[RIDDELL] CANADIAN STATE TRIALS 331 
Common Law Courts (Lee, C.J.K.B., Willes, C.J.C.B., and Parker, C.B.,) and the 
three Senior Judges after “great deliberation and search of precedents.’’ Foster’s 
Crown Law, p. 1. This was followed in McLane’s case. 
(11) By the Act of 1708, 7 Anne, c. 21, ‘‘An Act for improving the Union of the 
Two Kingdoms” of England and Scotland, it was provided that the accused should 
be given a Copy of the Indictment and at the same time a list of the witnesses to be pro- 
duced against him and of the jurors on the panel with the ‘‘names, profession and 
place of abode of the said witnesses and jurors . . . . ten days before the trial 
and in the presence of two or more credible witnesses” (Sec. 11). By the Act of 
(1695) 7 Wm. III c., 3, the prisoner was entitled to a copy of the indictment by paying 
for it, five days before trial. 
(12) In criminal cases as the common law was understood, no prisoner charged 
with such a crime was entitled to counsel except as to matters of law arising during 
the trial which practice even Blackstone declares ‘‘not all of a piece with the rest of 
the humane treatment of prisoners by the English law;’’ Bk. IV, p. 355. But by the 
Act of (1695) 7 Wm. III, c. 3, already mentioned, it was provided, sec. 1, that one 
accused of high treason should be admitted to make his full defence by counsel 
learned in the law, not more than two in number. 
(13) Jonathan Sewell was the son of Jonathan Sewell the last loyalist Attorney 
General of Massachusetts (the preceptor of our Chief Justice Powell). The younger 
Jonathan Sewell was born at Cambridge, Mass., in 1766, and was educated at the 
Grammar School at Bristol, England. After the Treaty of Amity between Britain 
and the United States, he came (in 1785) to New Brunswick and studied law. In 
1789 he went with his father to Quebec and was called to the bar in that year. Ap- 
pointed Solicitor General in 1793, and Attorney General and Advocate General in 
1795, he became a member of the Legislative Assembly. In 1808 he was appointed 
Chief Justice of Quebec and President of the Executive Council, and the following 
year Speaker of the Legislative Council. In 1814 he was impeached for subverting 
the Constitution, etc., but was vindicated by the Home Authorities. Resigning his 
position of Chief Justice in 1838, he died the following year in Quebec. 
His conduct of the McLane case was skilful and fair; he had a firm grasp on the 
facts, which were few, and of the points of law, which were many and somewhat 
intricate. The Dict. Nat. Biog. says ‘‘Sewell was an excellent Chief Justice, stern 
but with great command of temper;” and everything in this case suggests the accuracy 
of the characterization. 
See Morgan’s Sketches of Celebrated Canadians, pp. 146, 147, and the Dict. 
Nat. Biog. vol. 51, pp. 286, 287. 
(14) It was (and is still in some jurisdictions) the custom for Junior Counsel to 
open the pleadings, i.e., read the pleadings (indictment in criminal cases) to the jury, 
or state their substance, with such explanation as might be required; then the Senior 
opened on the facts, stating what facts he intended to prove. In the McLane case 
Mr. Caron contented himself with stating what the prisoner was charged with, and 
the Attorney General detailed not only the law but also the facts, and the names of the 
witnesses who were expected to prove these facts. 
(15) Upon attainder of High Treason i.e. not merely conviction by the jury 
but also judgment of death, the convict forfeited to the King all his lands with- 
out regard to conveyances, etc., since the act cf treason, all rights of entry, etc., 
all the profits of lands for life or for years, and his personal property. The jury was, 
upon finding the prisoner guilty, charged to inquire what lands, etc., the convict had. 
In many cases (as in this) no evidence was offered and the jury found ‘‘None to our 
knowledge.” 
