r e r o g a t i v e can be d e f i n e d as a l l those powers and p r i v i l e g e s c o n f e r r e d upon the Crown w i t h o u t  express  legislative  authority. The R o y a l p r e r o g a t i v e i s of a n c i e n t o r i g i n .  'Prerogative'  s i g n i f i e s something r e q u i r e d or demanded b e f o r e , or i n p r e f e r e n c e to a l l o t h e r s . ( 2 4 5 )  Though the e a r l i e s t s t a t u t o r y e x p r e s s i o n of  the p r e r o g a t i v e R o y a l i s found i n the S t a t u t e of M Ed. 2 s t . 1 de p r e r o g a t i v e r e g i s , i t i s g e n e r a l l y accepted  t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e was  (242)  1 B i a . Comm. 239.  (243)  D u s s a u l t , Rene, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law: A T r e a t i s e by Rene D u s s a u l t and L o v i s Borgeat ; t r a n s l a t e d by M. R a n k i n 2nd ed. T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1985, p. 314, c i t i n g J.B.D. M i t c h e l l , C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law, 2nd ed., 1968, p. 173.  (244)  Ibid.  (245) C h i t t y , J o s e p h , A T r e a t i s e on the Laws of the P r e r o g a t i v e s of the Crown, London: Joseph B u t t e r w o r t h and Son, 1820.  PAGE 10 3 merely d e c l a r a t i v e o f t h e common law.(246) H i s t o r i c a l l y t h e R o y a l P r e r o g a t i v e was t h e f o u n d a t i o n of the l e g i s l a t i v e power e x e r c i s e d by t h e B r i t i s h s o v e r e i g n . of P r o c l a m a t i o n s ( 2 4 7 )  I n 1539, Henry V I I I under t h e S t a t u t e  r e c e i v e d the power t o i s s u e  of a l e g i s l a t i v e n a t u r e .  Such p r o c l a m a t i o n s  proclamations  as might be i s s u e d  were, however, not t o e f f e c t or change p r o p e r t y r i g h t s , common law p r i n c i p l e s o r p r o v i s i o n s o f s t a t u t o r y law.  U n t i l the  r e v o l u t i o n o f 1688 t h i s l e g i s l a t i v e power was shared between t h e K i n g and P a r l i a m e n t .  F o l l o w i n g the r e v o l u t i o n , P a r l i a m e n t  laid  c l a i m t o t h e power o f making laws, the power o f a d m i n i s t e r i n g and e x e c u t i n g those laws b e i n g l e f t t o the K i n g .  Such l e g i s l a t i v e  powers t h a t remained t o t h e King i n B r i t a i n were not o f a d e l i b e r a t i v e kind —  he no l o n g e r had the power t o propound laws  but merely t h e p r e r o g a t i v e r i g h t o f r e j e c t i o n o f suggested laws.(248) T h i s was t h e g e n e r a l r u l e , however, t h e Crown d i d r e t a i n t h e r i g h t i n c e r t a i n cases t o enact r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h o u t p r i o r d e l e g a t i o n being w r i t t e n i n t o a s t a t u t e .  And t h i s power  where i t e x i s t e d was not a d e l e g a t e d power but an o r i g i n a l l e g i s l a t i v e power b e i n g a r e s i d u e o f the l e g i s l a t i v e power f o r m e r l y h e l d by t h e King and which he l o s t t o P a r l i a m e n t . independent r e g u l a t i o n making power, h i s t o r i c a l l y enjoyed  This by t h e  K i n g , f e l l i n t o d i s u s e as P a r l i a m e n t w i t h a v i r t u a l monopoly on l e g i s l a t i v e power began i n c r e a s i n g l y t o d e l e g a t e  (246)  I b i d . , c i t i n g 2 I n s t . 496, 263, 10 Co. 64.  (247)  1539, 31 Hen. V I I I , c. 8, repeated s. 4.  (248)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 245, a t p. 3.  legislative  Bendl 117.  1547, 1 Edw. IV, c. 12,  PAGE 10 4 power t o the Crown or v a r i o u s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o d i e s . Of more i n t e r e s t a r e the more e x t e n s i v e p r e r o g a t i v e powers enjoyed by the Crown a r i s i n g out of i t s r o l e as Supreme M a g i s t r a t e under the B r i t i s h C o n s t i t u t i o n .  Executive  Chitty states  As supreme m a g i s t r a t e , the King p o s s e s s e s , s u b j e c t t o the law o f the l a n d , e x c l u s i v e , d e l i b e r a t e , and more d e c i d e d , more e x t e n s i v e , and more d i s c r e t i o n a r y r i g h t s and powers.(249) And goes on t o l i s t among such p r i n c i p a l p r e r o g a t i v e s the p r e r o g a t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o f o r e i g n s t a t e s and a f f a i r s ; the p r e r o g a t i v e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o j u s t i c e and the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of laws and t h a t r e l a t i n g t o the superintendency commerce i n c e r t a i n c a s e s .  and care o f  Such p r e r o g a t i v e s gave the B r i t i s h  Crown e x t e n s i v e d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers, many of which had t o the Crown's powers i n B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i e s .  relevance  The p r e r o g a t i v e  w i t h r e s p e c t t o f o r e i g n s t a t e s and a f f a i r s embraced a g e n e r a l power over e x t e r n a l a f f a i r s  (and hence a c q u i s i t i o n of new  t e r r i t o r y ) and an e x c l u s i v e power t o d e c l a r e war and peace and make t r e a t i e s  (and consequently  conquest and c e s s i o n ) .  t o a c q u i r e t e r r i t o r y by v i r t u e o f  The p r e r o g a t i v e s enjoyed by the Crown as  the f o u n t a i n of j u s t i c e i n c l u d e d the pardoning i s s u e o f the w r i t of habeas c o r p u s , the i s s u i n g o f  of o f f e n d e r s , the  the p r e r o g a t i v e o f mercy and  proclamations.(250)  I t i s a p p r o p r i a t e here t o b r i e f l y e x p l a i n the Crown's prerogative to issue proclamations. the S o v e r e i g n  Proclamations  were made by  a l o n e and became law on the a f f i x i n g of the Great  (249)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 245, p. 3.  (250)  I b i d . , p. 6.  PAGE 10 5 S e a l , under the a u t h o r i t y o f a warrant b e a r i n g the K i n g ' s signature.  They were approved i n d r a f t by O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l . ( 2 5 1 )  The p r e r o g a t i v e r e s p e c t i n g p r o c l a m a t i o n s enabled the K i n g as e x e c u t i v e M a g i s t r a t e t o command and e n f o r c e t h e performance by h i s s u b j e c t s o f e x i s t i n g laws and t o make or a l t e r  regulations  over which H i s M a j e s t y had a s p e c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . ( 2 5 2 ) I t d i d not e n t i t l e him t o break through those fundamental p r i n c i p l e s on which t h e l e g i s l a t i v e power o f government i s founded, by commanding t h e observance of m a t t e r s not s a n c t i o n e d by Parliament.  I t merely enabled t h e Crown t o p r o c l a i m the manner,  time and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f p u t t i n g those laws i n t o e x e c u t i o n . ( 2 5 3 ) Such r e s t r i c t i o n s were c l e a r l y s t a t e d i n the P r o c l a m a t i o n s Case.(254) However, t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s p l a c e d on the e x e r c i s e o f t h e p r e r o g a t i v e i n B r i t a i n do not n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l y t o l i m i t the Crown's powers i n B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i e s .  Whether or not a  p a r t i c u l a r p r e r o g a t i v e extends t o a B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r y depends upon (1) whether t h e l e g a l systems which forms t h e b a s i c law i n the t e r r i t o r y concerned i s or i s not E n g l i s h law and (2) t h e c a t e g o r y o f p r e r o g a t i v e t o which i t b e l o n g s .  (251) Roberts-Wray, S i r Kenneth. Commonwealth and C o l o n i a l Law, London: Stevens and Sons, 1966, p. 144. (252) 1 B i a . Comm. 270; 5 Bac. A6, 549, t i t l e :  Prerogative  (253) Supra, f o o t n o t e 245, pp. 2-5. (254) P r o c l a m a t i o n s Case (1610), 12 Co. Rep. 74, 77 E.R. 1352.  PAGE  Turning f i r s t colonies,  t o the q u e s t i o n of the law i n f o r c e i n B r i t i s h  t h i s cannot  be f u l l y understood w i t h o u t an  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the ways i n which t e r r i t o r i e s  f i r s t come under  B r i t i s h S o v e r e i g n t y and the c o n s e q u e n t i a l e f f e c t the v a r i o u s modes of a c q u i s i t i o n have on the b a s i c law of the concerned.  106  territories  PAGE 107 2.  Territorial  (i)  Acquisition  Introduction  Where t h e Crown o b t a i n s both t h e power o f government and t e r r i t o r i a l t i t l e over the t e r r i t o r y concerned, i t p r o p e r l y becomes p a r t o f Her M a j e s t y ' s  dominions and the Crown i s then  s o v e r e i g n i n t h e same f u l l sense as i n the U n i t e d Kingdom.(255) T e r r i t o r i a l t i t l e belongs  t o t h e s o v e r e i g n as head o f s t a t e and  the Crown's a u t h o r i t y i n r e l a t i o n t o such t e r r i t o r y i s a pure matter  of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law.  T e r r i t o r i e s may be a c q u i r e d by any one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g means or by a combination and s e t t l e m e n t .  o f them:  conquest, c e s s i o n ,  annexation  The power t o a c q u i r e t e r r i t o r i e s i s v e s t e d i n  the s o v e r e i g n by v i r t u e o f the R o y a l p r e r o g a t i v e over e x t e r n a l a f f a i r s and i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e making o f war and t r e a t i e s o f peace.  Conquest i s e x c l u s i v e l y embraced i n t h e p r e r o g a t i v e t o  make war and peace, as a l s o i s c e s s i o n a r i s i n g out o f hostilities.  C e s s i o n o f other k i n d s r e s t s on the e x e r c i s e o f t h e  p r e r o g a t i v e t o make t r e a t i e s .  Settlements are r e f e r a b l e t o the  g e n e r a l power over e x t e r n a l a f f a i r s . ( 2 5 6 ) Under t h e d o c t r i n e o f P a r l i a m e n t a r y Supremacy newly a c q u i r e d dominions a r e s u b o r d i n a t e t o and dependent upon t h e I m p e r i a l Crown and P a r l i a m e n t of Great B r i t a i n .  The l a t t e r has f u l l  (255)  Ibid.  (256)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, Roberts-Wray, p. 116.  PAGE 108 a u t h o r i t y t o make laws t o b i n d the c o l o n i e s q u i t e independent o f t h e i r mode o f a c q u i s i t i o n .  The mode of a c q u i s i t i o n , however, has  i m p o r t a n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l consequences  insofar  as t h e n a t u r e and  e x e r c i s e o f the K i n g ' s p r e r o g a t i v e l e g i s l a t i v e powers i n t h e new t e r r i t o r i e s a r e concerned.  I n p a r t i c u l a r the l e g i s l a t i v e powers  of the Crown i n a s e t t l e d c o l o n y a r e d i f f e r e n t from those i n one g a i n e d by c e s s i o n or conquest.  I t would seem t h a t i n conquered  and ceded c o l o n i e s the K i n g e n j o y s a v i r t u a l l y u n l i m i t e d power t o make l a w s , a t l e a s t u n t i l t h e promise o f a l e g i s l a t u r e .  In  s e t t l e d c o l o n i e s t h e c o l o n i s t s have r i g h t s o f t h e i r own a t common law which a r e r e f l e c t e d  i n a r e s t r i c t i o n on t h e l e g i s l a t i v e  powers o f the Crown.(257) I t i s i n t h i s r e g a r d t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n as t o the mode o f a c q u i s i t i o n has i m p o r t a n t consequences. (ii)  The P r e r o g a t i v e L e g i s l a t i v e Power a s I t R e l a t e s t o  Settlements  We a r e here concerned w i t h the a c q u i s i t i o n o f t e r r i t o r y by the Crown i n consequence  o f the f a c t o f s e t t l e m e n t by B r i t i s h  s u b j e c t s i n a p l a c e where t h e r e i s not a c i v i l i z e d government and l e g a l system.  I f a colonizing  p r o j e c t i s undertaken w i t h t h e  p r i o r a u t h o r i t y o f the Crown, the s e t t l e r s take p o s s e s s i o n on b e h a l f o f t h e Crown, and t h e t e r r i t o r y becomes i p s o f a c t o a p a r t of the s o v e r e i g n ' s dominions.(258) I f t h e s e t t l e m e n t i s a p r i v a t e v e n t u r e , w i t h o u t p r i o r Crown a u t h o r i z a t i o n , some f o r m a l Crown A c t  (257) I b i d . , p. 111. (258) I b i d . , p. 99.  PAGE 109 i s required before t e r r i t o r i a l  t i t l e i n the Crown i s r e c o g n i z e d .  Some c o n f u s i o n stems from t h e f a c t t h a t " s e t t l e m e n t " was initially  only r e f e r a b l e to uninhabited countries.  Thus  B l a c k s t o n e , w r i t i n g i n 1765,  stated that colonies i n d i s t a n t  c o u n t r i e s a r e o f two s o r t s :  those where the l a n d s a r e c l a i m e d by  r i g h t o f occupancy o n l y "by f i n d i n g them d e s e r t and u n c u l t i v a t e d and p e o p l i n g them from the mother c o u n t r y " and those w h i c h , when a l r e a d y c u l t i v a t e d , have e i t h e r been gained by conquest or ceded by t r e a t y . ( 2 5 9 ) The q u e s t i o n i s whether such " d e s e r t and u n c u l t i v a t e d " l a n d s a r e t o be taken t o i n c l u d e l a n d s p e o p l e d by a b o r i g i n a l s w i t h t h e i r own system o f law and government. B l a n k a r d v.  Galdy(260) (1693) was t h e f i r s t case t o  a t t r i b u t e l e g a l consequences t o the d i s t i n c t i o n between occupation  ( s e t t l e m e n t ) and conquest.  There H o l t d i s t i n g u i s h e d  between an " u n i n h a b i t e d country newly found out by E n g l i s h s u b j e c t s " and a conquered c o u n t r y and h e l d t h a t i n t h e former " a l l the laws i n f o r c e i n England a r e i n f o r c e t h e r e " , i n t h e latter  "the laws o f England d i d not take p l a c e u n t i l  the conqueror o r h i s s u c c e s s o r s . " ( 2 6 1 )  d e c l a r e d by  T h i s accords w i t h a  statement o f V a t t e l ( 2 6 2 )  (259)  I b i d . , p. 100.  (260) B l a n k a r d v. Galdy (1693), H o l t 341, 90 E.R. 1089; 2 S a l k 411, 91 E.R. 356; 4 Mod. 222, 87 E.R. 359; Comb. 228, 90 E.R. 445 (K.B.). (261)  Ibid.  (262) Q. 10, s e c . B l .  PAGE 110 When a n a t i o n takes p o s s e s s i o n of a d i s t a n t c o u n t r y and s e t t l e s a c o l o n y t h e r e , t h a t c o u n t r y , though s e p a r a t e d from the p r i n c i p a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t or Mother c o u n t r y , n a t u r a l l y becomes a p a r t of the s t a t e , e q u a l l y w i t h i t s ancient possessions... These r u l e s were r e s t a t e d i n a P r i v y C o u n c i l Memorandum i n 1722(263) . . . t h a t i f t h e r e be a new and u n i n h a b i t e d c o u n t r y found out by E n g l i s h s u b j e c t s , as the law i s the b i r t h r i g h t of every s u b j e c t , so wherever they go they c a r r y t h e i r laws w i t h them; and t h e r e f o r e such new formed c o u n t r y i s to be governed by the laws of England, then i n b e i n g when they f i r s t s e t t l e d . . These e a r l y cases draw the d i s t i n c t i o n between u n i n h a b i t e d areas t h a t a r e s e t t l e d by B r i t i s h s u b j e c t s and conquered c o u n t r i e s and as S l a t t e r y s u g g e s t s , a r e s i l e n t as t o the s i t u a t i o n where the l a n d s e t t l e d was a l r e a d y  inhabited.(264)  I f the t e r r i t o r y was o c c u p i e d by " p r i m i t i v e p e o p l e s "  with  " b a r b a r i a n laws" the s e t t l e r s were s i m i l a r l y deemed t o take E n g l i s h law w i t h them.  However, i f the t e r r i t o r y was a l r e a d y  i n h a b i t e d by " c i v i l i z e d p e o p l e s " the s e t t l e r s were c o n s i d e r e d immigrants  i n a c o u n t r y whose laws a p p l i e d t o them, s u b j e c t t o  any agreements t o the c o n t r a r y . subcontinent.  T h i s was the case on the I n d i a n  As t o the d i s t i n c t i o n i n g e n e r a l between c o l o n i e s  by s e t t l e m e n t and c o l o n i e s by conquest or c e s s i o n , the f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s were made i n the case of Freeman v.  (263)  (1722), 2 Peer Wms.  Fairlie(265)  75 (P.C.).  (264) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, S l a t t e r y p. 27 et s e q . (265)  (1828), 1 Moo. Ind. App. 305 a t 324, 18 E.R. 117 (Ch.).  PAGE 111 I apprehend the t r u e g e n e r a l d i s t i n c t i o n t o be i n e f f e c t between c o u n t r i e s i n which t h e r e a r e not, and c o u n t r i e s i n which t h e r e a r e , a t the time of t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n , any e x i s t i n g c i v i l i n s t i t u t i o n s and laws; i t b e i n g i n the f i r s t of those cases matter of n e c e s s i t y t h a t the B r i t i s h s e t t l e r s s h o u l d use t h e i r n a t i v e l a w s , as h a v i n g no o t h e r s t o r e s o r t t o ; whereas i n the o t h e r case t h e r e i s an e s t a b l i s h e d l e x l o c i which i t might be h i g h l y i n c o n v e n i e n t a l l a t once t o a b r o g a t e , and t h e r e f o r e i t remains t i l l changed by the d e l i b e r a t i v e wisdom of the new l e g i s l a t i v e power. In the former case a l s o t h e r e a r e n o t , but i n the l a t t e r case t h e r e a r e , new s u b j e c t s t o be governed, i g n o r a n t of the E n g l i s h laws, and unprepared perhaps i n c i v i l and p o l i t i c a l c h a r a c t e r t o r e c e i v e them. The reason why the r u l e s a r e l a i d down i n books of a u t h o r i t y w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the d i s t i n c t i o n between new-discovered c o u n t r i e s on the one hand, and ceded or conquered c o u n t r i e s on the o t h e r , may be found, I c o n c e i v e , i n the f a c t t h a t t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n had always, or almost a l w a y s , p r a c t i c a l l y corresponded w i t h t h a t between the absence and the e x i s t e n c e of a l e x l o c i , by which the B r i t i s h s e t t l e r s m i g h t , w i t h o u t i n c o n v e n i e n c e , f o r a time be g r a n t e d ; f o r the powers from whom we r e s t e d c o l o n i e s by conquest, or had o b t a i n e d them by t r e a t i e s of c e s s i o n , had o r d i n a r i l y , i f not a l w a y s , been c i v i l i z e d and C h r i s t i a n s t a t e s , whose i n s t i t u t i o n s t h e r e f o r e were not w h o l l y d i s s i m i l a r t o our own. Lord Kingsdown i n Advocate-General of Bengal v. Rannee Surnomoye Dossee(266)  p o i n t e d out i n r e l a t i o n t o E n g l i s h s e t t l e m e n t s i n  I n d i a , t h a t i f "the s e t t l e m e n t had been made i n a  Christian  c o u n t r y of Europe, the s e t t l e r s would have become s u b j e c t t o the laws of the c o u n t r y i n which they s e t t l e d " ,  the laws of England  or the Crown of England h a v i n g no a u t h o r i t y i n such p l a c e s ( 2 6 7 ) However where C h r i s t i a n i t y  (266) (1863), 2 Moo.  P.C.  (267) I b i d , a t p. 800 of  does not p r e v a i l and the l o c a l  (N.S.) 22. E.R.  laws  PAGE and  usages are so a t v a r i a n c e  112  w i t h such p r i n c i p l e s he notes t h a t  through the i n d u l g e n c e and weakness of the P o t e n t a t e s of those c o u n t r i e s , E n g l i s h s e t t l e r s have been a l l o w e d of t h e i r own  "to r e t a i n the  use  laws".(268)  In d e s c r i b i n g the c h a r a c t e r  of E n g l i s h s e t t l e m e n t  i n India  the Court s t a t e d ; I t was a s e t t l e m e n t made by a few f o r e i g n e r s f o r the purpose of t r a d e i n a v e r y populous and h i g h l y c i v i l i z e d c o u n t r y , under the government of a p o w e r f u l Mahamoden r u l e , w i t h whose s o v e r e i g n t y the E n g l i s h Crown never attempted nor pretended t o i n t e r f e r e f o r some c e n t u r i e s afterwards.(269) And  a l t h o u g h the s e t t l e r s i n I n d i a r e t a i n e d t h e i r own  the " f a c t o r i e s " they e s t a b l i s h e d i t was sovereign  allowed  it.  laws w i t h i n  o n l y because the  local  And;  the p e r m i s s i o n to use t h e i r own laws by European s e t t l e r s does not extend those laws t o N a t i v e s w i t h i n the same l i m i t s , who remain t o a l l i n t e n t s and purposes s u b j e c t s of t h e i r own S o v e r e i g n , and to whom European laws and usages are as l i t t l e s u i t e d as the laws of the Mohometans and Hindoos are s u i t e d to Europeans. These p r i n c i p l e s are too c l e a r to r e q u i r e any a u t h o r i t y to support them."(270) The  " I n d i a " cases are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e i n t h a t  t h e r e was  "settlement"  not, i n i t i a l l y at l e a s t , a v e h i c l e f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of  territory — sovereignty i t s Indian  (268)  Ibid.  (269)  Ibid.  (270)  Ibid.  the E n g l i s h Crown i n i t i a l l y in India.  And  i n h a b i t a n t s , any  given  never attempted t o  the number and  gain  s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of  attempt at B r i t i s h s o v e r e i g n t y  would  PAGE 113 have had t o be by conquest.  I t i s not t h e r e f o r e s u r p r i s i n g  that  the use o f E n g l i s h l a w , extended t o t h e s e t t l e r s , d i d not extend E n g l i s h law t o the N a t i v e s .  The Court went on t o f i n d t h a t t h e  case i s d i f f e r e n t where the E n g l i s h e s t a b l i s h themselves i n an " u n i n h a b i t e d or barbarous c o u n t r y . "  I n such a case "they c a r r y  w i t h them not o n l y the laws, but the s o v e r e i g n t y o f t h e i r own s t a t e ; and those who l i v e amongst them and become members o f t h e i r community become a l s o p a r t a k e r s o f , and s u b j e c t t o t h e same laws."(271) In summary the King had no o r d i n a r y l e g i s l a t i v e p r e r o g a t i v e in "settled" colonies.  And i n f a c t Roberts-Wray(272) notes  the purpose and e f f e c t o f the v a r i o u s B r i t i s h S e t t l e m e n t s  that  Acts  was t o a l t e r t h i s common law r u l e ( t h a t , i n a c o l o n y a c q u i r e d by s e t t l e m e n t , t h e Crown can s e t up a c o n s t i t u t i o n but cannot  enact  l e g i s l a t i o n of other k i n d s ) .  (iii)  The P r e r o g a t i v e L e g i s l a t i v e Power as I t R e l a t e s t o  Conquered and Ceded C o l o n i e s I t i s e s t a b l i s h e d beyond q u e s t i o n t h a t , as these  territories  are a c q u i r e d by v i r t u e o f the P r e r o g a t i v e t o make war, peace and t r e a t i e s , so the s o v e r e i g n has f u l l power under t h e p r e r o g a t i v e t o make laws e i t h e r i n the c o n s t i t u e n t f i e l d or o t h e r w i s e .  As we  have seen broad s o v e r e i g n l e g i s l a t i v e powers i n r e l a t i o n t o conquered/ceded c o l o n i e s was expounded as e a r l y as 1693 by L o r d  (271)  Ibid.  (272)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, p. 166.  PAGE 114 H o l t i n B l a n k a r d v.  Galdy(273) and i n a P r i v y C o u n c i l  memorandum, c i r c a 1722.(274)'The l a t t e r i s presumed t o have been i s s u e d t o adopt t h e r u l e s l a i d down i n B l a n k a r d v. Galdy  so as t o  make these r u l e s a p p l i c a b l e t o p l a c e s beyond the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the o r d i n a r y c o u r t s .  I n the l a t t e r case i t was h e l d t h a t i n a  s e t t l e m e n t " a l l t h e laws i n f o r c e i n England  are i n force there",  s e t t l e r s c a r r y i n g w i t h them the common law o f England. i n a conquered c o u n t r y "the laws o f England u n t i l d e c l a r e d by t h e conqueror  d i d not take p l a c e  or h i s s u c c e s s o r s . "  a f f i r m e d by Lord M a n s f i e l d i n Campbell v.  Whereas  T h i s was  H a l l , ( 2 7 5 ) m a i n l y on  the a u t h o r i t y o f C a l v i n s case,(276) o n l y r e j e c t i n g t h e p r o p o s i t i o n put f o r w a r d i n C a l v i n s case as t o the e x c e p t i o n regarding i n f i d e l s .  I t i s u s e f u l t o p r o p e r l y understand t h e  r u l i n g i n Campbell v. H a l l . The case r e l a t e d t o the i s l a n d o f Grenada, taken by t h e B r i t i s h armies  i n open war from t h e French k i n g and s u r r e n d e r e d  upon c a p i t u l a t i o n .  L e t t e r s P a t e n t , dated March 26, 1764,  commissioned G e n e r a l M e l v i l l e as Governor o f Grenada.  He was  g i v e n power t o s e t up a l e g i s l a t u r e as s p e c i f i e d i n a p r e v i o u s p r o c l a m a t i o n under t h e Great S e a l , dated October 7, 1763 ( t h e Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n ) .  By t h a t P r o c l a m a t i o n o f t h e K i n g had  empowered and d i r e c t e d t h e Government o f Grenada by L e t t e r s  (273) Supra, f o o t n o t e 260. (274) Supra, f o o t n o t e 263. (275) Campbell v. H a l l (1774), L o f f t 655, 98 E.R. 204, 98 E.R. 1045; 20 S t . T r . 239 (K.B.).  848; 1 Cowp.  (276) C a l v i n s Case (1608), 7 Co. Rep. l a , 77 E.R. 377.  PAGE 115 Patent under the Great S e a l t o summon g e n e r a l a s s e m b l i e s o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e people o f Grenada so soon as t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c o l o n y would a l l o w , and w i t h t h e i r  consent  t o make laws f o r t h e p u b l i c peace, w e l f a r e , and good government of the c o l o n y and i t s i n h a b i t a n t s . There had been a second p r o c l a m a t i o n of March 26, 1764, c o n t a i n i n g a r e c i t a l o f a survey of the i s l a n d s and t h e i r d i v i s i o n i n t o a l l o t m e n t s , as an i n v i t a t i o n to purchasers  t o come i n and take up p r o p e r t i e s on  terms s p e c i f i e d i n the p r o c l a m a t i o n .  A f t e r these i n s t r u m e n t s had  been p u b l i s h e d L e t t e r s Patent were i s s u e d J u l y 20, 1764 p u r p o r t i n g t o impose by v i r t u e o f t h e R o y a l P r e r o g a t i v e a duty o f 4 1/2 p e r c e n t on a l l sugars e x p o r t e d from t h e I s l a n d .  The  q u e s t i o n was whether the K i n g had p r e c l u d e d h i m s e l f from t h e e x e r c i s e o f a l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y over Grenada by t h e promise of an assembly i n t h e e a r l i e r  proclamation.  Lord M a n s f i e l d l a i d out s i x p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g  conquests:  1 s t , a c o u n t r y conquered by t h e B r i t i s h arms becomes a dominion o f t h e K i n g i n r i g h t o f h i s Crown, and t h e r e f o r e n e c e s s a r i l y s u b j e c t t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e power o f the P a r l i a m e n t o f Great Britain. 2nd, the conquered i n h a b i t a n t s once r e c e i v e d i n t o the conquerors' p r o t e c t i o n become s u b j e c t s ; and a r e u n i v e r s a l l y t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n t h a t l i g h t , not as enemies or a l i e n s . 3 r d l y , a r t i c l e s o f c a p i t u l a t i o n upon which t h e conquest i s s u r r e n d e r e d , and t r e a t i e s o f peace by which i t i s ceded, a r e s a c r e d and i n v i o l a b l e , according to their true intent. 4 t h l y , t h e law and l e g i s l a t i o n o f every dominion e q u a l l y a f f e c t s a l l persons and p r o p e r t y w i t h i n the l i m i t s t h e r e o f , and i s t h e true r u l e f o r the d e c i s i o n of a l l questions which a r i s e t h e r e : whoever purchases, sues o r l i v e s t h e r e , puts h i m s e l f under t h e laws o f t h e  PAGE 116 p l a c e , and i n t h e s i t u a t i o n o f i t s i n h a b i t a n t s . An Englishman i n M i n o r c a or t h e I s l e o f Man, o r the p l a n t a t i o n s , has no d i s t i n c t r i g h t from t h e n a t i v e s w h i l e he c o n t i n u e s t h e r e . 5 t h l y , laws o f a conquered c o u n t r y c o n t i n u e u n t i l they a r e a l t e r e d by t h e conqueror. The j u s t i c e and a n t i q u i t y o f t h i s maxim i s u n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e ; and t h e absurd e x c e p t i o n as t o pagans, i n C a l v i n ' s Case, shows t h e u n i v e r s a l i t y o f t h e maxim. The e x c e p t i o n c o u l d not e x i s t b e f o r e the C h r i s t i a n e r a , and i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y a r o s e from t h e mad enthusiasm o f the C r o i s a d e s . I n t h e p r e s e n t case t h e c a p i t u l a t i o n e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e s and a g r e e s , t h a t they s h a l l c o n t i n u e t o be governed by t h e i r present laws, u n t i l H i s Majesty's p l e a s u r e be f u r t h e r known. 6 t h l y , i f the K i n g has power (and when I say the K i n g , I mean i n t h i s case t o be understood "without the concurrence o f P a r l i a m e n t " ) t o make new laws f o r a conquered c o u n t r y , t h i s b e i n g a power s u b o r d i n a t e t o h i s own a u t h o r i t y , as a p a r t of the supreme l e g i s l a t u r e i n P a r l i a m e n t , he can make none which a r e c o n t r a r y t o fundamental p r i n c i p l e s ; none e x c e p t i n g from the laws o f t r a d e or a u t h o r i t y o f P a r l i a m e n t , or p r i v i l e g e s e x c l u s i v e o f h i s o t h e r subjects."(277) The K i n g ' s i n i t i a l e x c l u s i v e l e g i s l a t i v e power over conquered c o l o n i e s enables him t o " e n t i r e l y change or new-model the whole, or p a r t o f i t s laws and p o l i t i c a l form o f government" and a l l o w s him t o govern  i t by r e g u l a t i o n s framed by  h i m s e l f . ( 2 7 8 ) The King may p r e c l u d e h i m s e l f from the f u r t h e r c o n c u r r e n t e x e r c i s e o f h i s l e g i s l a t i v e p r e r o g a t i v e by t h e g r a n t of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s w i t h o u t any r e s e r v a t i o n t o h i m s e l f of t h i s i m p o r t a n t p r e r o g a t i v e . ( 2 7 9 ) However, by such g r a n t t h e  (277)  (1774), L o f f t 655, 98 E.R. 848; 1 Cowp. 204, 98 E.R. 1045 (K.B.) a t pp. 741-742 L o f f t .  (278) Supra, f o o t n o t e 245, a t p. 29.  PAGE 117 a u t h o r i t y of the sovereign instrument  [ u s u a l l y L e t t e r s Patent or  O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l ] wherein such g r a n t i s g i v e n i s c l e a r l y not i n question. In Sammut v.  S t r i c k l a n d ( 2 8 0 ) the Court, c o n s i d e r i n g  Campbell v. H a l l , s t a t e d t h a t t h e t r u e p r o p o s i t i o n t o be taken from t h i s case was t h a t "as a g e n e r a l r u l e , such a g r a n t w i t h o u t the r e s e r v a t i o n o f a power o f c o n c u r r e n t l e g i s l a t i o n p r e c l u d e s the e x e r c i s e o f the p r e r o g a t i v e w h i l e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s  continue  t o e x i s t . " ( 2 8 1 ) and "Nor i s i t i n doubt t h a t a power o f r e v o k i n g the g r a n t must be r e s e r v e d or i t w i l l not e x i s t " . The same p r o p o s i t i o n was a c c e p t e d as " s e t t l e d " law i n Canada i n 1820 on the b a s i s o f these a u t h o r i t i e s and t h a t o f Campbell v. H a l l . ( 2 8 2 ) Subsequent c o n f i r m a t i o n i s t o be found i n o t h e r decided cases and works on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law.(283) In p o i n t of f a c t the g e n e r a l broad p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e Crown possesses  f u l l l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y i n ceded/conquered c o u n t r i e s  was s u b s t a n t i a l l y q u a l i f i e d by t h e P r i v y C o u n c i l i n Campbell v. Hall —  t h e l i m i t a t i o n b e i n g t h a t i f t h e Crown g r a n t s t o a  (279) I b i d . , 30 and see Campbell v. H a l l , s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 275. (280)  [1938], A.C. 678 ( P . C . ) .  (281) I b i d . , a t p. 704. (282) J e n n i n g s v. Hunt (1820), 1 Newf. L.R. 220 (Newf. S.C.) p. 225. (283) C i t e d i n Roberts-Wray s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 251 a t p. 157. v. East I n d i a Co. (1836) 1 Mod. P.C. 175 P h i l l i p s v. Eyre (1870), L.R. 6 Q.B. 1 Sammut v. S t r i c k l a n d (1938), A.C. 678, a t 701 Abeyeskera v. J a y a h l a k e (1932), A.C. 260 C h i t t y , p r e r o g a t i v e s o f t h e Crown, p. 29 Hood P h i l l i p s , p. 723.  Lyons  PAGE 118 conquered Colony a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e l e g i s l a t i v e body, w i t h o u t r e s e r v i n g t o i t s e l f a power t o l e g i s l a t e , t h a t power i s no l o n g e r exercisable. Summary  The Crown i s prima f a c i e e n t i t l e d t o l e g i s l a t e f o r possessions  a c q u i r e d by conquest o r c e s s i o n , b u t i s not so  e n t i t l e d i n the case o f s e t t l e m e n t s based on the c i r c u m s t a n c e  the l i n e o f d i s t i n c t i o n  being  t h a t E n g l i s h s e t t l e r s wherever they  went c a r r i e d w i t h them the p r i n c i p l e s o f E n g l i s h law, and t h a t E n g l i s h common law n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l i e d i n s o f a r as such laws were a p p l i c a b l e t o the c o n d i t i o n s o f the new c o l o n y .  The Crown  c l e a r l y had no p r e r o g a t i v e r i g h t t o l e g i s l a t e i n such a c a s e . Where, however, the t e r r i t o r y was a c q u i r e d by c e s s i o n o r conquest, more p a r t i c u l a r l y where t h e r e was an e x i s t i n g law, i t has always been c o n s i d e r e d  system o f  t h a t t h e r e was an a b s o l u t e  power i n the Crown so f a r as was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the terms o f c e s s i o n , t o a l t e r the e x i s t i n g  system o f law, though u n t i l  i n t e r f e r e n c e the laws remained as they were b e f o r e  such  the t e r r i t o r y  was a c q u i r e d by the Crown.(284) F u r t h e r , where the Crown by an e x e r c i s e o f p r e r o g a t i v e has conferred  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s on the i n h a b i t a n t s o f a  t e r r i t o r y which has been a c q u i r e d by t h e Crown ( w i t h o u t a power o f r e v o k i n g  the g r a n t )  t h i s act precludes  a  r i g h t i n the Crown t o l e g i s l a t e f o r t h a t t e r r i t o r y .  (284)  reserving  concurrent (My  See B l a . Comm., 21st edn., v o l . i , pp. 107, 108) (Campbell v. H a l l , s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 275).  PAGE 119 emphasis).  ( i v ) The K i n g ' s C o n s t i t u e n t L e g i s l a t i v e Power i n R e l a t i o n t o B r i t i s h Dominions What we have so f a r been concerned w i t h i s t h e King's  power  to make o r d i n a r y laws f o r B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i e s , such, as we have seen, being i n l a r g e p a r t . r e f e r a b l e t o t h e v a r i o u s modes o f a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e t e r r i t o r i e s concerned.  But i n s o f a r as t h e  Crown's l e g i s l a t i v e powers a r e e x e r c i s a b l e i n B r i t i s h d o m i n i o n s , a major d i s t i n c t i o n which must be made i s t h a t between t h e Crown's c o n s t i t u e n t power ( t h e power t o e s t a b l i s h , amend or revoke c o n s t i t u t i o n s ) and the Crown's power t o make o r d i n a r y laws.(285) In a l l c o l o n i e s , whether a c q u i r e d by s e t t l e m e n t , conquest or the e s t a b l i s h m e n t  o f l o c a l governments and t h e c o u r t s f e l l  to the  Crown by v i r t u e o f t h e P r e r o g a t i v e and t h e a c t u a l s e t t i n g up o f c o l o n i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n s was l e f t t o R o y a l c o n t r o l .  In a l l  c o l o n i e s , the r i g h t o f a p p o i n t i n g g o v e r n o r s and d e l e g a t i n g powers to him and o t h e r o f f i c e r s f o r t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e l a w , o f e r e c t i n g c o u r t s o f j u s t i c e f o r i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and o f summoning r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a s s e m b l i e s  among i t s i n h a b i t a n t s f o r t h e  purpose o f i n t e r i o r l e g i s l a t i o n , belonged by v i r t u e o f i t s g e n e r a l p r e r o g a t i v e t o the Crown.(286)  (285)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, p. 143 e t s e q .  (286)  1 Chalmers 183, 184; 2 Chalmers 169, 170, 241.  PAGE 120 I t appears t h a t when the c o n s t i t u t i o n s had a c t u a l l y been s e t up, the P r e r o g a t i v e i n s t r u m e n t s British statutes. instruments  r e s p o n s i b l e took on t h e f o r c e of  The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s i n these  c o u l d not be amended by c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s , a r u l e  a f f i r m e d i n p a r t i n the C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865. I t i s c l e a r from what has a l r e a d y been s a i d o f the Crown's e x t e n s i v e p r e r o g a t i v e r i g h t s i n r e l a t i o n t o conquered or ceded c o l o n i e s , t h a t the Crown has f u l l power t o make laws i n t h e c o n s t i t u e n t f i e l d or o t h e r w i s e  f o r such c o l o n i e s . ( 2 8 7 )  In a  s e t t l e d c o l o n y the s e t t l e r s appear t o have some s o r t o f i n h e r e n t r i g h t t o expect the Crown t o g r a n t them the means t o l e g i s l a t e for  themselves.  Thus i n P h i l l i p s v.  Eyre(288) i t was s t a t e d :  There i s even g r e a t reason f o r h o l d i n g s a c r e d the p r e r o g a t i v e of t h e Crown t o c o n s t i t u t e a l o c a l l e g i s l a t u r e i n the case of a s e t t l e d c o l o n y , where the i n h a b i t a n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o be governed by E n g l i s h law, than i n t h a t o f a conquered c o l o n y , where i t i s o n l y by the g r a c e of the Crown t h a t t h e p r i v i l e g e o f self-government i s allowed. Even though the p r e r o g a t i v e embraces no g e n e r a l a u t h o r i t y over s e t t l e m e n t s  legislative  the e x i s t e n c e o f a c o n s t i t u e n t power  has always been acknowledged.(289) Once a g r a n t o f a l o c a l l e g i s l a t u r e i s made, i t cannot be revoked by the Crown u n l e s s a power o f r e v o c a t i o n i s r e s e r v e d . Where the Crown g r a n t s such a l e g i s l a t u r e , w i t h o u t  reserving to  i t s e l f a power of l e g i s l a t i o n , the Crown l o s e s i t s o r d i n a r y  (287)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, p. 157, f o o t n o t e 65.  (288) P h i l l i p s v. Eyre (1870), L.R. 6 Q.B. (289)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, p. 151.  1, a t pp. 18-19.  PAGE 121 legislative  power.(290) But as s t a t e d above t h e r e i s a  distinct  d i f f e r e n c e between the c o n s t i t u e n t power of the Crown and i t s ordinary l e g i s l a t i v e  power i n r e l a t i o n  to B r i t i s h  colonies.(291)  As a l r e a d y noted one c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e l i e s i n the f a c t t h a t the l a t t e r i s e x e r c i s a b l e o n l y i n conquered and ceded c o l o n i e s whereas the former  can be invoked i n r e l a t i o n  c o l o n i e s r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r  to a l l B r i t i s h  mode of a c q u i s i t i o n . ( 2 9 2 ) Moreover,  the King enjoyed c e r t a i n o t h e r "major" P r e r o g a t i v e s i n to a l l B r i t i s h l a n d s and t e r r i t o r i e s .  Such P r e r o g a t i v e s a p p l i e d  p r o p r i o v i g o r e as an i n c i d e n t of B r i t i s h s o v e r e i g n t y . P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763,  relation  The  Royal  i t i s argued i s such a major P r e r o g a t i v e  i n s t r u m e n t , being r e f e r a b l e t o the Crown's C o n s t i t u e n t Prerogative.  The P r e r o g a t i v e i n s t r u m e n t s by which the  s o v e r e i g n ' s w i l l was particular territories  e x p r e s s e d , as t o m a t t e r s w i t h i n i t s  a u t h o r i t y , a p p l i e d of t h e i r  own  f o r c e i n the  t o which they r e l a t e d , i n d e p e n d e n t l y of whether or  not the b a s i c law of such t e r r i t o r y  was  E n g l i s h law.  A  result  o c c a s i o n e d by the e f f e c t of B r i t i s h s o v e r e i g n t y and r e c o g n i z e d i n the C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y  Act,  1865.  (290) Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, p. 157, s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 275). (291) i b i d . , p.  (and see Campbell v.  Hall,  158.  (292) Campbell v. H a l l , s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 275. more f u l l y i n f r a ) .  (This i s discussed  PAGE 122 3.  The  Laws t o Which C o l o n i e s A r e  Subject  The d i f f e r e n c e s i n the modes of a c q u i s i t i o n o f B r i t i s h c o l o n i e s , as we have seen, g i v e s r i s e t o c o r r e s p o n d i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n the b a s i c law t o which a c o l o n y becomes s u b j e c t upon i t s f o u n d a t i o n . In  the case o f a t e r r i t o r y  the law of England,  ' s e t t l e d ' by B r i t i s h s u b j e c t s ,  then i n b e i n g , i s immediately  i n force  i n s o f a r as i t i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i n f a n t c o l o n y , ( 2 9 3 )  the  s e t t l e r s b e i n g deemed a t common law t o have brought E n g l i s h law t h e r e on the f o u n d a t i o n of the c o l o n y .  As a g e n e r a l r u l e the  E n g l i s h law so i n t r o d u c e d i s taken t o be the law which e x i s t e d i n England  a t the time the c o l o n y was s e t t l e d , save f o r any which i s  p l a i n l y u n s u i t a b l e t o the c o n d i t i o n s of the c o l o n y , ( 2 9 4 ) s u b j e c t t o l a t e r amendment passed  i n or by the c o l o n y .  and And "what  s h a l l be a d m i t t e d and what r e j e c t e d , a t what f o r c e s and under what r e s t r i c t i o n s , must, i n case o f d i s p u t e , be d e c i d e d i n the f i r s t i n s t a n c e by t h e i r own p r o v i n c i a l j u d i c a t u r e , s u b j e c t t o t h e d e c i s i o n and c o n t r o l of the K i n g - i n - C o u n c i l ; . . . " ( 2 9 5 ) i t may be t h a t "as the p o p u l a t i o n , w e a l t h s and commerce o f the c o l o n y i n c r e a s e , many r u l e s and p r i n c i p l e s of E n g l i s h law, which were u n s u i t a b l e t o i t s i n f a n c y , w i l l g r a d u a l l y be a t t r a c t e d t o i t . " ( 2 9 6 ) I n most s e t t l e d c o l o n i e s t h e r e has i n t r u d e d a s t a t u t e ,  (293) 2 P. Wms  75; B l a n k a r d v. Galdy  2 S a l k 411; 1 B l a . Com.  (294) I b i d . and see 1 Chalmers O p i n i o n s , 195. (295) 1 B l a . Com. 107. (296) Cooper v. S t u a r t (1889), 14 A.C. 286 ( P . C . ) .  107.  PAGE 123 sometimes l o c a l and  sometimes I m p e r i a l , c o n f e r r i n g the  of E n g l i s h law, and  d e f i n i n g e x a c t l y the date at which E n g l i s h  law has been r e c e i v e d . colony  Where E n g l i s h law i s the b a s i c law of  i t i s the E n g l i s h common law and  affirmance  reception  a l l statutes in  of the common law antecedent to the s e t t l e m e n t  of  c o l o n y , or t o the date s e t f o r the r e c e p t i o n of E n g l i s h law, i s i n f o r c e i n the c o l o n y , contrary.  the  s u b j e c t t o any  l o c a l Act to  the that  the  No s t a t u t e s made i n England subsequent t o such date  are i n f o r c e u n l e s s such e x t e n s i o n  the c o l o n i e s are p a r t i c u l a r l y mentioned or  can be n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l i e d ( C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y  A c t , 1865). B a s i c a l l y , i n a conquered or ceded t e r r i t o r y i t s former laws are r e t a i n e d u n t i l changed by the K i n g .  Municipal courts  assume the l e x l o c i remains i n f o r c e u n t i l s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h the n o t a b l e  exception  as to c o n s t i t u t i o n a l laws  p a r t i c u l a r l y barbaric laws). prerogative conformity being  will  changed,  (and  Where the K i n g e x e r c i s e s  his  r i g h t t o l e g i s l a t e , he i s not bound t o l e g i s l a t e i n w i t h the law of England.(297) But  subordinate  the K i n g ' s power  t o the a u t h o r i t y of P a r l i a m e n t  any changes c o n t r a r y  he "cannot make  t o fundamental p r i n c i p l e s , none  from the laws of t r a d e or a u t h o r i t y of P a r l i a m e n t , e x c l u s i v e of h i s o t h e r  subjects."(298)  or  excepting privileges  Where i n g i v i n g a  C o n s t i t u t i o n t o the conquered or ceded c o l o n y ,  the King  new provides  f o r the c a l l i n g of a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e assembly i t has been d e c i d e d  (297) Wytham v. D u t t o n , 3 Mod. 160; Campbell v. H a l l Cowp. 204. (298)  I b i d . , Campbell v. H a l l  Shaw P.C.  24;  (1774), L o f f t 665  2 P. Wms  at pp.  75;  741-742.  PAGE t h a t the Crown cannot a f t e r w a r d s colony  e x e r c i s e with respect  i t s former r i g h t of l e g i s l a t i o n ( 2 9 9 ) u n l e s s  r e s e r v a t i o n of such r i g h t .  C l a r k s t a t e s t h a t the  changes made by the Crown may  124  t o such  there i s a legislative  be e i t h e r p a r t i a l , whereby  p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s are e n g r a f t e d  on the forms of government  of the p l a c e s , or g e n e r a l whereby an e n t i r e l y new  code supersedes  the former law.(300) "Where the change i s p a r t i a l o n l y , i t i s s a i d t h a t the former customs of the c o u n t r y  w i l l s t i l l be i n  f o r c e as t o a l l m a t t e r s not o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d  for".(301)  However  when by R o y a l Commission a new  l e g a l c o n s t i t u t i o n i s granted  e s t a b l i s h i n g a l e g i s l a t u r e and  c o u r t s of j u s t i c e and  d i r e c t e d t h a t the law a d m i n i s t e r e d  i t is  s h a l l be i n a l l t h i n g s  as  ' n e a r l y a g r e e a b l e as p o s s i b l e t o the law of E n g l a n d ' , then law of England i s the r u l e as t o a l l cases not provided  for.(302)  Few  the  specifically  conquered/ceded c o l o n i e s have been a b l e  to  r e s i s t a l l i n f u s i o n s of E n g l i s h law.(303)  (299)  Ibid.  (300)  Clark, Charles. A Summary of C o l o n i a l Law, London: & M a x w e l l , and Stevens and Sons, 1834, at p. 7.  (301)  I b i d , c i t i n g Blankard  (302)  C l a r k , supra,  (303)  For a d i s c u s s i o n of the manner and d a t e by which E n g l i s h law was r e c e i v e d i n the v a r i o u s p a r t s of Canada, see Clement, ch. 14; J a c k e t t i n Lang (ed., Contemporary Problems of P u b l i c Law i n Canada, 3; L a s k i n , The B r i t i s h T r a d i t i o n i n Canadian Law (1969), 3-10; Cote (1977), 15 A l t a . L.R. 29.  footnote  v. G a l d y , 4 Mod. 300,  p.  Sweet  222.  7.  PAGE 125 As a l r e a d y noted.the E n g l i s h law t h a t i s r e c e i v e d as t h e b a s i c law o f t h e c o l o n i e s i s s u b j e c t t o i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o t h e conditions of that colony.  In t h i s respect i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o  note the b a s i s o f j u d i c i a l s t a t e m e n t s d e t e r m i n i n g s t a t u t e s a r e t o be a d m i t t e d  and which r e j e c t e d .  which E n g l i s h The c o u r t s , i n  c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n , have l o o k e d t o t h e e x t e n t t o which the s t a t u t e appears t o be founded upon p l a i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f p o l i c y , ( 3 0 4 ) and have tended t o r e j e c t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , o f E n g l i s h S t a t u t e s which were formed f o r reasons s o l e l y  affecting  the l a n d and s o c i e t y o f England and not f o r reasons a p p l y i n g t o a new c o l o n y . ( 3 0 5 ) I n Sammut v.  S t r i c k l a n d ( 3 0 6 ) i t was s a i d t h a t  the s e t t l e r s c a r r i e d w i t h them t h e " p r i n c i p l e s o f E n g l i s h l a w " . In A.G. v.  Stewart(307) t h e c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g  whether t h e  S t a t u t e o f Mortmain be i n f o r c e i n t h e i s l a n d o f Grenada h e l d t h a t such was i n l a r g e p a r t dependent upon whether i t was "a law of l o c a l p o l i c y adapted s o l e l y t o t h e c o u n t r y  i n which i t was  made, or a g e n e r a l r e g u l a t i o n o f p r o p e r t y e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o any c o u n t r y :  i n which p r o p e r t y was t o be governed by t h e r u l e s o f  E n g l i s h law."  I n r e j e c t i n g i t s a p p l i c a t i o n the Court found t h a t  the Mortmain A c t , "grew o u t o f l o c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s to have merely a l o c a l  and was meant  operation".  (304) Cooper v. S t u a r t s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 296. (305) Rex v. McKinney, [1889] 14 A.C. 77 ( P . C . ) , where t h e c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Mortmain A c t as i n t r o d u c e d by t h e s e t t l e r s i n t o B r i t i s h Honduras. (306)  Sammut v. S t r i c k l a n d , [1938] A.C. 678 ( P . C . ) , a t p. 70.  (307) A.G. v. Stewart (1817),  2 ed. 143, 35 E.R. 895 (Ch.).  PAGE 126 T h i s then o u t l i n e s t h e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s i n force i n B r i t i s h dominions.  I t i s important t o understand  t h a t t h e d i f f e r i n g modes o f a c q u i s i t i o n determining  the "ordinary"  g o v e r n i n g t h e laws  are important s o l e l y i n  law o f such t e r r i t o r i e s .  r e p e a l or amendment o f such law i s , as i s d i s c u s s e d  And t h e later, a  matter w i t h i n t h e power o f any l o c a l l e g i s l a t u r e , even t h a t o f a colony  t h a t i s not s e l f - g o v e r n i n g .  PAGE 127 4. I m p e r i a l Law i n F o r c e P r o p r i o V i g o r e  i nBritish  Territories  The d i s t i n c t i o n as t o mode o f a c q u i s i t i o n has c o n s i d e r a b l e b e a r i n g on t h e b a s i c law i n f o r c e i n t h e c o l o n i e s .  E n g l i s h law  may be " r e c e i v e d " as t h e b a s i c law of the c o l o n i e s through the v e h i c l e s of settlement or  or r e c e p t i o n s t a t u t e s or Orders  (Imperial  local). However, t h e r e i s a marked d i f f e r e n c e between the E n g l i s h  law so r e c e i v e d and t h a t which a p p l i e d t o a l l c o l o n i e s , p r o p r i o v i g o r e , o r o f i t s own f o r c e , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r mode o f acquisition.  The l a t t e r i s most c l e a r l y e v i d e n c e d by those  I m p e r i a l A c t s which take e f f e c t i n t h e c o l o n i e s because they were intended  by t h e B r i t i s h P a r l i a m e n t  t o be i n f o r c e i n t h e c o l o n y  at a time when i t was p a r t o f t h e Empire and so s u b j e c t t o t h e Imperial Parliament.  Whatever t h e mode o f a c q u i s i t i o n , i t i s  c l e a r that the Imperial Parliament  has always had f u l l  l e g i s l a t i v e power over B r i t i s h c o l o n i e s ( a t l e a s t up u n t i l t h e p a s s i n g o f t h e S t a t u t e o f W e s t m i n s t e r , 1931).(308) The American C o l o n i e s A c t , 1766, d e c l a r i n g t h e l e g i s l a t i v e competence o f t h e B r i t i s h Parliament  over the American c o l o n i e s , was c o n s i d e r e d ,  u n t i l i t s r e p e a l by S.L.R. A c t i n 1964, t o be s t i l l and  i n force,i f  so f a r as i t a p p l i e d t o Canada and t h e West I n d i e s . ( 3 0 9 )  S t a t u t e s passed by t h e I m p e r i a l P a r l i a m e n t Parliament  and i n t e n d e d  t o be i n f o r c e i n any c o l o n y a r e thereby  by t h a t  i n force  p r o p r i o v i g o r e i n such c o l o n i e s independent o f t h e i r mode o f  (308)  S t a t u t e o f Westminster 1931, (Imp.) 22 Geo. 5, c. 4.  (309)  Supra, f o o t n o t e  95  C r a i e s p. 493.  Thus  PAGE acquisition.  T h i s has  though a c o l o n y may  important  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s , as  r e p e a l a l l or p a r t of the " o r d i n a r y " or  " b a s i c " law t h e r e i n f o r c e i t cannot o v e r r u l e I m p e r i a l A c t s Orders i n f o r c e p r o p r i o v i g o r e u n l e s s the powers g r a n t e d  128  i t i s s e l f governing.  by the S t a t u t e of W e s t m i n s t e r , 1931,  only Acts i n f o r c e p r o p r i o vigore.(310) V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865(311) was  or  The  And  concern  C o l o n i a l Laws  passed to p r o t e c t I m p e r i a l law i n  f o r c e p r o p r i o v i g o r e i n the c o l o n i e s and  t o remove doubts as  c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t i v e competence i n r e g a r d to E n g l i s h law  received  as the b a s i c law of the c o l o n i e s (see d i s c u s s i o n b e l o w ) . S t a t u t e of W e s t m i n s t e r , 1931  to  By  the  the s e l f - g o v e r n i n g c o l o n i e s were  g i v e n the power t o m o d i f y , a l t e r or r e p e a l I m p e r i a l law i n f o r c e proprio vigore. To r e s t a t e the g e n e r a l i n a colony: Parliament  r u l e regarding  In s e t t l e m e n t s  passed b e f o r e  the b a s i c law i n f o r c e  the common law and a l l A c t s  of  t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n are i n f o r c e so f a r as  i s a p p l i c a b l e to l o c a l circumstances. t e r r i t o r i e s A c t s of P a r l i a m e n t  In conquered or ceded  passed b e f o r e  their acquisition  have no g e n e r a l f o r c e , u n l e s s adopted or i n c o r p o r a t e d by R o y a l or Parliamentary  a u t h o r i t y , or by a c t s of t h e i r own  e i t h e r by way  of s p e c i f i c enactment or as p a r t of the g e n e r a l  of the mother c o u n t r y  legislatures,  i n t o t h e i r subsequent code.(312) But  (310)  J.E. Rev.  Cote, Reception 29.  of E n g l i s h Law,  (311)  C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865.  (1977),  law  this  XV A l b e r t a  Law  See Appendix I I .  (312) T a r r i n g , S i r C h a r l e s , Chapters on the Law R e l a t i n g t o the C o l o n i e s 4th ed. London: Stevens and Haynes, 1913 ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as T a r r i n g ) .  PAGE 129 g e n e r a l r u l e i s open t o a v e r y i m p o r t a n t I m p e r i a l Law  i n force proprio vigore.  e x c e p t i o n , t h a t of  C l e a r l y , such i n c l u d e s  those I m p e r i a l s t a t u t e s passed w i t h the e x p r e s s e d b i n d i n g the c o l o n i e s .  T a r r i n g suggests  i n t e n t i o n of  i t f u r t h e r extends t o  i n c l u d e those s t a t u t e s which a r e m a n i f e s t l y of u n i v e r s a l p o l i c y and i n t e n d e d t o a f f e c t a l l our t r a n s m a r i n e  possessions, at  whatever p e r i o d they s h a l l be a c q u i r e d , such f o r example, as N a v i g a t i o n s A c t s , or the A c t s f o r a b o l i s h i n g the s l a v e t r a d e slavery.  and  For such s t a t u t e s w i l l , upon conquest or c e s s i o n , i p s o  f a c t o and i n d e p e n d e n t l y  of p o s t e r i o r l e g i s l a t i o n , be b i n d i n g upon  not o n l y a s e t t l e m e n t s but a l s o a conquered or ceded  colony.(313)  I m p e r i a l A c t s passed s i n c e the a c q u i s i t i o n of a c o l o n y or a t l e a s t subsequent t o the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of i t s l e g a l  constitution  by Royal Commission or A c t of P a r l i a m e n t , do not extend  to i t ,  u n l e s s they appear t o have been passed w i t h the i n t e n t i o n of being so extended.(314) T h i s i n t e n t i o n may  be e x p r e s s ,  relating  to a c o l o n y by name or by a g e n e r a l d e s i g n a t i o n (such as p l a n t a t i o n s and c o l o n i e s ) , or by r e a s o n a b l e  'our  c o n s t r u c t i o n , as i n  the case of the N a v i g a t i o n A c t s , A c t s of Revenue and Trade and A c t s r e l a t i n g t o s h i p p i n g , a l l of which a r e i n g e n e r a l o b l i g a t o r y on the c o l o n i e s a l t h o u g h not i n terms extended to them.  (313)  See 14 Geo. 3, c. 83, s. 18 as to Canada, c i t e d i n T a r r i n g , s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 312, p. 15.  (314)  1 C h a l . op. 197-220, 2 P. Wms. 75; 1 B i a . Comm. 108 and C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865. Appendix I I .  see  PAGE 130 In a d d i t i o n t o I m p e r i a l s t a t u t e s being  i n force  v i g o r e , an argument can be made t h a t major I m p e r i a l legislation  proprio Prerogative  r e l a t i n g t o t h e c o l o n i e s would l i k e w i s e be i n f o r c e  proprio vigore.  Such a p r o p o s i t i o n has i t s b a s i s i n t h e f a c t  t h a t upon t h e a s s e r t i o n o f B r i t i s h S o v e r e i g n t y  t h e p u b l i c law of  England ( t h a t g o v e r n i n g t h e r i g h t s o f s u b j e c t s v i s a v i s t h e Crown) i s n e c e s s a r i l y i n t r o d u c e d colonies.  as t h e p u b l i c law o f t h e  I t i s easy t o see t h a t i n s e t t l e d c o l o n i e s t h e p u b l i c  law which governs i s t h a t o f England. B r i t i s h Sovereignty  I n a d d i t i o n i t seems t h a t  n e c e s s a r i l y introduces  E n g l i s h p u b l i c law (or  c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f i t ) i n t o conquered or ceded c o l o n i e s . I t has been h e l d t h a t t h e conqueror cannot r e t a i n u n i m p a i r e d the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law o f t h e p r e v i o u s  sovereign, f o r  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law i s t h e essence o f t h e power o f t h e new sovereign  over t h e t e r r i t o r y  and i t s i n h a b i t a n t s . ( 3 1 5 )  Thus laws  c o n t r a r y t o fundamental p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e B r i t i s h C o n s t i t u t i o n cease a t t h e moment o f c o n q u e s t / c e s s i o n . ( 3 1 6 ) T h i s d o c t r i n e was d i s c u s s e d S t o w e l l i n Ruding v.  at considerable  l e n g t h by Lord  Smith(317) He p o i n t e d o u t t h a t even w i t h  respect  t o the ancient  i n h a b i t a n t s no s m a l l p o r t i o n o f t h e  ancient  law i s u n a v o i d a b l y superceded by the r e v o l u t i o n o f  government t h a t has taken p l a c e .  The a l l e g i a n c e o f s u b j e c t s and  (315)  C o t e , s u p r a f o o t n o t e 310, p. 41, c i t i n g R i d g e s ' C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law 480 (8th ed. 1950). C h i t t y , f o o t n o t e 245, p. 25 (1820).  (316)  c f . Lord E l l e n b o r o u g h ,  (317)  Ruding v. Smith, (1821), 2 Hagg. Con. Rep. 371.  30 S t . T r . C o l . 742.  supra,  PAGE 131 a l l t h e law t h a t r e l a t e s t o i t — i n the sovereign,  t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e law  and a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n s , and a l l t h e laws  connected w i t h t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e s o v e r e i g n  authority —  must  undergo a l t e r a t i o n s adapted t o t h e change;(318) Though t h e laws a r e t o remain, i t i s s u r e l y a s u f f i c i e n t a p p l i c a t i o n o f such terms as 'that they s h a l l remain i n f o r c e ' i f they c o n t i n u e t o govern (as f a r as they do c o n t i n u e ) the t r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e a n c i e n t s e t t l e r s w i t h each o t h e r , and w i t h t h e new owners. To a l l o w t h a t they s h a l l i n t r u d e i n t o a l l s e p a r a t e t r a n s a c t i o n s o f the B r i t i s h conquerors i s t o g i v e them a v a l i d i t y which they would o t h e r w i s e want i n a l l cases whatever."(319) A l t h o u g h the g e n e r a l  law o f the p r e v i o u s  sovereign  remains, the  Crown's p o s i t i o n v i s - a - v i s t h e c o u r t s and government i s a d i f f e r e n t t h i n g . ( 3 2 0 ) One s c h o l a r has noted t h a t the conquest o f Canada i n 1763 had t h e e f f e c t o f s u b s t i t u t i n g the p u b l i c laws o f England f o r t h a t o f France.(321) T h i s g e n e r a l  p r i n c i p l e was  approved by K e l l o c k J . o f t h e Supreme Court o f Canada i n Chaput v.  Romain.(322) i n r e l a t i o n t o Quebec who s t a t e d ;  (318)  Ibid., 17.  pp. 382-3 and see T a r r i n g s u p r a ,  footnote  312, p.  (319)  I b i d . , p. 383.  (320)  Union Government v. E s t a t e o f W h i t t a k e r , [1916] A.D. 194 a t 203-204 c i t i n g Donegani v. Donegani (1835), 3 Knapp 63, 12 E.R. 571 i n support o f t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n . See Cote s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 310, p. 42.  (321)  Dean Walton, The Scope and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e C i v i l Code of Lower Canada (1907), a t 26-51. C i t e d i n Cote s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 310, p. 42 and see The L e g a l System o f Quebec (1913), 33 Can. L.T. 280.  (322)  Chaput V. Romain, [1955] S.C.R. 834, 1 D.L.R. (2d) 241 a t 259.  PAGE 132 Q u e s t i o n s which c o n c e r n the r e l a t i o n of the s u b j e c t t o the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e i n i t s b r o a d e s t sense a r e s u b j e c t t o the c o n t r o l of the C o u r t s , and a r e , t h e r e f o r e governed by the law of England and not by t h a t of F r a n c e . K e l l o c k J . r e l i e d on a statement of Ramsey J . i n C o r p o r a t i o n du Compte d'Arthabaska v.  P a t o i n e ( 3 2 3 ) t o the e f f e c t  that  I have quoted E n g l i s h law on t h i s s u b j e c t , f o r i t , I t h i n k , d e t e r m i n e s the p o i n t . Municipal i n s t i t u t i o n s , such as those we have, a r e d e r i v e d from the E n g l i s h law, and our c o u r t s have the g e n e r a l p r e r o g a t i v e s of E n g l i s h c o u r t s . These l a s t a r e d e r i v e d from the a u t h o r i t y of the S o v e r e i g n , and as the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e i s one of the g r e a t e r r i g h t s of the Crown i t i s governed by the p u b l i c law of the empire.(324) (My emphasis) Cote notes t h a t though these cases a r e from the P r o v i n c e of Quebec the same p r i n c i p l e has been e x p r e s s l y r e c o g n i z e d i n South A f r i c a , ( 3 2 5 ) and i s r e f l e c t e d i n s e v e r a l d e c i s i o n s of the P r i v y Council.(326 ) In A b b o t t v. F r a s e r the q u e s t i o n a r o s e as t o whether a French E d i c t (1743) i n f o r c e i n Quebec remained i n f o r c e a f t e r the c e s s i o n of t h a t t e r r i t o r y t o Great B r i t a i n i n 1763.  The  (323) I b i d . c i t i n g C o r p o r a t i o n du Compte d'Arthabaska v. P a t o i n e (1886), 4 D o r i o n Que. Q.B. 364 a t 370 f o r t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n . (324)  Ibid.  (325) Supra, f o o t n o t e 310, p. 42-43 c i t i n g Nathan's Common Law of South A f r i c a and c f . Cameron v. Kyte (1835), 3 Knapp 332, 12 E.R. 678 (P.C.) where Parke B. speaks of the K i n g b e i n g the S u c c e s s o r of the S t a t e s G e n e r a l of the P r o v i n c e s , i n a c a p t u r e d Dutch c o l o n y . (326) Supra, f o o t n o t e 310, p. 42 c i t i n g Abbott v. F r a s e r (1874), L.R. 6 P.C. 96 a t 106-107, 120 and see Madzimbarurto v. L a r d n e r - B u r k e , [1968] 3 A l l E.R. 572 A-E, (P.C.) ( R o d e s i a ) ; Kodeesaran v. A.G., [1962] 2 W.L.R. 456 a t 459-60 (P.C.) (Ceylon).  PAGE 133 P r i v y C o u n c i l s t a t e d " i t i s open t o c o n s i d e r a b l e  doubt, whether  the f i r s t n i n e a r t i c l e s of the e d i c t , which a l l r e l a t e t o foundation  of c o r p o r a t i o n s ,  r e t a i n e d the f o r c e of law a f t e r t h i s  c e s s i o n ; f i r s t because the forms and then became out of p l a c e ; and  r e g u l a t i o n s they p r e s c r i b e d  secondly,  reason t h a t the a r t i c l e s , which had f e t t e r s on the K i n g ' s own  f o r the s u b s t a n t i a l  f o r t h e i r o b j e c t t o put  power, c o u l d not, i t may  contended, be of f o r c e t o c o n t r o l the s o v e r e i g n E n g l i s h Crown, whose p r e r o g a t i v e to e s t a b l i s h  the  fairly  be  w i l l of  the  i t would be, a f t e r the  cession,  corporations...."(327)  In e f f e c t the P r i v y C o u n c i l u p h e l d , on t h i s p o i n t ,  the  judgment from the Court of Queen's Bench f o r Lower Canada and i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note the words of the Queen's Bench on question.  A f t e r f i n d i n g t h a t the d e c l a r a t i o n of 1743  this  "manifestly  f a l l s w i t h i n the c l a s s of p u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w s , and the c i v i l or m u n i c i p a l  law of the c o l o n i e s " and  administrative character  and  enforcement of the p u b l i c p o l i c y of the Kingdom, and  the the removal  of the a l l e g e d p u b l i c m i s c h i e f , which touched the S t a t e of 1763)  only..."  goes on t o s t a t e  t h a t "as such p u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law i t belonged t o the e x c l u s i v e l y , and  of  that " i t s  f u n c t i o n s are m a n i f e s t l y  (My emphasis - c f . R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n  not  State  n e c e s s a r i l y followed i t s fortunes....".(328)  A f t e r c i t i n g examples of i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e n a t u r e , f i n d s "the Act of 1743  the  court  t o be a p u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t i v e A c t , which  (327)  I b i d . , A b b o t t v. F r a s e r at p.  (328)  I b i d . , pp.  105-106.  120.  PAGE 134 e x i s t e d w i t h i n t h e dominion o n l y t o which i t belonged, and c o u l d not c o n t r a c t o r govern the p r e r o g a t i v e r i g h t s or powers o f the new s o v e r e i g n o f t h e c o l o n y , and d i d not r e q u i r e t o be abrogated or r e p e a l e d by express  l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y " . ( 3 2 9 ) The l a t t e r  because on t h e c e s s i o n o f the c o l o n y t o Great B r i t a i n i n 1763 i t was no l o n g e r s u b j e c t t o the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p u b l i c law o f France but became " s u b j e c t t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p u b l i c law o f Great Britain."(330) Cote notes t h a t t h i s p r i n c i p l e was r e c o g n i z e d which h e l d t h a t a l t h o u g h  i n Re Adam  t h e o l d law o f the conquered c o l o n y  sets  the r i g h t s and d u t i e s o f an a a l i e n , v i s - a - v i s t h e Crown h i s r i g h t s and d u t i e s must be s e t by t h e Law o f England,(331) presumably on t h e grounds t h a t B r i t i s h s o v e r e i g n t y n e c e s s a r i l y imported  p u b l i c elements o f B r i t i s h law i n t o t h e new c o l o n y .  This accords  w i t h a statement i n Sammut v. S t r i c k l a n d where t h e  Court h e l d t h a t t h e e x t e n t o f t h e p r e r o g a t i v e must be determined by t h e E n g l i s h common law i n M a l t a even though M a l t a was a conquered c o l o n y and t h e r e f o r e t h e E n g l i s h common law d i d not as such h o l d t h e r e . ( 3 3 2 )  Walton, c i t e d i n Cote,(333) canvasses which  (329)  Ibid.  (330)  I b i d . , pp. 106-107.  (331) Re Adam (1837), 1 Moo. P.C. 460 a t 470; 12 E.R. 889 a t 893 (P.C.) c i t e d i n Cote, s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 310, p. 43. (332)  Sammut v. S t r i c k l a n d , [1938] A.C. 678, 3 A l l E.R. 693 ( P . C ) , a t 699. But Cote notes c f . A d v o c a t e - G e n e r a l o f Bengal v. Ranee Surnomoye Dossee (1863), 2 Moo. P.C (N.S.) 22 a t 61, 15 E.R. 811 a t 825, where i t was h e l d t h a t i n t r o d u c t i o n o f B r i t i s h s o v e r e i g n t y would not i n t r o d u c e E n g l i s h r u l e s o f f o r f e i t u r e f o r f e l o de s e .  PAGE 135 p a r t o f t h e o l d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law must be taken t o have been superseded on conquest.  He suggests t h a t E n g l i s h law r e p l a c e s  the former law as t o t h e d u t i e s o f c i t i z e n s , t h e powers and d u t i e s o f p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s , p u b l i c p o l i c y as t o c o n t r a c t s [ s e d quaerere],  prerogative  corporations s u i t s against  r i g h t s o f the Crown, c o n t r o l over  [sed q u a e r e r e ] ,  p u b l i c lands, p u b l i c contracts,  t h e Crown, the p r e r o g a t i v e w r i t s , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of  j u s t i c e , l i a b i l i t y o f p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law. As t o p r e r o g a t i v e  r i g h t s , Cote c a u t i o n s  t h a t "one must not t h i n k  t h a t a l l t h e r i g h t s o f t h e Crown f a l l under t h i s r u b r i c o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w . I t has been s u g g e s t e d , f o r i n s t a n c e , the Crown's t i t l e  t o t h e bed o f n a v i g a b l e  r i v e r s i s governed by  the l o c a l l a w , and t h a t t h e B r i t i s h s o v e r e i g n such r i g h t s from the former r u l e r . " ( 3 3 4 ) Dixson v.  that  merely t a k e s over  C i t i n g the case o f  S n e t s i n g e r ( 3 3 5 ) (wherein the c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e Crown  of Great B r i t a i n h a v i n g a c q u i r e d prerogatives  by c e s s i o n the r i g h t s and  which had p r e v i o u s l y belonged t o the French  King,  and t h a t under t h e French law t h e Crown was i n v e s t e d w i t h t h e t i t l e t o t h e bed o f t h e r i v e r f o r p u b l i c purpose, the c o u r t t h a t Crown o f Great B r i t a i n g a i n e d a s i m i l a r t i t l e .  held  The d e c i s i o n  r e l i e d i n l a r g e p a r t however on t h e I m p e r i a l S t a t u t e , 14 Geo. 3,  (333) Supra, f o o n o t e 310, p. 43 c i t i n g Walton, The Scope and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e C i v i l Code of Lower Canada (1907), e s p e c i a l l y a t 38, 30, 31, 32-33, 34, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 47; and 33 Can. L.T. a t 287-90. (334) Supra, f o o t n o t e 310, p. 43 c i t i n g In r e P r o v i n c i a l F i s h e r i e s (1896), 26 S.C.R. 444 a t 529, per S t r o n g C.J.C.; t h i s p o i n t was not mentioned on a p p e a l , [1898] A.C. 700 (P.C.). (335) 23 U.C.C.P. 235.  PAGE 136 83 w h e r e i n i t was  enacted " t h a t i n a l l m a t t e r s of  r e l a t i v e to property  and  civil  controversy  r i g h t s , r e s o r t s h a l l be had  to  the  laws of Canada, as the r u l e f o r the d e c i s i o n of the same".(336) The  c o u r t d i d not f o c u s s q u a r e l y  on what a s p e c t s of French  would a u t o m a t i c a l l y be a b r o g a t e d upon the a s s e r t i o n of  law  British  Sovereignty. From the above i t i s c l e a r t h a t c e r t a i n p r e r o g a t i v e  rights  of the Crown form p a r t of the B r i t i s h p u b l i c / c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law immediately i n f o r c e i n the c o l o n i e s a l l the P r e r o g a t i v e s We  (and e q u a l l y c l e a r t h a t  not  of the Crown w i l l be i n f o r c e ) .  r e t u r n then t o I m p e r i a l Law  seems c l e a r t h a t major P r e r o g a t i v e to a p a r t i c u l a r colony  i n force proprio vigore. i n s t r u m e n t s e x p r e s s e d to  or t o c o l o n i e s i n g e n e r a l ,  It apply  (and e s p e c i a l l y  where such i n s t r u m e n t s are passed under the Great S e a l such as L e t t e r s P a t e n t and  P r o c l a m a t i o n s ) are i n f o r c e p r o p r i o v i g o r e i n  the t e r r i t o r i e s t o which they a p p l y . " r e c e p t i o n " of E n g l i s h law,  They do not depend upon  i t being o n l y "major"  Prerogatives  t h a t are i n f o r c e i p s o f a c t o i n c o l o n i e s s u b j e c t to B r i t i s h dominion as p a r t of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l framework of these colonies. Cote c i t e s as f a m i l i a r examples of I m p e r i a l s t a t u t e s i n f o r c e p r o p r i o v i g o r e "the C o n s t i t u t i o n a l A c t s c r e a t i n g  the  Canadian and A u s t r a l i a n f e d e r a t i o n s " which do not depend on  any  form of r e c e p t i o n of E n g l i s h law - i n f a c t he argues they have "never formed any  (336)  p a r t of the law of England", h a v i n g been passed  I b i d . c i t e d In re P r o v i n c i a l F i s h e r i e s , supra f o o t n o t e a t p. 530.  334  PAGE 137 particularly  f o r those dominions.  He notes too t h a t "the B r i t i s h  North America A c t s are i n f o r c e i n the P r o v i n c e of Quebec though i t has not i n t r o d u c e d the g r e a t e r p a r t of E n g l i s h law a t a l l . " (cf.  Quebec A c t ) . I t would be anomalous, t o say the l e a s t , i f c o l o n i a l  c o n s t i t u t i o n s were t o be g i v e n i n s o v e r e i g n i n s t r u m e n t s  instead  of I m p e r i a l A c t s , t h a t the former s h o u l d be t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y . However not a l l P r e r o g a t i v e i n s t r u m e n t s  enjoy such f o r c e .  I t i s u s e f u l to address the d i s t i n c t i o n t o be made between "minor" and  "major" p r e r o g a t i v e s of the Crown.  PAGE 138 5.  (i)  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Royal Prerogatives  Introduction B a s i c a l l y , p r e r o g a t i v e s f a l l t o be c l a s s i f i e d upon whether  the r i g h t f u n d a m e n t a l l y s u s t a i n s the e x i s t e n c e and a u t h o r i t y o f the Crown or i s merely i n c i d e n t a l t o i t . " ( 3 3 7 ) C h i t t y makes t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between minor p r e r o g a t i v e s , which a r e merely l o c a l t o England and "those fundamental r i g h t s and p r i n c i p l e s on which the K i n g ' s a u t h o r i t y r e s t s and which a r e n e c e s s a r y t o m a i n t a i n i t . (338) Roberts-Wray  adopts t h e c o n v e n i e n t term o f major  Prerogative for this l a t t e r  class.(339)  More i m p o r t a n t l y C h i t t y a t t a c h e d c o l o n i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e t o this distinction.  The minor p r e r o g a t i v e powers enjoyed by t h e  K i n g i n England do not prima f a c i e extend t o B r i t i s h  dominions  u n l e s s r e c e i v e d t h e r e as p a r t o f the common law.(340) They would run, t h e r e f o r e , i n " s e t t l e d " c o l o n i e s or i n c o l o n i e s where t h e B r i t i s h common law runs as the r e s u l t of a r e c e p t i o n s t a t u t e , whether o f I m p e r i a l o r C o l o n i a l o r i g i n .  I n such t e r r i t o r i e s , t h e  minor p r e r o g a t i v e s a r e prima f a c i e as e x t e n s i v e as i n B r i t a i n . ( 3 4 1 ) The minor p r e r o g a t i v e s a r e not prima f a c i e  (337) B l a . Comm. (14th ed.) 240, 241. (338) Supra, f o o t n o t e 245, pp. 25-6; 32-33. (339) Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, p. 557. (340) I b i d . , p. 558. (341) Lyons (Mayor) v. E a s t I n d i a Co. (1836), 1 Moo. P.C. 175, a t 274; and see N y a l i L d . v. A t t . - G e n . , [1956] 1 Q.B. 1 (C.A.).  PAGE 139 e x t e n s i b l e t o B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i e s w h i c h , though dependent on t h e B r i t i s h Crown, have a d i s t i n c t  l o c a l jurisprudence.  Chitty  suggests t h a t where t h e law o f such t e r r i t o r i e s i s s i l e n t as t o the o p e r a t i o n o f t h e p r e r o g a t i v e s t h a t t h e p r e r o g a t i v e s as e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e E n g l i s h law p r e v a i l , s u b j e c t t o e x c e p t i o n s which the d i f f e r e n c e between t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h a t and  t h a t o f t h e mother c o u n t r y , may n e c e s s a r i l y  create.(342)  In a d d i t i o n t o such minor p r e r o g a t i v e s the K i n g c e r t a i n major P r e r o g a t i v e powers  territory,  enjoys  which fundamentally  s u s t a i n the  e x i s t e n c e o f t h e Crown, or form t h e p i l l a r s on which i t i s supported.(343) These p r e v a i l i n every p a r t o f the t e r r i t o r i e s s u b j e c t t o t h e B r i t i s h Crown, by whatever p e c u l i a r or i n t e r n a l laws they may be governed.(344) The K i n g enjoyed major P r e r o g a t i v e powers i n B r i t i s h dependent t e r r i t o r i e s by v i r t u e o f the s p e c i a l r o l e o f t h e Crown i n r e l a t i o n t o f o r e i g n s t a t e s o r affairs.  As s t a t e d above, i n Sammut v.  h e l d t h a t a major P r e r o g a t i v e o p e r a t e s  S t r i c k l a n d ( 3 4 5 ) i t was  as "a pure q u e s t i o n o f  E n g l i s h common law i n a c o u n t r y such as M a l t a where t h e common law i s not i n f o r c e . ( 3 4 6 )  Major P r e r o g a t i v e s would extend even t o  (342)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 245, p. 26 and see L i q u i d a t o r s o f M a r i t i m e Bank o f Canada v. Rec. Gen, o f New Brunswick L.R. (1892), A.C. 437, where i t was h e l d t h a t where not e x p r e s s l y c r e a t e d by l o c a l law o r s t a t u t e i t i s as e x t e n s i v e i n t h e c o l o n i e s as i n Great B r i t a i n .  (343)  I b i d . , C h i t t y , p. 25.  (344)  Ibid.  (345)  Sammut v. S t r i c k l a n d , [1938] A.C. 678 (P.C.).  (346)  I b i d . , a t p. 697.  PAGE 140 o t h e r t e r r i t o r i e s i n which t h e Crown had j u r i s d i c t i o n , such as p r o t e c t o r a t e s , s u b j e c t t o t h e law i f any of t h a t  jurisdiction.  Roberts-Wray s u g g e s t s t h a t i t f o l l o w s t h a t major P r e r o g a t i v e s form p a r t o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e c o u n t r y and t h a t , without  express  g r a n t , the l e g i s l a t u r e s o f a dependent  t e r r i t o r y cannot a l t e r or a b o l i s h them.(347) (ii)  M a j o r P r e r o g a t i v e Powers  I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o i d e n t i f y a l l the s u b j e c t s f a l l i n g w i t h i n the Crown's p e c u l i a r j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the expression  "major P r e r o g a t i v e s " .  d e s c r i b e s these o n l y i n g e n e r a l terms as "those  Chitty  fundamental  r i g h t s and p r i n c i p l e s on which the King's a u t h o r i t y r e s t s and which a r e n e c e s s a r y  to maintain  i t . " ( 3 4 8 ) He goes on t o g i v e as  the source o f such power: "The K i n g i s head o f t h e c h u r c h ; i s p o s s e s s e d o f a share o f l e g i s l a t i o n ; and i s g e n e r a l i s s i m o throughout a l l h i s dominions....".(349) He s t a t e s t h a t t h e King's minor p r e r o g a t i v e s a r e f r e e l y a l t e r a b l e by l o c a l a s s e m b l i e s i m p l i c i t l y then major P r e r o g a t i v e s a r e not.  -  What then a r e t h e  major P r e r o g a t i v e s which t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s o f dependent t e r r i t o r i e s a r e incompetent t o modify and which a r e e x e r c i s a b l e throughout t h e B r i t i s h dominion?  Roberts-Wray goes some way i n  i d e n t i f y i n g some s u b j e c t m a t t e r s f a l l i n g w i t h i n the d e f i n i t i o n o f major P r e r o g a t i v e s but i s c a r e f u l t o note t h a t t h e l i s t  (347)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, a t p. 561.  (348)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 245, a t p. 25.  (349)  Ibid.  i s not  PAGE 141 exhaustive.(350)  As a l r e a d y noted(351) i n a l l c o l o n i e s the  King  enjoyed the power t o make laws of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l nature - to b r i n g i n t o b e i n g , i n such c o l o n i e s , a g e n e r a l power to make laws. The p r e r o g a t i v e i n s t r u m e n t s  by which t h i s was  accomplished  c l e a r l y f e l l t o be c l a s s i f i e d as major P r e r o g a t i v e The  legislation.  e x t e n t of the c o n s t i t u e n t P r e r o g a t i v e i s addressed more f u l l y  below. The  p r e r o g a t i v e power to grant l e a v e t o appeal  C o u n c i l may  a l s o be a major P r e r o g a t i v e r i g h t .  B r i t i s h C o a l v.  1*^( 352)  t o the P r i v y  I t was  held i n  t h a t i f t h i s P r e r o g a t i v e i s to be  l i m i t e d by a Dominion or C o l o n i a l A c t , i t must be the Act of a Dominion or C o l o n i a l L e g i s l a t u r e which has been endowed w i t h  the  r e q u i s i t e powers by an I m p e r i a l Act g i v i n g the power e i t h e r by express  terms or by n e c e s s a r y  intendment.  T h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g  as c l e a r l y p r e r o g a t i v e powers were i n a l l cases s u b o r d i n a t e the powers of the I m p e r i a l  to  Parliament.(353)  Roberts-Wray f u r t h e r i d e n t i f i e s the P r e r o g a t i v e of Mercy as a major P r e r o g a t i v e ; " i t c o u l d w i t h o u t d i f f i c u l t y be argued t h a t an attempt t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h the e x e r c i s e of Her Majesty England) of her r i g h t t o m i t i g a t e the sentences of her would c o n f l i c t w i t h the Sovereign's j u s t i c e , and  (351)  courts  a u t h o r i t y as the f o u n t a i n of  t h a t t h i s i s a major P r e r o g a t i v e " . ( 3 5 4 )  (350) Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, a t p.  (in  379.  See d i s c u s s i o n above p. 125 e t . seq.  (352) B r i t i s h C o a l Corpn. v. R^,  [1935] A.C.  (353) Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, a t p.  377.  500.  Similarly  PAGE 142 the power o f an E n g l i s h Court t o i s s u e t h e w r i t o f Habeas Corpus, a "high p r e r o g a t i v e w r i t " i s a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f a major P r e r o g a t i v e and so forms p a r t o f the b a s i c law o f a t e r r i t o r y w i t h i n B r i t i s h j u r i s d i c t i o n , whether or not r e c e i v e d as p a r t o f B r i t i s h common law.(355) Roberts-Wray suggests t h a t t h i s i n no way  l i m i t s t h e powers o f such dependent l e g i s l a t u r e s from  enacting  laws r e g a r d i n g  t h e i s s u e o f w r i t s by t h e i r own c o u r t s ,  merely t h a t such l e g i s l a t u r e s were incompetent t o a l t e r the Crown's power t o i s s u e such The  writs,(356)  c r i t e r i o n upon which a p a r t i c u l a r p r e r o g a t i v e i s  c l a s s i f i e d as "major" i s not r e a d i l y d i s c e r n a b l e from t h e above examples.  C l e a r l y the major P r e r o g a t i v e r i g h t s o f t h e Crown  (e.g. t o make laws - c o n s t i t u t i o n s , or grant p r i v i l e g e s - s p e c i a l l e a v e , mercy) a r e so fundamental t o the p o l i t i c a l c h a r a c t e r o f the S o v e r e i g n newly a c q u i r e d  such t h a t they a r e n e c e s s a r i l y extended t o a l l t e r r i t o r i e s as a r e s u l t o f B r i t i s h  Sovereignty.  They form p a r t o f t h e b a s i c law and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l framework o f such t e r r i t o r i e s and l i m i t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e competence o f t h e l o c a l assemblies.  I t i s argued t h a t the I n d i a n l a n d p r o v i s i o n s  of t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n  o f 1763 i s major  l e g i s l a t i o n on e i t h e r o f two grounds: c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n nature having  Prerogative  t h a t they a r e  t o do p r i n c i p a l l y  l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e powers o f Governors t o a c q u i r e  with unsurrendered  (354)  I b i d . , p. 380.  (355)  I b i d . , p. 615 and see Ex. p. Anderson (1861), 487.  (356)  I b i d . , (Roberts-Wray) and see Habeas Corpus A c t , 1862, 25 & 26 V. c. 20.  3 El. & El.  PAGE tribal adopted  lands or  that  as  legislation  f o r Crown a l i e n a t i o n  King's p e c u l i a r  authority.  of  governing  the procedure  Indian lands they f a l l  to  within  143 be the  PAGE 144 PART I I I THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763 AS MAJOR PREROGATIVE LEGISLATION The I n d i a n Land P r o v i s i o n s o f t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 7 t h October 1763 as Major P r e r o g a t i v e L e g i s l a t i o n R e f e r a b l e t o t h e B r i t i s h Crown's C o n s t i t u e n t Power i n Dependent B r i t i s h Territories The I n d i a n l a n d p r o v i s i o n s o f the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 p u r p o r t t o l i m i t t h e powers o f a l l Governors i n North America t o a c q u i r e u n s u r r e n d e r e d t r i b a l l a n d s , except i n accordance w i t h t h e procedure t h e r e i n e n u n c i a t e d . as p a r t o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n  I n t h i s r e s p e c t they can been seen  t h e r e b y g i v e n t o t h e newly ceded  t e r r i t o r i e s , d i c t a t i n g the c o n d i t i o n s upon which the g o v e r n o r s were t o e x e r c i s e t h e i r a u t h o r i t y over I n d i a n l a n d s .  I t i s argued  the e f f e c t o f these p r o v i s i o n s i n r e l a t i o n t o a l l c o l o n i e s i n B r i t i s h N o r t h America was t o make such procedure a p a r t o f t h e constitution.  As argued below, t h e Crown, by v i r t u e o f i t s  c o n s t i t u e n t p r e r o g a t i v e , c o u l d e f f e c t such minor changes  constitutional  i n r e l a t i o n t o a l l c o l o n i e s whether or not such an  amending power was r e s e r v e d and whether or not a l o c a l l e g i s l a t u r e was c o n s t i t u t e d . to i s s u e i n s t r u c t i o n s  I n f a c t i t was common f o r t h e Crown  t o Governors even where a g e n e r a l  l e g i s l a t i v e power i n r e l a t i o n t o the p a r t i c u l a r  c o l o n y , was l o s t .  The Crown c l e a r l y enjoyed the r i g h t t o make such laws f o r two o r more t e r r i t o r i e s ; i t was n o t , as c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s limited i n t e r r i t o r i a l  were,  extent.  The means chosen t o communicate, t o the Governors o f B r i t i s h North A m e r i c a , t h e r o y a l p l e a s u r e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e purchase by the Crown o f I n d i a n l a n d s was a R o y a l p r o c l a m a t i o n , an o f f i c i a l p u b l i c announcement, under the Great S e a l .  (Remember t h a t the  PAGE 145 r e s t r i c t i o n s upon t h e use o f P r o c l a m a t i o n s down i n t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n  i n B r i t a i n , as l a i d  Case, do not n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l y t o t h e  c o l o n i e s where t h e Crown's p r e r o g a t i v e powers a r e more extensive).  The I n d i a n l a n d p r o v i s i o n s t h e r e i n "enacted"  d i d not  e f f e c t any major c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment t o any o f t h e c o l o n i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n s but r a t h e r e n t r e n c h e d , i n a w r i t t e n document, e x i s t i n g unwritten c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s t r a i n t s .  From t h e  b e g i n n i n g , B r i t i s h c o l o n i a l governors i n North America had been g i v e n c l e a r i n s t r u c t i o n s t o r e s p e c t n a t i v e l a n d r i g h t s and t o a c q u i r e t e r r i t o r y o n l y through c e s s i o n and purchase.(357) The Indian p r o v i s i o n s of the Proclamation  confirmed  the l o n g h e l d  B r i t i s h c o l o n i a l p o l i c y and p r a c t i c e of r e s p e c t f o r I n d i a n p o s s e s s i o n and d e c l a r e d the accepted  common law p o s i t i o n r e  I n d i a n l a n d r i g h t s . ( 3 5 8 ) The I n d i a n p r o v i s i o n s of t h e R o y a l Proclamation  o f 1763 merely i n s t r u c t e d (reminded) g o v e r n o r s t o  r e c o g n i z e c e r t a i n procedures f o r Crown purchases o f I n d i a n That t h i s was w i t h i n t h e Crown's power g a i n s support  title.  from t h e  f a c t t h a t a d r a f t o f the P r o c l a m a t i o n  prepared  by t h e Lords o f  Trade and passed t o A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l ,  C h a r l e s Yorke, f o r l e g a l  comment was passed, w i t h t h e words, " i t c o n t a i n s n o t h i n g  contrary  (357) L e t t e r s o f i n s t r u c t i o n t o C a p t a i n Endecott (1629) c i t e d i n F. J e n n i n g s , The I n v a s i o n o f AmericaA Indians, C o l o n i a l i s m , and the Cant o f Conquest, Chapel H i l l : U n i v e r s i t y o f North C a r o l i n a P r e s s , 1975, a t p. 135; R o y a l I n s t r u c t i o n s t o B r i t i s h C o l o n i a l Governors 1670-1776, e d i t e d by L.W. Labaree (Washington, D.C.: American H i s t o r i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1973. (358)  See Governor and Company of C o n n e c t i c u t and Mohegan I n d i a n s case d i s c u s s e d i n Smith, J.H. Appeals t o the P r i v y C o u n c i l from t h e American P l a n t a t i o n s , New York: Columbia U n i v . P r e s s , 1950, a t p. 425.  PAGE 146 t o law".(359) I t has been noted t h a t i t i s the p r e r o g a t i v e r i g h t of Majesty  Her  ( i n the U n i t e d Kingdom) to make laws of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  nature f o r a dependent t e r r i t o r y .  The  King c o u l d e s t a b l i s h  c o n s t i t u t i o n s f o r a l l B r i t i s h t e r r i t o r i e s and where e x p r e s s l y r e t a i n e d had a power to amend or revoke the same.(360) The c o n s t i t u e n t power c o u l d be invoked  i n r e l a t i o n to a l l c o l o n i e s  whether a c q u i r e d by s e t t l e m e n t , conquest or c e s s i o n . ( 3 6 1 )  It  t h e r e f o r e must be r e f e r a b l e a major P r e r o g a t i v e as prima f a c i e minor p r e r o g a t i v e s c o u l d o n l y be e x e r c i s e d i n those p a r t s of B r i t i s h dominions where the common law r a n . s e t up by P r e r o g a t i v e i n s t r u m e n t s  The c o n s t i t u t i o n s  i n B r i t i s h dominions were not  f r e e l y a l t e r a b l e by n o n - r e p r e s e n t a t i v e contained  the  local legislatures, a rule  i n p a r t i n the C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865.(362)  Representative  l e g i s l a t u r e s , by the same A c t , were g i v e n  the  power to make laws r e s p e c t i n g t h e i r C o n s t i t u t i o n , Powers and Procedure.(363) In R_^ v.  McCawley i t was  held that:  There i s n o t h i n g s a c r o s a n c t or m a g i c a l i n the word " c o n s t i t u t i o n " ; the e x p r e s s i o n i t s e l f not i n d i c a t i n g how f a r , or when, or by whom, or i n what manner the r u l e s composing i t may be  (359) York t o the Board of Trade, 3 October, 1763, 323/16, p. 337.  Pro.  Co.O.  (360) Supra, f o o t n o t e 245, p. 28 and see d i s c u s s i o n above p. et seq.p. (361) Jephson v R i e r a (1835),  I I I Knapp.  130.  (362) C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865, see Appendix I I , and Chenard v. A r r i s o l , [1949] A.C. 127. (363)  125  I b i d . , C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865,  s.  5.  see  PAGE 147 altered".(364) The  l e g i s l a t u r e must however be endowed w i t h an amending power  and must conform t o any "manner and form" r e q u i r e m e n t s .  In  McCawley the l e g i s l a t u r e i n q u e s t i o n was e x p r e s s l y g i v e n  such  v.  power.(365) The case i s not a u t h o r i t y f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment w i l l be impled  i n the absence o f  a n t a g o n i s t i c l e g i s l a t i o n w i t h an expressed a f f i r m a t i v e c h a r a c t e r . Repeal by i m p l i c a t i o n i s not favoured presumption being t h a t i f P a r l i a m e n t  by the c o u r t s , ( 3 6 6 ) t h e intended  to e f f e c t a repeal  i t would do so i n express language.(367) The  P r e r o g a t i v e instruments  e s t a b l i s h i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n s had  the f o r c e o f I m p e r i a l s t a t u t e s and gave a l e g a l b a s i s t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s s e t up under them. Campbell v.  Hall(368)  A l t h o u g h the d e c i s i o n i n  ( l i m i t i n g the Crown's l e g i s l a t i v e  a u t h o r i t y where a l o c a l assembly has been promised) has been taken t o extend t o l i m i t both the c o n s t i t u e n t and o r d i n a r y l e g i s l a t i v e power o f the Crown, i t seems t h e r e i s l i t t l e a u t h o r i t y t o support such a c o n c l u s i o n and good reason f o r holding otherwise.  In t h i s respect i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o look a t  the d e c i s i o n o f t h e j u d i c i a l committee i n Sammut v.  (364)  R^ v. McCawley, [1918] 26 C.C.R. 9, a t 52 per I s a a c s & R i c h JJ.  (365)  v. McCawley, [1920] A.C. 691 (and see lower d e c i s i o n (1918), 26 C.C.R. 9 ) .  (366)  Bac. Abr.,  court  s t a t u t e (D).  (367) M a x w e l l , On t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S t a t u t e s ; 10th edn., p. 170; R_^ v. H a l l i d a y , [1917] A.C. 260, a t p. 305 (H.L.). (368)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 275.  PAGE 148 S t r i c k l a n d ( 3 6 9 ) and i n p a r t i c u l a r a t t h e i r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f L o r d M a n s f i e l d ' s d i c t a i n Campbell v. H a l l .  I t was suggested by  c o u n s e l i n Sammut v. S t r i c k l a n d t h a t as a g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n , whenever r e s p o n s i b l e government i s conceded by t h e Crown t o a c o l o n y or p o s s e s s i o n , the R o y a l P r e r o g a t i v e t o l e g i s l a t e by L e t t e r s P a t e n t or Orders  i n C o u n c i l comes t o an end and i s  i r r e v o c a b l y l o s t or s u r r e n d e r e d by the Crown, u n l e s s a s p e c i a l r e s e r v a t i o n i s made i n the g r a n t . ( 3 7 0 ) stated:  I n response  t h e Court  " I t may be s t a t e d a t once t h a t t h e r e i s no a u t h o r i t y f o r  t h i s view...."(371) The Court noted t h a t the case r e l i e d on f o r the erroneous  view was Campbell v. H a l l .  ( d i s c u s s e d above)  In the l a t t e r c a s e , L o r d M a n s f i e l d , i n d e l i v e r i n g  judgment,  s a i d t h a t upon f u l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n the Court was o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t b e f o r e t h e i s s u e o f t h e L e t t e r s P a t e n t o f J u l y 20, 1764 ( t h e t a x i n g p r o c l a m a t i o n ) the K i n g had p r e c l u d e d h i m s e l f from t h e e x e r c i s e o f a l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y over t h e i s l a n d o f Grenada by the g r a n t o f an assembly.  He then proceeded  t o consider the  terms o f the two p r o c l a m a t i o n s a t i s s u e , and a f t e r  this  examination s t a t e d We t h e r e f o r e t h i n k , t h a t by the two p r o c l a m a t i o n s and the commission t o Governor M e l v i l l e , the K i n g had immediately and i r r e c o v e r a b l y g r a n t e d t o a l l who were or s h o u l d become i n h a b i t a n t s , o r who had, o r s h o u l d a c q u i r e p r o p e r t y i n the i s l a n d of Grenada, o r more g e n e r a l l y t o a l l whom i t might c o n c e r n , t h a t the s u b o r d i n a t e l e g i s l a t i o n over t h e  (369)  [1938] A.C. 678.  (370) I b i d . , p. 702. (371)  Ibid.  PAGE 149 i s l a n d s h o u l d be e x e r c i s e d by an assembly w i t h the consent o f the governor and c o u n c i l i n l i k e manner as the o t h e r i s l a n d s b e l o n g i n g t o t h e King.(372) (My emphasis) Of t h i s statement  t h e c o u r t i n Sammut noted:  It i s p l a i n that t h i s authority i s dealing with a case where the Crown, a f t e r having g r a n t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s t o the c o l o n y , was p u r p o r t i n g t o e x e r c i s e by R o y a l P r e r o g a t i v e a c o n c u r r e n t r i g h t o f l e g i s l a t i o n , though no such r i g h t had been reserved.(373) (My emphasis) The Court i n Sammut v. S t r i c k l a n d goes on t o examine t h e l e g i s l a t i v e g r a n t a t i s s u e i n t h a t case and c o n c l u d e s  that:  The r i g h t [ s o v e r e i g n ] t o l e g i s l a t e i n r e l a t i o n to l o c a l m a t t e r s was d o u b t l e s s suspended w h i l e the L e t t e r s Patent were i n f o r c e , f o r the reason i n d i c a t e d by Lord M a n s f i e l d i n t h e passage a l r e a d y quoted — namely, t h a t so t o l e g i s l a t e would be " c o n t r a r y t o and a v i o l a t i o n o f " the i n s t r u m e n t g r a n t i n g t h e powers; but t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n i t t o p r e c l u d e the e x e r c i s e of the R o y a l P r e r o g a t i v e as soon as t h e L e t t e r s P a t e n t i n t h a t r e s p e c t cease t o be i n force.(374) C l e a r l y t h e c o u r t i n Campbell v. H a l l was concerned Crown's power t o l e g i s l a t e f o r l o c a l m a t t e r s  w i t h the  [tax] while the  L e t t e r s P a t e n t c o n s t i t u t i n g a l o c a l assembly were i n e f f e c t .  The  c o u r t was a t p a i n s t o make c l e a r t h a t what was a t i s s u e was a c o n c u r r e n t l e g i s l a t i v e power i n the Crown where such a power had not been r e s e r v e d , and on t h i s p o i n t h e l d t h a t where an assembly has been g r a n t e d the s u b o r d i n a t e l e g i s l a t i o n over t h e t e r r i t o r y i s l o s t t o t h e Crown.  As Roberts-Wray p o i n t s out t h e r e f e r e n c e  (372) I b i d , p. 703 c i t i n g 1 Cowp. 213. (373) I b i d . , p. 703. (374) I b i d . , pp. 706-707.  PAGE 150 to "subordinate"  l e g i s l a t i o n seems c l e a r l y t o have been a  r e f e r e n c e t o o r d i n a r y laws and not those o f a c o n s t i t u e n t n a t u r e . ( 3 7 5 ) The c o n s t i t u e n t power o f the Crown was not a t i s s u e i n the case o f Campbell v. H a l l and no d e c i s i o n was made regarding i t . Roberts-Wray examines some a u t h o r i t y t h a t i m p l i e s an o p i n i o n t o the c o n t r a r y , i . e . t h a t a Crown grant o f a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e l e g i s l a t i v e body p r e c l u d e s  both t h e e x e r c i s e , by t h e Crown, o f a  g e n e r a l l e g i s l a t i v e power and t h e c o n s t i t u e n t power.(376) He concludes: I t seems t h a t t h e r e i s a s t r o n g case f o r m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t Campbell v. H a l l and subsequent cases mean o n l y t h a t , u n l e s s t h e r e i s an e x p r e s s r e s e r v a t i o n (a) the Crown does not possess a c o n c u r r e n t power t o make o r d i n a r y laws so long as l e g i s l a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s c o n t i n u e i n the c o l o n y ; (b) the grant o f l e g i s l a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s cannot be revoked u n l e s s t h e power o f r e v o c a t i o n i s r e s e r v e d ; and (c) amendment o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n not amounting t o a r e v o c a t i o n o f t h e g r a n t , remains w i t h i n the p r e r o g a t i v e r i g h t s o f t h e Crown.(377) (My emphasis) And he notes t h a t t h e l a s t p r o p o s i t i o n has the s u p p o r t o f C h i t t y where t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l instrument  i s Royal i n s t r u c t i o n s  but not where i t i s L e t t e r s Patent o r founded on l o c a l  law.(378)  Roberts-Wray a s s e r t s t h a t t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r making a d i s t i n c t i o n between Royal i n s t r u c t i o n s and L e t t e r s P a t e n t but  (375)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, a t p. 157.  (376)  I b i d . , pp. 159-162 and t h e cases c i t e d t h e r e i n .  (377)  I b i d . , p. 162.  (378)  Ibid.  PAGE 151 notes t h a t i t may be t h a t Crown's power of amendment i s o n l y r e f e r a b l e t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n s t r u m e n t s made by t h e Crown.(379) That the Crown, upon the g r a n t of a l e g i s l a t u r e , i s not emptied of a l l c o n s t i t u e n t power and s p e c i f i c a l l y of t h e power t o make c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments  t o the c o n s t i t u t i o n , not amounting  to a r e v o c a t i o n o f the g r a n t , g a i n s f u r t h e r s u p p o r t from S e c t i o n 5 of the C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865.(380) The C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t was passed t o 'remove doubts' as t o c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t i v e competence.  S e c t i o n 5 p r o v i d e d t h a t , "every  R e p r e s e n t a t i v e L e g i s l a t u r e " s h a l l have, and be deemed a t a l l times t o have had, " f u l l Power t o make Laws r e s p e c t i n g the C o n s t i t u t i o n , Powers, and Procedure of such L e g i s l a t u r e ; . . . " Roberts-Wray  notes t h a t i f the doubt as t o the competence o f  c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s i n t h i s r e g a r d was w e l l founded and i f we accept t h a t the Crown through a g r a n t o f a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e l e g i s l a t u r e l o s e s i t s ' c o n s t i t u e n t ' power then i n whom a p a r t from P a r l i a m e n t was the power t o amend such a c o n s t i t u t i o n v e s t e d or thought t o be v e s t e d ? ( 3 8 1 ) I f we accept such a power l i e s  with  the Crown, s e c t i o n 5 of the C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865 does no more than g i v e a c o n c u r r e n t r i g h t t o c o l o n i a l assemblies.  "representative"  In f a c t s e c t i o n 5 has been h e l d t o enable  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a s s e m b l i e s t o change no more than i t s own c o n s t i t u t i o n , powers and procedure(382) and such of n e c e s s i t y  (379) I b i d . (380) I b i d . , p. 159. (381)  Ibid.  PAGE i m p l i e s a power i n the Crown t o amend i n o t h e r r e s p e c t s the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c h a r a c t e r of the l e g i s l a t u r e ) the  (such  152 as  colonial  c o n s t i t u t i o n whether r e s e r v e d or not.(383) Moreover, s e c t i o n 5 of the C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865  c o n f e r s or c o n f i r m s  powers i n a " r e p r e s e n t a t i v e l e g i s l a t u r e " and powers of a " n o n - r e p r e s e n t a t i v e "  amending  i s s i l e n t as t o the  legislature.  The  latter  l e g i s l a t u r e c l e a r l y might enjoy amending powers where such i s e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z e d by I m p e r i a l Act or Order.  However, i n the  more common s i t u a t i o n such power would, i t i s argued, r e s i d e i n the Sovereign  by v i r t u e of the c o n s t i t u e n t p r e r o g a t i v e .  (See  d i s c u s s i o n on S e c t i o n 5, C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865,  below.  Roberts-Wray f u r t h e r notes t h a t " i n f a c t , f o r c o l o n i e s where the g e n e r a l  l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y has been l o s t , L e t t e r s  are made, amended and  Patent  revoked d e a l i n g w i t h the o f f i c e of  Governor, some of h i s powers, the E x e c u t i v e C o u n c i l and,  in  c e r t a i n r e s p e c t s , the L e g i s l a t u r e . ( 3 8 4 ) F u r t h e r t h a t , " i t i s most u n l i k e l y t h a t power t o make p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s s o r t has been e x p r e s s l y r e s e r v e d , but i t has  always  never been c a l l e d i n t o  q u e s t i o n . " ( 3 8 5 ) He c i t e s v a r i o u s L e t t e r s p a t e n t  f o r Bermuda and  f o r the Bahamas and  their  f o r Barbados which r e g u l a t e  c o n s t i t u t i o n s t o a s i g n i f i c a n t e x t e n t , and v a r i o u s L e t t e r s i n r e g a r d to B r i t i s h Honduras, A n t i g u a  and  the V i r g i n I s l a n d s  t h a t d e a l w i t h the O f f i c e of Governor, h i s powers and  (382)  T a y l o r v. A t t . - G e n . , Queensland (1917),  (383)  Ibid.  (384)  Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, pp.  (385)  Ibid.  145-6.  Patent  the  23 C.L.R.  457.  PAGE 153 e x e c u t i v e c o u n c i l . ( 3 8 6 ) In some i n s t a n c e s A c t s of P a r l i a m e n t were used to e f f e c t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l changes.  Most of these "were  c l e a r l y n e c e s s a r y because they i n v o l v e d the complete a b r o g a t i o n of l e g i s l a t u r e s and the v e s t i n g of wide powers i n the Crown".(387) I t i s not suggested,  and c l e a r l y , i s not the c a s e , t h a t the  Crown's power t o amend c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s extended t o a r e v o c a t i o n of the g r a n t or t o amendments t h a t i n  substance  e f f e c t e d t h i s . ( 3 8 8 ) But i t seems c l e a r t h a t minor c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e t a i l s such as the e x t e n t of the a u t h o r i t y of the governor the c o n d i t i o n s on which he was  to e x e r c i s e h i s a u t h o r i t y c o u l d be  v a r i e d by the Crown.(389) T h i s was power was  and  r e s e r v e d t o the Crown.  t r u e whether or not such a I t i s argued t h a t the I n d i a n  p r o v i s i o n s of the Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763  are  constitutional  i n nature h a v i n g to do p r i n c i p a l l y w i t h the e x e r c i s e of the Governor's powers.  In order t o f u l l y understand  power to i s s u e such i n s t r u c t i o n s i t i s n e c e s s a r y  the Crown's to look a t the  nature of the o f f i c e of the Governor and the powers he e x e r c i s e s .  (386) Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, a t pp.  145-6.  (387) Roberts-Wray p. 163 c i t i n g as an example The Jamaica A c t , 1866 (29 & 30 v. c. 12) and c f . The M a l t a ( L e t t e r s P a t e n t ) A c t s which gave Crown a power t o amend, d i s c u s s e d i n Roberts-Wray p. 163. (388) Campbell v. H a l l  (1774), s u p r a , f o o t n o t e  275.  (389) K e i t h , A. B e r r i d a l e , C o n s t i t u t i o n a l H i s t o r y of the F i r s t B r i t i s h Empire. O x f o r d : Clarendon P r e s s , 1930. p. 180.  PAGE 154 The a u t h o r i t y of the Queen i n the c o l o n i e s i s r e p r e s e n t e d a Governor.  by  He i s a p p o i n t e d by Her M a j e s t y ' s Commission, which  c o n f e r s upon him h i s powers and w i t h h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s d e f i n e s g e n e r a l l y h i s d u t i e s . ( 3 9 0 ) I t cannot be assumed t h a t he g e n e r a l s o v e r e i g n power.  The p r e r o g a t i v e was  the K i n g ' s  possesses to  bestow and he c o u l d grant i t w i t h or w i t h h o l d i t i n such degree as he thought  f i t . ( 3 9 1 ) D e l e g a t i o n of the p r e r o g a t i v e does not  mean t h a t i t has been a s s i g n e d , i t i s e x e r c i s a b l e by a Governor i n the name and on b e h a l f of Her M a j e s t y and she i s not by d e l e g a t i o n emptied of her own  such  power.(392) I t has been h e l d t h a t a  Governor of a c o l o n y has n o t , by v i r t u e of h i s appointment, the whole s o v e r e i g n t y of the t e r r i t o r y d e l e g a t e d t o him.  He i s not a  v i c e r o y , h i s a u t h o r i t y being l i m i t e d t o t h a t c o n f e r r e d upon him by the Crown or by the A c t s of P a r l i a m e n t or o t h e r laws.(393) H i s a u t h o r i t y i s d e r i v e d from h i s Commission, and l i m i t e d t o the powers thereby e x p r e s s l y or i m p l i e d l y e n t r u s t e d to him.(394) The  i n s t r u m e n t s most commonly used t o convey the  C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Orders of the Crown were Commissions and I n s t r u c t i o n s but i n the e a r l y days of the B r i t i s h Empire o t h e r i n s t r u m e n t s such as O r d e r s - i n - C o u n c i l and P r o c l a m a t i o n s seem t o have been used more or l e s s d i s c r i m i n a t e l y a l o n g w i t h the  (390) T a r r i n g , s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 312, p. (391)  former  33.  Ibid.  (392) Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, at p.  341.  (393) Commercial Cable Co. v. Governor of Newfoundland, [1916] 2 A.C. , a t p. 616. (394) Musgrave v. P u l i d o (1879), 5 App.  Cas.  102.  PAGE 155 i n s t r u m e n t s f o r such  purposes.(395)  A Commission i s a p u b l i c document, i s s u e d as L e t t e r s P a t e n t , by which o f f i c e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those of the G o v e r n o r - G e n e r a l  and  Governor, a r e c r e a t e d and by which v a r i o u s powers a r e d e l e g a t e d to the h o l d e r s of such o f f i c e s . ( 3 9 6 ) L e t t e r s P a t e n t a r e made by the  S o v e r e i g n a l o n e and become law on the a f f i x i n g of the Great  S e a l , under the a u t h o r i t y of a warrant b e a r i n g the Queen's signature.  They a r e u s u a l l y approved i n d r a f t by  O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l and c o n s t i t u t e a d i r e c t e x p r e s s i o n of the Sovereign's w i l l . ( 3 9 7 ) At one time the p r e r o g a t i v e C o n s t i t u e n t power was always e x e r c i s e d by means of L e t t e r s P a t e n t (or some o t h e r i n s t r u m e n t s made by the S o v e r e i g n a l o n e ) c o n v e y i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s t o the Governor  to e s t a b l i s h a l e g i s l a t u r e . ( 3 9 8 )  They seem t o have the f o r c e and e f f e c t of B r i t i s h S t a t u t e and i t has been h e l d t h a t a Governor's a c t s e x c e e d i n g l i m i t s i n h i s Commission a r e v o i d .  prescribed  An o p i n i o n of Edward N o r t h e y , the  A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l of England, (1713), s t a t e d t h a t l a n d g r a n t s made by Governors of New  York beyond the a u t h o r i t y g i v e n i n t h e i r  Commissions would be v o i d . ( 3 9 9 ) A s i m i l a r o p i n i o n was g i v e n i n  (395) Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, a t p. 143 c i t i n g : F o r s y t h , p. 15; Jepson v. R i e r a (1835) 3 Knapp 130, a t 151-3. A s i n g l e i n s t r u m e n t might c a l l i t s e l f by more than one name, e.g., "Charter"., " L e t t e r s P a t e n t " and "Commission"; G o l d C o a s t , J u l y 14, 1874, S t a t e Pp., V o l . 66, p. 942. (396) Supra, f o o t n o t e 251, at p. (397) I b i d . , p.  143.  144.  (398) Supra, f o o t n o t e 19, p. 305 c i t i n g an O p i n i o n of 5 May 1713; O'Callaghan, ed. Documents R e l a t i v e t o the C o l o n i a l H i s t o r y of the S t a t e of New York, p. 362-3.  PAGE 156 r e l a t i o n t o l a n d g r a n t s made by a Governor o f New Hampshire, a s e l e c t Committee h o l d i n g " i f t h e Governor g r a n t s i n d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n of h i s Commission,  t h e g r a n t i s v o i d . " ( 4 0 0 ) And such i s  i m p l i c i t i n s e c t i o n 4 o f t h e C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y A c t , 1865, wherein i t i s suggested t h a t i t i s beyond t h e competence o f c o l o n i a l governors t o d i s r e g a r d even p r o c e d u r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e 'major' c o n s t i t u e n t i n s t r u m e n t .  The l a t t e r i s  d e s c r i b e d as "the L e t t e r s P a t e n t or Instrument a u t h o r i z i n g  such  Governor t o concur i n p a s s i n g o r t o a s s e n t t o Laws f o r t h e Peace, Order, and good Government o f such Colony." ( s . 4 ) . S e c t i o n 4 was aimed a t s a v i n g c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t i o n passed w i t h o u t  adherance  to the p r o c e d u r a l f o r m a l i t i e s e x p r e s s e d i n v a r i o u s R o y a l i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g such l a w s , but a r g u a b l y (see d i s c u s s i o n i n f r a ) d i d n o t h i n g t o d e t r a c t from the f o r c e o f such  instructions  where they c o n t a i n e d a d i r e c t o r d e r . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o look a t the v a r i o u s statements that have been made r e g a r d i n g t h e f o r c e and e f f e c t o f R o y a l instructions.  A Governor has no powers t o l e g i s l a t e o t h e r than  those g i v e n i n h i s Commissio