was the villein, who, by the way was real property, is
certainly not correct. Slaves were known in England as mere personal
goods and chattels, bought and sold, at least as late as the middle of
the twelfth century.[6] However weak the reasons given for the
decision, its authority has never been questioned and it is good law.
But it is good law for England, for even in the Somerset case it was
admitted that a concurrence of unhappy circumstances had rendered
slavery necessary[7] in the American colonies: and Parliament had
recognized the right of property in slaves there.[8]

When Canada was conquered in 1760, slavery existed in that country.
There were not only Panis[9] or Indian Slaves, but also Negro slaves.
These were not enfranchised by the conqueror, but retained their
servile status. When the united empire loyalists came to this northern
land after the acknowledgment by Britain of the independence of the
revolted colonies, some of them brought their slaves with them: and
the Parliament of Great Britain in 1790 passed an Act authorizing any
"subject of ... the United States of America" to bring into Canada
"any negroes" free of duty having first obtained a license from the
Lieutenant Governor.[10]

An immense territory formerly Canada was erected into a Government or
Province of Quebec by Royal Proclamation in 1763 and the limits of the
province were extended by the Quebec Act in 1774.[11] This province
was divided into two provinces, Upper Canada and Lower Canada in
1791.[12] At this time the whole country was under the French
Canadian law in civil matters. The law of England had been introduced
into the old Government of the Province of Quebec by the Royal
Proclamation of 1763; but the former French Canadian law had been
reintroduced in 1774 by the Quebec Act in matters of property and
civil rights, leaving the English criminal law in full force. The law,
civil and criminal, had been modified in certain details (not of
importance here) by Ordinances of the Governor and Council of Quebec.

The very first act of the first Parliament of Upper Canada
reintroduced the English civil law.[13] This did not destroy slavery,
nor did it ameliorate the condition of the slave. Rather the reverse,
for as the English law did not, like the civil law of Rome and the
systems founded on it, recognize the status of the slave at all, when
it was forced by grim fact to acknowledge slavery it had no room for
the slave except as a