As a matter of fact it rarely, if ever, made use of these powers at all.  Troubles which arose among the habitants in the Church seigneuries were settled amicably, if possible, by the parish priest.  Where the good offices of the priest did not suffice, the disputants were sent off to the nearest royal court.  All this is worth comment, for in the earlier days of European feudalism the bishops and abbots held regular courts within the fiefs of the Church.  And students of jurisprudence will recall that they succeeded in tincturing the old feudal customs with those principles of the canon law which all churchmen had learned and knew.  While ostensibly applying crude mediaeval customs, many of these courts of the Church fiefs were virtually administering a highly developed system of jurisprudence based on the Roman law.  Laval might have made history repeat itself in Canada; but he had too many other things engaging his attention.

Lay seigneurs, on the other hand, held their courts regularly.  And the fact that they did so is of great historical significance, for the right of court-holding rather than the obligation of military service is the earmark which distinguishes feudalism from all other systems of land tenure.  Practically every Canadian seigneur had the judicial prerogative; he could establish a court in his seigneury, appoint its judge or judges, impose penalties upon the habitants, and put the fees or costs in his own pocket.  In France this was a great source of emolument, and too many seigneurs used their courts to yield income rather than to dispense even-handed justice.  But in Canada, owing to the relatively small number of suitors in the seigneuries, the system could not be made to pay its way.  Some seigneurs appointed judges who held court once or twice a week.  Others tried to save this expense by doing the work themselves.  Behind the big table in the main room of his manor-house the seigneur sat in state and meted out justice in rough-and-ready fashion.  He was supposed to administer it in true accord with the Custom of Paris; he might as well have been asked to apply the Code of Hammurabi or the Capitularies of Charlemagne.  But if the seigneur did not know the law, he at least knew the disputants, and his decisions were not often wide of the eternal equities.  At any rate, if a suitor was not satisfied he could appeal to the royal courts.  Only minor cases were dealt with in the seigneurial courts, and the appeals were not numerous.

On the whole, despite its crudeness, the administration of seigneurial justice in New France was satisfactory enough.  The habitants, as far as the records show, made no complaint.  Justice was prompt and inexpensive.  It discouraged chicane and common barratry.  Even the sarcastic La Hontan, who had little to say in general praise of the colony and its institutions, accords the judicial system a modest tribute.  ‘I will not say,’ he writes, ’that the Goddess of Justice is more chaste here than in