House of Commons Debates (UK) — Bill for making more effectual provision for the government of the province of Quebec

Click here to view the original document (PDF).

The HTML Text Below Has Not Yet Been Edited

This document has not yet been edited for mistakes. Help us out by correcting the text and mailing it as a text file to Your help will make the most complete word-searchable electronic repository of documents relating to the Canadian constitution. For more information consult our Be a Contributor page.

Read the unedited text

mm\\u\’ up FROM was no-ms ov
um Mam: 1-xozmuxmnm
i‘1F\iUE!i TOR LOS’l‘W1’l‘IlIEL;
NOW 1<‘n1s’r PUBLISHED BY J, WRIGHT, rnxrolc 01* ‘Hm 1 \YtI.l1\MEN’l‘A1lY lilsmoxw, arc. WIT!-I A MAP OF CANADA, (OIILD P3011 THIS SECDND EDITION O1″ Ml’P(7IIIlT-T4,»£= ZWAP Of l\OR1’I§ AMIHIKCA, nLx1=n1u-in :0 ix 1-rm n1-rsmrns. LONDON: R I DGVVAY, PICCA DILLY. m>cc’cxXx1x.

J. L. Cox and Suns, Pnntfim 75, GYQM Queen StK€el,
Lmcolws-Inn X-‘lelds.

T1112 Debates in the House of Commons, in the year
1774, on the Bill for making more effectual provision for
the Government of the province of Quebec, are not reported
in any of the publications of that time. S0 strictly was the
standing order enforced for the exclusion of strangers, and
so rigidly were those persons punished who ventured to
make public the speeches of the members, that none but the
merest outlines of the proceedings on this most important
bill have been given to the world.
There was‘, however, at that time, in the House of Com~
rnons, a gentleman of rank and talent, who took copious
notes, iii short~lmnd, of the whole of these very interesting
Debates; and froin his manuscripts, the speeches contained in
the following ‘pages have been drawn up.
The bill was brohght into the House of Lords by the
Earl of Dairtrnouth, on the 2nd of May. It passed without
opposition, and without any Witnesses having been called to
support the allegations upon which it was founded, on the
‘1″/th of the same month. On the 18th of June, it
was returned to the House of Lords, with the amend-
ments introduced by the House of Commons; and then
the Earl of Chatham, though extremely ill at the time,
came down to oppose it, stating, in a short speech, his
conviction, that “ it would involve this country in a thou-
sand difficulties; that it was a. most cruel, oppressive,
A 2

iv rnnimen.
and odious measure, tearing up justice and every good
principle by the roots; that the whole of it appeared to
him to he destructive of that liberty, which ought to be
the ground-work of every constitution; and that it would
shake the affections and confidence of his Majesty’s sub‘
jects in England and Ireland, and finally lose him the
hearts of all the Americans.” The bill was passed by
a majority of nineteen; the contents being twenty-six, the
not-contents seven. The minority consisted of the Duke
of Gloucester, the Earls of Chatham, Coventry, Effing—
ham and Spencer, and the Lords Sandys and King.
On the 929Znd of June, the Lord Mayor, attended by
several aldermen, the recorder, and upwards of one hundred
and fifty of the common council, went up with an address
and petition to the King, snpplicating his Majesty not to
give his assent to the bill. On their arrival at St. Jan1es’s,
the Lord Chamberlain acquainted them, by order of the
King, that “as the petition related to a bill agreed on by
the two Houses of Parliament, of which his Majesty could
not take notice until it was presented for his royal assent,
they were not to expect an answer.” The King, who was
then on the point of going down to ‘Westminster to pro-
rogue Parliament, immediately proceeded to the House of
Lords, and gave his assent to the Bill; observing, that “ it
was founded on the clearest principles of justice and hu-
manity, and would, he doubted not, have the best effect,
in quieting the minds and promoting the happiness of his
Canadian suh_iects.”
As soon as the act reached Quebec, the English settlers
met in the greatest alarm, and sent over a petition to
the King, for its repeal or amendment. They complained,
that it “ deprived them of the franchises which they in-
herited from their forefa.thers;—that they had lost the
protection of the English laws, so universally admired
for their wisdom and lenity, and in their stead the laws of
Canada were to be introduced, to which they were utter
strangers;—-that this was disgraceful to’them as Britons,

and ruinous to their properties, as they thereby lost the
invaluable privilege of trial by jury ;—and that, in matters
of a criminal nature, the habeas corpus act was destroyed,
and they were subjected to arbitrary fines and imprison-
ment, at the will of the governor and council.” Similar
petitions were addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
They are signed by nearly all “ his Majesty’s ancient sub-
jects, settled in the province of Quebec,” and the first name
subscribed is that of Zachary Macaulay.
On the 1″/th of May, 1775, Lord Camden presented
the petition to the House of Lords, and offered, at the same
time, a bill to repeal the said act; which bill, on the motion
of the Earl of Dartmouth, was rejected. A similar motion,
made in the House of Commons on the following day, by
Sir George Savile, met with a similar fate.
The American Congress, in the same year, enumerated
the passing of this act in their list of parliamentary griev-
ances; deelaring it to be “unjust, unconstitutional, and
most dangerous and destructive of American rights 1” and,
in 1”/79, Mr. Maseres, the recent attorney-general of Quebec,
and then cursitor baron of the exchcquer, gave it as his
opinion, that “ it had not only ottended the inhabitants
of the province itself, in a degree that could hardly be
conceived, but had alarmed all the English provinces in
America, and contributed more, perhaps, than any other
measure whatsoever, to drive them into rebellion against
their Sovereign.”
The act continued in force till the year 1″/9] :, when, in
consequence of amessagc from the Crown, a new govern-
ment was given to the province, and Canada was divided
into the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada.
After a. lapse of forty»eight years, it is now proposed to
re~unite thorn; and, in May last, a message was brought
down to parliament, recommending a measure to that eiibct.
At this critical period, the Debates of that House of Com-
mons which passed the original bill for giving :1 consti~

vi rnnrmen.
tution to Canaola, possess a peculiar interest. They come
before us, recommended by the magnitude of the subject,
the great talents and high character of the several speakers
who took part in these debates, and the importance of
those views which are opened out by them. Two genera
tions have passed away, and yet the debates might be
conceived to be those of yesterday; so completely are the
circumstances of the country brought round by time to the
point from which they first started.
July £2, 1859.
N.B. Tum large map which accompanies this volume is copied from
the second edition of Dr. John Mitchell’s eight-sheet mop of the
North American provinces, which was originally constructed at the
desire of the Board of ‘I‘ and Pluntatiozis, and the first edition
of which appeared early in 1755. Shortly afterwards, this first
edition was withdrawn, and a second, containing numerous im-
portant corrections, was published; but the {late was not altered.
Mr. Powuall, the secretary of the Board, certifies, upon both
editions, that the map was “ undertaken with the approbation,
iL\1(l at the request, of the Lords Connnissioners, and was com-
posed from (lraughts, charts, and actual surveys, recently taken
by their Lordships’ orders.” Dr. Mitchell died in 17684
To show the difference between the two maps, the editor of
the present volume has had that portion of the first edition copied
and inserted, which contains the part most involved in the actual
dispute between England and America. A copy of this first edi-
tion was, with all its inaccuracies, published at Paris, by Le Rouge,
in 1756.

In royal octave, double columns, uniformly with “ The Par-
liameiitary History of Englundf’ to which work it is intended
as a. Supplement,
During the Tliirteentli Parliament of Great Britain, which met
in May 1768, and was dissolved in June 1774; drawn up from
the Notes of
Member for Lostwithicl in that Parliament ; and now first pub-
lished, with Notes, historical, biographical, and explanatory, by
J. Wiuem”, Editor of the Parliamentary History of England, and
of the Parliamcntmy Debates from 1803 to 1828.
It has long been a subject of regret, that the proceedings in the
House of Commons, during the thirteenth parliament of Great
Britain, commencing in May 1768 and ending in June 1774,
should, in consequence of the strict euforceinent of the standing
order for the exclusion of strangers, have remained nearlya blank
in the history of this country.
‘Vith respect to the Debates of that period, the following
curious passage may be found in u work entitled “ Al1n0u’s Bio-
graphical Aneo<lotes,” first published in the year 1797 :—“ If
ever $ir Henry Cavendish should publish his account of the De_
hates in the British House of Commons, which he took in short-
hand, duriug the time he sat in it, which was from 1768 to 1774,
Mr. Burke’s speeches, in that important period, will appear with
undoubted accuracy, and will give :1 more interesting picture of
those times, than any which has hitherto been published.”
I met with this passage about fifteen years ago, and have ever
since been endeavouring to discover in whose hands this valuable
Collection of Debates was deposited; but it was not till the begin-
ning of the present year, that I succeeded in finding it among the
Egei-ton Manuscripts. It consists of forty-eight volumes quarto,
and contains reports of all the important debates which took place,
during the six sessions of the above-rnentioiied parliament. I

have been able to verify it, as the undoubted production of Mr.
Henry Cavendish, at that time member for Lostwithiel, who
became, on the death of his father, in 1776, Sir Henry Caven-
dish, and, in 17 79, was made receiver-general of Ireland and 21
member of the privy council.
Shortly after this discovery, I was more fully impressed with
the value of it, by perceiving, in the course of the recent debate
on Lord Mahou’s motion relative to Election Committees, that an
authentic report of Mr. George Grenville’s speech in 1770, on
bringing in his bill for regulating the Trials of Controverted
Elections, was much wished for ; and that great and general regret
was expressed, that no suflicient report of it had been preserved
I was led by this to examine the above Collection; in which I had
the satisfaction of finding, not only an extended report of Mr.
Grenville’s speech, but a. full account of the several debates which
took place during the progress of that bill.
Having mentioned this discovery to Lord Brougham, and
having shown him a list of the numerous important debates
which were contained in the Collection, I was encouraged by
his Lordship to proceed in my design of editing and pub-
lishing the work. He not only wrote to several persons of
distinction, warmly recommending it to their patronage, but, in
his place in Parliament, called the attention of the House of
Lords and of Her Mujes1:y’s ministers, to the public utility of the
undertaking, and urged the propriety of affording me encourage
ment to carry it into effect. On my cyplying to the Trustees of
the British Museum for permission to copy tho MSS., I was very
kindly infonned, that they cheerfully acceded to my request.
The public will be gratified to learn, that these Debates contain
upwards of one hundred speeches of Mr. Burke’s, which have
never seen the light, and a vast number of the most valuable
speeches of George Grenville, Fox, Dunning, Lord North, Thur-
low, ‘Weclderburne, Barre, Blaclzstone, Beckford, Glynn, Bur-
goyne, Dowdeswell, Lord John Cavendish, Sir George Savilc,
&c. &c. The Collection embraces the whole of the stirring period
of the publication of the Letters of J unius, and exhibits the fecl~
ing which prevailed in the House and the country, previous to the
unhappy contest which took place between Great Britain and her
Ameriezm colonies. It contains all the discussions on the follouw

ing important subjects :—’l‘he Expulsion of Wilkes, Mizldlesex
Election, Privilege of Parliament, Trials of Controverted Elections,
Illformations em‘-qflicia by the Attorney-General, Liberty of the
Press, Power and Duties of Juries, Law of Libel, Rights of Elec-
tors, Salaries of Judges, Affairs of the East India Company,
Dissenters’ Relief Bill, Proceedings against the Printers for
publishing the Speeches of Members, Duration of Parliaments,
Coin and Currency, Exclusion of Strangers, Nullum Tempus Bill,
Criminal Laws, Royal l\/larriage Bill, Subscription to the Thirty-
nine Articles, Civil List, Booksellers’ Copyright Bill, Corn Laws,‘
Poor Laws, Administration of Justice in Massachusett’s Bay,
Boston Port Bill, Quebec Government Bill, 8104 &c. ; and on
these, which are among the most important subjects that ever
occupied the attention of Parliament, it gives us a faithful tran‘
script of the opinions of some of the greatest men that ever lived
in any ago or country. It is of this period, that Gibbon speaks,
in the following passage of his Memoirs :—“ The cause of Govern-
ment was ably vindicated by Lord North, a consummate master
of debate, who could wield, with equal dexterity, the arms of
reason and ridicule. He was seated on the trezisury-bench, be-
tween his attorney and solicitor-general, the two pillars of the law
anclstate, magis pares guam similes; and the minister might indulge
in a short slumber, whilst he was upholden on either hand by the
majestic sense of Thurlow, and the skilful eloquence of VVe<lder-
burne. From the adverse side of the House, an ardent and pow-
erful opposition was supported by the lively declaination of Barre,
the legal acutcness of Dunning, the profuse and philosophic fancy
Of Burke, and the argumentative vchemence of FOX. By such
men, every operation of peace and war, every principle of justice
or policy, every question of authority and freedom, was attacked
and defended ; and the subject of the niomentous contest was the
union or separation of Great Britain and America.”
The early portion of the Collection has evidentlybeenwritten out,
under the inspection, or from the dictation, of the right honoura-
ble reporter himself, and apparently with a vicw to publication 1
another portion is written out from the short-hand notes, but
the outline is not filled up : 2, third portion remains still in short-
hand, which is perfectly intelligible to me. The system made
use of is that made public in 1751, by Mr. Joseph Gurney,
granclfather of the present short-hand writer to both Houses of

X ,
Parliament; of whom it is highly probable, that Mr. Cavendish
took lessons : he certainly Wrote it with uncommon facility.
The speeches are more minutely detailed than is usual, or even
necessary, in parliamentary reporting; but, from this exactness
and fulness, one greet advantage is derived—-—-that every speech
contains the actual words made use of, taken down without the
least attempt at embellishment, and with such evident marks of
the peculiar mind of the speaker, that we seem to have before
us the very man himself. ‘
It is another source of advantage to these Debates, that they
were all reported by one person, sitting in the House, not liable to
he confused by interruptions, not liable to he turned out in the
middle of a speech, and having no motive for the immense
labour which he underwent, but the desire of possessing himself
of a record of the proceedings of the time, taken with the utmost
accuracy. From these reports, Mr. George Grenville was sup-
plied by Mr. Cavendish, in 1769, with a copy of the only speech
he ever publ.lshe<l—that against the motion for expelling Mr.
W’ill port of his memorable speech on American Taxation, in April 1774,
which he afterwards gave to the world in at corrected form.
By the publication of this Collection, the proceedings of a Parlia-
ment, which has hitherto been called “The Unreporterl Parlia-
ment,“ will, at the entl of sixty-five years, be more ably emd fully
recorded, by the talent and perseverance of one of its own mem-
bers, than any pzu-t of the Parlizunentcwy History of this country,
previously to the relaxation of the standing order of the House
of Commons.
The work will consist of four or five volumes, of the same size
as those of the Parliamentary History, to which it is intenclod as
21. Supplement; tllltl it will he published in parts, four of which
will make avolurne. The first port will appear as soon as at suf-
ficient number of Subscribers is obtained, to guarantee the ex-
penses of the midertaking. Those Noblemeu and Gentlemen
who may feel inclined to encourage the publication, are requested
to communicate their names to the Editor, and also to signify
their intention to their regular booksellers; by whom the work,
when puhlishecl, will he supplied.
24, Albany Street, Regcnfs Park, J 1 WRIGHT.
July 22, 1839.

Tl;-ursclay, May 26, 1774. ‘
DEBATE ox THE Smconn Rmnxwa 01? THE B1111. –Speeches of
Mr. Thomas TO\vnshend, jun.-\—L01-d North-—Mr. ])unning–
The Attorney General (Mr.’1‘hur10\v)_-ClflonelBm’ré——L01’d.
John Cavemlish–Mr. Snrjeant Glynn-—-The Soficifor-General
(Mr. V\’er1derburne)-—Mr. Clmrles FOX-—~Lord North-—Mr.
])unning”–1\’Ir. .Dempsto1″—Mr. Alderman Smvb1“i<1g’e—-‘.l’he
Speaker–1\‘I1″. T bomas Townshend, jun.-—Si1‘ George Savile . .
Tuesday, May 31.
1’1:jx~n~1o1\’s Aemnsw -rum Bum — Mo’1’xo1~:s non Pnnns AND
\Vl’J?NF.ssEB.—C0unse1 hearrh ~— Lord N01-th _. Mr. Edmund
Bu1’ke—~M1~. Balzer–Mr. I\rIa0k\vnrtb-’1‘he Hon. Constantine
1’hipps—Co1one1 BarrvS—M1′. Maekwm-th—’1‘he Attorney Ge-
neral-—Colo4ne1 Barré–Mr. jslclmnnd Burk¢—Th0 Solicitor-
Genera1—Mr. Guscoync-Mr. l)empster—Mr. Mansfield. – ..
TILu1-szlag/, Jame 2.
EXAMINATION or Gonanuox (Lmm:-ron . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. ..
ExAiu1NA-1-now 613‘ Fmmcxs MAsim1=.s, EsQ., LATE AT’l‘0RNEX’-
GENERAL or Qumsnc ….
Fvidlzg/, June 3.
Fun-r1-nan EXAMINATION or GENE“-A11 CAILLETUN . .. . …
EXAMINATION on W1LLI,u\{ HEY, EsQ., Cxmav-.’!us’ncu or
ExM\xmA’uoxo1= M. Lo-rnmunua ..
EXAMINATION on Dn. 1\’I,\mv.1o’n-, THE Kn:o’s ADVOCATE-
M‘UxmAY.—-Mr. T. To\vnsen(1, j ml.–Captain Phipps—C0lonel
]3su~ré–Mr. Baker-_.Mr. Charles Fox—Lord Nm~th-Govez’-
nor Pownall-—The So1icit0r~General-—M1′. Dunning – . ._. . .
Mondrzg/, June Glh.
DEBATE ox THE Bouunzmv C1.1ms+:._Lox-:1 N01‘t[1-—G0\’01’-
nor Jolm_stone-M1‘. T. Tnwnshcnd, Jun.‘—-Mr. Edmund Burke
—Sir Charles Saunders–M1-. Present–Lord North-Captain
Phipps_-Mr. CO0pe1′–M1‘. Byng‘–Lo1~<1 John Cavendish-»
Mr. Edmund Burke–The So1icit01′-General . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xii coxrnmrs.
Thesday, J11/no 7.
DEBATE on T1115 Oz,.u:s1: mun!-zvoxcma Fonnsm Ommxuxncms.
-._Mr. Edmund Bu1″ke— Governmr Johnstnne–Mr. Dempste1′–
Mr. Thomas Townshnnll, Jun.–Lord Be1mchamp—L01’d John
Cavendish–l\’Ir. Cornwail—Mr. Dunning-Lord Clare–Mr.
Edmund Burke-Mr. Hmvarsl–‘[‘he Att0x”ney~G<me\’a\-—C ap-
tainn Phipps
Romlsn R1~:L1<;x0N.–Lord. North-Mr. Edmund Burke-_Mr,
Chavles Fox-‘J.‘he Sulicitor-General–1\Ir. Dunning–Mr.
Staniey-Mr. Thomas Tmvnshend, Jun.–Mr. Edmund Burke
–The Attorney‘General-Governor J uhnstone-Lard John
Caveudish—Mr. Pulteney–Mr. “’i11ia1!1 Bu:-ke—Colonel
Bar1’é-—L0r(1 Bar1’ing”t0n.. …. -..- ………. t… .-
Dm\m’n-: ON ‘1-rm Cmvsu EI\’ABI.!I\’G THE Gnmnanms ‘D0 new
‘1‘!u-1m PossESSx0N$; AND TO ruasorvr, IN MATTERS ox“ PRO-
manwv ANS! CIVIL Rzcurrs, T0 TUE L/uvs rm Ctmhn/x.–Mr.
Edmund Burke–Lord John Cavexxdish–1\‘h’. ‘1‘ Townshond,
Jun.–Colonel Bzwré–MP. Charles Fox-Lord North- . .. .. . .
I1/ednesday, Jwne 8.
])F4BATE ox ‘rm; (lmusn nm1r¢.1vm<;’r111e CANAIJIANS 01* 1.-nu->
Examsn ’1‘mm, nv Jmw xx CIVIL Cnzsus. —— Mr. Edmund
Burke-M1‘. Cavendish-Lorri North~—L0rd John Cavendish
-—M1‘. Dunning–Colonel Barré-—~Mr. Edmund Bu1’ke~—M1′.
om.—Mr.Dempster–Lord Nflrth-—Ca min Phip s»-Governor
Johnstone-Lord Beauchamp»—Mr. E’u1teney—~}hIr. Baker-—~
Lord Nm~th_-Mr.Char1esFox .. .. .. ..
Dxsmxws. ON Tluz Cmxusn DECLARING THE OATH T0 ma TAKEN
BY R-cum: CATuoL1cs.-1‘V[r. J enkinson-—M1’. William Burke
F7’id(1_1/, Jzmc 10.
on/man ESTABLISHING Tnmn BY Juxw IN cxvu, zmusx-rs, A1‘
THE OPTION or mwxmn or ‘m-1:‘; co1~:-rmmms 1=.uvru:s.-1\¢1’r.
I\\’Ia<:k\v0rtI\–Lord North-—M’r.Se1’jeant Glynn-The Attorney
General-Mr. ‘Dum\ing—<‘1‘he Solicitor-Geneml-—]\’Ir.Tho1nas ‘[‘0\vnshQnd, jun.–1\’Ir. Ambler–Mr. Byng—Go\’ernor John~ st0n(.~—-Mr» E(1\TA\.lD(1BLl)‘k0.. .. .. .. ])mm-rm ox A zsxo-non I-‘OR nunmm TEMPORARY ‘1-mm PART OF THE BELL ‘WHICIX REBATES ‘PO THE ‘LE-GISLASXVE C’OU’l\” cm.-—~l\/Iv: Thomas To\vnsh0nd,jun.–Lord North–Mr. Stan» Mavtday, May 13. DnB,\-rs on rs-nu ‘rmnn>nm,\nme ow 1′:-ma mm.-_M1-. Charles
Fo>:—»Mr. Coupe;–~M1’. Howard .. .. .. .~ -… -~ —

&c. &c.
T/tursdag/, May 26, 1*/74‘.
ON the order of the day, for the secoml reading; of the
Bill “ For making more effectual provision for the Govern-
ment of the Province of Quebec, in North America,”
Mr. Thomas Toumshend, _jun.<‘> rose and said :-—-Sir, as
I have taken the liberty to call upon those members of this
House who have the honour of being in his Majesty’s ad-
ministration, to know why the aflizirs of Canada have been
so long postponed–why that country, from the time of the
peace to the present moment, has been left in anarchy and
conf’usion—it may appear a little ex(‘ra0i’ the first attempt to bring it into order, I should rise to
oppose the second reading of this bill. If I did it without
some little explanation, I ought to have some allowance
made me for any mistake in point of candour, and any in~
accuracy in point of fact ; but I will set myself right in the
(‘) Son of the honourable Thomas Townshend, second son of the second
viscount Townshend, and member for the University of Cambridgei Mr.
Townshend. jun. was at this time member for Whitchurch. In I782, he
was made one of the secretaries of state; which situation he resigned in
April 1783, but was re-appointed in December, and continued in it till
1789. In 1783, he was created Baron Sydney, and in 1789, advanced to the
dignity of Viscount. He died in I800.

2 nianmns on rnn inn. [May 26,
opinion of those who sit over against me, by giving them
my reasons for not consenting, at this time, to go into the
further consideration of this hill.
Sir, having been for some time in possession of the bill,
as printed in another place, I might have taken the liberty
of nlaking a few observations upon it on a former day, if it
had not been that the attention of the House was pre-en-
gaged to another subject. I have been told, that the
reasons for this question not having been brought before
Parliament earlier was, that, from the time of the cession of
the colony, measures had been taken very slowly to get
sufficient information of the state of the country ; that the
opinion of the governor, and of the great law oiiicers of the
Crown, had been taken; that those opinions had been laid
before the great law officers of the Crown in this country,
the attorney and solicitor-general, and the Kings advocate;
that the measure had been considered by the board of
trade; and that, having gone through all these steps, it
then remained for the joint opinion of the lord chancellor
and the president of the council. Sir, I should wish to know
who has adopted, or who is the father of the plan now before
the House; whether it is that of the governor and the law
officers of the Crown; whether it_is the production of the
hoard of trade; or whether, after all the opinions of those
learned sages had been taken, it is the result of the cleli~
berations of the ininistry. Although l how very low to all
these great authorities, I must venture to mention one thing
–that when I was calling for regulations for Canada, little
did I think that I was calling for regulations for a country
much larger than Canada; a country “ extending,” in the
words of the bill, “ southward to the banks of the river
Ohio, westward to the hanks of the Mississippi, and north-
ward to the southern boundary of the territory granted to
the merchants adventurers of England trading to Hudson‘s
Bay”–I say, Sir, that when I was calling for regulations
for Canada, little did I think that I was calling for an
arrangement which, I will venture to say, is oppressive

1774.] mu ms GOV1?)ltN.\!]’;NT or QUEBEC. 3
to the English subject, and disagreeable and lmteful to
the Canadian; little did lthink, that those subjects who
had been invited by the Proclamationll) which told them, that
they were to have the law of England, that they were not
to be put under a law totally unknown to them–were, at
the same time, to be deprived of some of the most valuable
parts of the law of their own country.
I know there prevails an opinion, that the best thing you
can do with this country is to make it =1 French colony, to
keep the English out of it as much as possible, that they
may not mix with the Canadians. It has a convenient
kind of religion, a convenient kind of law–let it he governed
as it was before. Sir, whether this is practicable at present
I will not pretend to say; but if it he practicable, in my
humble opinion, it is not very politic. If they are not to reap
any beneiit—an(l I think there is at benefit in going from the
French to the English laws—-wil1 not men, with their incli-
nations French, with their constitution French, with their
connection French, with everything French, except one
man at their head who shall he a subject of Great Brit;1in——-
will these people not wish, upon a future occasion, to recur l
back to the other part of their government which is not
French ? will not the French king be naturally desired to
complete the system? Those who know the state oi
Canada will tell you, that many are settling their debt
and retiring to France, accompanied by a, large part of th
people, and those the most opulent; for it is a plan which
could not be put in execution by families of small means.
But then, there remains the connection; and it is impossible
that they should not naturally have their inclinations turned
to their own goverrunent \
< X Sir, this bill, besides, gives to the governor of (,anada the government of the entire province, the government of that country which is most settled by the Indians. It gives the French laws, it gives the French religion, to that (‘) 1′-‘or the I’ror:lmnation 0|” 1763, see Appendix (A.) n 2 VI . “*\n\s-l\ \ AL DEB’A’1‘ES on ‘rn.n 1211.1. [M.ty26, country, a great part of which, as far as it can be called settled at all, is settled by people who are the natives of the British colonies. Now, for what purpose are they to he placed under French laws, unless it is meant to be laid as a foundation, that, for the future, French laws are to be the laws of America P Ii‘ this is to he the case, Sir, that may be a good reason for extending French law to the whole Illinois, and to all that is intermediate between the Illinois and Canada. You have given up to Canada almost all that country which was the subject of dispute, and for which we went to war. VVe went to war calling it the province of Virginia. You tell the French it was only a pretext for going to war; that you knew then, you know now, that it was part of the province of Canada. Sir, there are many parts to this bill, and I believe it is not strictly regular to go into a discussion of the several parts; but my reason for noticing it is this–I do not expect that this bill will be curried. I think it fitirer, therefore, before the proposal for going into a committee comes, to throw out the objections that strike me niost, to see if there is a chance of getting any of them removed. But, willing as I am to reject this bill, convinced that it is impossible at this period of the year to go into the consideration of a subject of so great importance, I should also wish to encounter as little inconvenience from it as possible, if it is to be persisted in ; and therefore I should wish to know why Canada may not be reduced to some less limits; why not to the same limits England and France have ever given it; why not within some bounds, a. little less than what is given to it here? There is another reason which influences me in opposing this bill. One would be inclined to think it was only a. temporary bill, whereas it is perpetual. Vtlhy not give it a limitation in point of time? Speak out! D0 you mean that this shall he the permanent constitution of Canada? If you do, the hill is right as it stands : if not, at what time will you alter it P If the Canadians are quiet, you will not alter it; hut, if they are refractory, if they think that a 1774,] FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC. 5 promise that has been held out to them has been evaded, has been contradicted; if they think they have been denied the rights becoming new subjects, if they are uneasy under it-—-what then? VVhy, then you will say, “Would you have given those tumultuous fellows assemblies? Have you not assemblies enough in America already? Do you mean to have more assemblies? Under one or other of these pretexts the right of assembling will for ever be denied them. Therefore, Sir, disliking the bill from the beginning to the end, as far as to me it is intelligible, I shall, in the Committee, if it reaches the committee, desire to have explained to me those parts which at present are quite unin- telligible. I shall also propose to limit the extent of it to sometliing a little more within the idea of the boundaries ever given to Canada, and likewise to limit the duration of the bill, which forms a government such as the world never saw before. The number of persons of whom the council is to consist is not to exceed twenty~three, nor be less than seventeen, who may be Catholics or Protestants, of whom no quorum is necessary, and of whom you know nothing in the World. To see that country put, by a perpetual law, under such a government, is what I cannot consent to, and must beg there to make my standi If you do not mean to profess that this shall he the permanent constitution of Canada, you must make some limitation to this bill : it will then force itself under the consideration of Parliament, and we shall be able, at a subsequent period, to judge of the situation of this province, and how far, in this part of the British cloniinions, we have something like the British constitution. As to the government as it now stands, this legislative council seems to me to be the very worst kind of govern- ment that ean be invented. If it is not the proper time to give an assembly, ii is better to let the governor be abso- lute-—bette1’ to let him be without a council: he will be responsible; but what have we here P Seventeen or eigh- teen gentlemen, who may be removed or suspended by the 6 DEBATES on rm: BILL [May 26, governor; so that if an act of oppression should come from the Crown, these may be a screen for the governor to excuse and justify him. I hope, Sir, it is unnecessary for me, when I make use of the word governor, to say I do not mean any offence to the particular person invested nith that oilicefi-‘> I have a personal friendship for him, and enter-
tain as high an opinion of him as any man who hears me
can entertain ; but this governor may be removed, may be
removed to-day, and another individual may go in his room
of a difierent complexion.
VVith regard to religion, I should like also to ask a
question or two. Is the Roman Catholic religion, is the
discipline of that church, to be established throughout that
country? If it is, I should be glad likewise to know in
what situation the bishop will be placed, with the exception
of being subiect to the Kin g’s supremacy, established by the
not of the first of Queen Elizabeth. I am not able to quote
acts of parliament, especially very old ones; but, if I am
not mistaken, all authority derived from the see of Rome is
taken away by that act. I should be glad to kno\v also,
whether, from this time, all ordinances, all commissions, are
to be revoked, annulled, and made void. Are the present
English 1a\vyers still. to do duty there? Are the men at the
head of the courts of justice — one of whom,(“’> with great
satisfaction to the province, now exercises the oflice of chief
justice there, and is as able and as amiable a man, as
much respected there and beloved by his acquaintance here,
as any one of the profession — is that gentleman to be taken
away, and are you to have Canadian lawyers, or to l>orro\v
lawyers from the Continent?
Wliat, Sir, is to be the situation of the British subjects?
Many gentlemen have bought large estates in Canada; even
large seignories are now held by British subjects. Are they
to be entirely subject to French law P I-Ias this been the
policy of this country with regard to any other acquisition
(‘) General Carleton. (2) William I-Icy, Esq.

1774.] Fort THE GOVt£1tNMEN’l‘ or QUEIIEC. ‘7
whatever, except one, Minorca? The Minorcans remain
Spanish. VVill the Canadians, in that respect, be in the
53.1118 situation as the Minorcans P When Minorca was
attacked, had you one Minorean who (lid not join the
French? Will the Canadians be less Frenchmen than the
Minorcztns Spzmiards? What temptation do you hold forth
to them I How much have you provoked them, even those
who are the most amiable, the most respectable! How much
do you court them to be disinclined to your government!
Would it not be better, by degrees, to show thein the
advantages of the English law, and mix it with their own P
You have done the contrary: you have taken from the
English subject his benefit of the law of England, and you
do not otter to the French subject that change of the consti-
tution, which, if introduced in a moderate manner, would
have attached him to this country.
I shall not, in the present stage of the bill, trouble you
any longer; but I must desire to know, why a subject of
this importance is driven oil’ to the last week of May I’ VVas
there no other time of the session? Gentlemen are gone
into the country; the elections are coining on very soon,
and that is another objection. For all these reasons, I find
myself, at this time, under the necessity of rejecting :t
bill, which, if carried into execution, will, I zun convinced,
tend more to rivet in the Canadians prej udiccs in favour of
French rule, than it will to attach them to the government
of England.
Lord No1’th.<‘>-— I am sure, Sir, after whflzt l1’v1S been
thrown out upon this occasion, I should be the last man in
the world, though the honourable gentleman has repeatedly
called upon his Majesty’s ministers to lay clown :1 plan for
the government of Canada, to find fault with him for disap-
proving the plan which is now oflered. He will, Sir, exchange
forgiveness with me, and excuse me if I do not answer
the questions which he has put with so much warmth, and
(‘) First lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer.

8 . l)]:ZDA’l‘l£S on “rm: BILL [1\luy2G,
so pointedly, —— “ Vilhose hill is this? ls it the bill of the
governor of Canada? Is it the bill of the law officers? ls
it the bill of the lord chancellor”? Is it the hill of the lord
president 3”’ Sir, I apprehencl that is a matter of no manner
of consequence to this inquiry. It comes down to us a hill
from the House of Lords: it’ the House of Commons shall
approve of it as it is, or if they shall think proper to return
it with alterations, when it goes from hence to receive the
concurrence of the Lords and the concurrence of the
Crown, it will he a hill of Parliament. His Majesty’s mi-
nisters have been led to the proposal of this measure, in
compliance with the repeated calls of several members of
this House, as well as from the necessity of the case, and
after having maturely considered the various opinions of
those individuals who were able to give the best light
and information upon the subject. Sir, this question has
not been delayed from any other desire than that -of being
fully informed. Information has been sought from all
quarters; from the oflieers of the Crown in Canada, and
from the otiiccrs oi’ the Crown at home; every person who
could give information has been consulted. I do not know
that this hill agrees precisely with the opinion of any one
of them; hut, Sir, this bill, as it was oitereci to the House
of Lords, was the result of the opinion of the nohle lord,(‘>
who oilbred what he conceived to be the best plan for
Canacia, the best plan for Great Britain, after considering
and weighing every information, and receiving every light
he could receive from every quarter.
The honourable gentleman thinks it so improper a hill,
that it ought not to he sutl”ered to be rearl at second time.
Sir, if the honourable gentleman really thinks that the state
of Canada is so much better than it wars, that it ought not
to he taken into consideration by the House of Commons-—~
for this hill, in going through the committee, may receive
very material alterations—-if the honourable gentleman is of
(‘) The Earl of Dartmouth, secretary of state for the colonies.

1774.] non run GOVERNMENT or ounnnc. S)
opinion, that Canada is now in such a state of order, that it
is better not to proceed to consider this question any further,
he is perfectly right in objecting to read it a second time.
But I was so struck with the arguments used by the honour-
ahle gentleman, in the last session of parliament, to show the
necessity of doing something upon the suhject,that I certainly
shall he of opinion, that \ve ought to give this bill at second
reading, and allow it to go into a committee, to consider and
discuss it still further. If thevplan sent to us from the House
of Lords is not a. good one, let us alter it; hut by no means
let us leave the province of Canada in its present situation.
The first thing objected to by the honourable gentleman
is, the very great extent of territory given to the province.
Why, he asks, is it so extensive? There are added, un_
riouhtedly, to it two countries which were not in the
original limits of Canada, as settled in the proclamation of
1768; one, the Labrador coast, the other, the country \vest~
ward of the Ohio and the Mississippi, and a few scattered
posts to the west. Sir, the addition of the Labrador coast
has been made in consequence of information received from
those best acquainted with Canada, best acquainted with
the fishery upon that coast, who deem it absolutely neces~
sary for the preservation of that fishery, that the Labrador
coast should no longer he considered as part of the govern-
ment of New York, but he annexed to that country. VVith
respect to the other additions, three questionsvery fairlyoccur.
It is well known, that settlers are in the habit of going to
the interior parts from time to time. Now, however undesi~
rable, it is open to Parliament to consider, whether it is fit
that there should be no government in the country, or, on the
contrary, separate and distinct governments ; or whether the
scattered posts should he annexed to Canada. The House
of Lords have thought proper to annex them to Canada;
but when we consider that there must be some government,
and that it is the desire of all those who trade from Canada
to those countries, that there should be some government,
my opinion is, that if gentlemen will weigh the inconveniences

10 nnnnyias on ‘run nun [May 26,
of separate governments, they will think the least inconve-
nient method is to annex those spots, though few in popu-
lation great in extent of territory, rather than to leave them
without government at all, or make them separate ones.
Sir, the annexation likewise is the result of the desire of
the Canadians, and of those who trade to those settlements,
who think they cannot trade with safety as long as they
remain separate.
The honourable gentleman next clemands of us, will you
extend into those countries the free exercise of the Romish
religion ? Upon my word, Sir, I do not see that this bill
extends it further than the ancient limits of Canada; but if
it should (lo so, the country to which it is extended is the
habitation of bears and beavers; and all these regulations,
which only tend to protect the trader, as far as they can
protect him, undoubtedly cannot be considered oppressive
to any of the inhabitants in that part of the world; who are
very few, except about the coast, and at present in a very
disorderly and ungovernable condition. The general pur_
pose is undoubtedly to give a legislature to that country.
It was very much, T believe, the desire of every person, if it
were possible, to give it the best kind of legislature; but
can a better legislature he given than that of a governor
and council ? The honourable gentleman dislikes the
omitting the assembly ; but the assembly cannot be granted,
seeing that it must be composed of Canadian Roman
Catholic subjects, otherwise it would be oppressive. The
bulk of the inhabitants are Roman Catholics, and to subject
them to an assembly composed of a few British subjects
would he a great hardship. Being, therefore, under the
necessity of not appointing an assembly, this is the only
legislature you can give the Canadians, and it is the one
under which they live at present. The governor and
council really have been the legislature there ever since our
conquest of it, and it is now put under some regulation.
Hitherto, France has conducted the business—-thatis all the
diflercnee ; if we do nothing, it must remain in the hands

1774.] mm run GOVl”.RNMl<‘.NT or Qummc. 11 of the governor and council. The question is, whether, so regulated, this is not better. All the other colonies have been governed by a governor and council; it is not, there- fore, so totally anomalous. The honourable gentleman objects to the want of a quorum. It is only giving full notice to all whose duty it is to attend, and when they do attend, things are to be decided by the majority, as in all other assemblies. Now, Sir, with regard to giving French Iaw——if gentlemen will remember, the most material part of the criminal law is to he according to English law. The civil law of Ca- nada certainly is to be the French law : but, Sir, I under- stand the establishing of these laws to be given as the basis upon which the governor and legislative council are to set out. Sir, you would not send the governor and council to choose their own constitution-—to choose their own laws entirely. You must tell them from what laws they are to take their departure. It has been thought better calculated to secure the happiness of the Caiiadiaiis, and more beneficial for all who live in the country, that they should have the civil law of Canada, and not that of England. If the Czmadian civil law is incompatible with the present con- dition and wishes of the colony, the governor and council will have power to alter it. But there must be a general basis; there must be a law established, ready to be amended and altered as occasions shall arise, and as the circumstances of the colony shall require. It has been the opinion of very many able lawyers, that the best way to establish the happi- ness of the inhabitants is to give them their own laws, as far as relates to their own possessions. Their possessions were marked out to them at the time of the treaty ; to give them those possessions without giving them laws to maintain those possessions, would not be very wise. The French law may he worse than the English, but the particular portions for which we have the highest value ourselves, are a part of our political law, and a part of‘ our criminal law. These may be acted on in Canada, seeing that the criminal law 12 DEBA’l‘ES on run rum. [i\‘l-ay 26, has been submitted to for nine years, and is, I dare say, approved of by the Canadians, because it is a more refined and at more merciful law than the law of France. As to the free exercise of their religion, it likewise is no more than what is confirmed to them by the treaty, as far as the laws of Great Britain can confirm it. Now, there is no doubt that the laws of Great Britain do permit the very full and free exercise of any religion, diii’erent from that of the church of England, in any of the colonies. Our penal laws do not extend to the colonies; therefore, I apprehend, that we ought not to extend them to Canada. Whether it is convenient to continue or to abolish the bishop’s juris~ diction, is another question. l cannot conceive that his presence is essential to the free exercise of religion; but I am sure that no bishop will be there under papal authority, because he will see that Great Britain will not permit any papal authority whatever in the country. It is expressly forbirklen in the A ct of Supremacy. I dare say, Sir, I have not given an answer to many of the questions put to me by the honourable igentloman; nor do I recollect whether I have explained what I take to be the purpose of the present bill. It certainly gives to the Canadians many of their laws and customs; which laws and customs can be safely given to them. If alteration in those laws and customs should be deemed necessary, there is a legislature established, which will be ready to make those alterations. In a general plan of government, it is not possible to enter into a detail of what is proper, or what is improper, in Canada: it must be left to the legislature on the spot to consider all their wants and difiiculties. The present bill will give laws, the prin~ cipal laws, from which the legislature ought to take their departure-—cri1ninal law, civil law, political law. That is the purpose of the bill. It has appeared to be the best plan that could at present be devised; and it requires and deserves the immediate attention of the House. ~The l10~ nourable gentleman asks, why, before it was introduced into 1774.] FOR THE GOVERNMENT or QUI~‘.Bl£C. 13 the House of Lords immediately after Easter, full notice was not given, that it would come down here ? Sir, we are not to blame for the omission : there is, however, abundance of time to go through the bill, to correct, to approve, or to amend it. His Majesty’s message 1‘econ\mended Parliament to take up the subject ti” and as soon as it was in a fit state to be laid before the other House, I am confident the noble lord brought it forward. Sir, the honourable gentleman proposes to limit the hill in point of time. That will he a proposition for the com» mittee to consider: it is not now proper to be entertained. If you mean to have the bill exist even but for a year, you will read it now a second time. The question of dura- tion is a question that will come on hereafter; it is not a proper one for the present moment. I own I shall not he for a limitation, and I shall he ready to submit my reasons; hut if the committee should think proper to alter it, I must acquiesce, rather than leave the Canadians without any legislature at all. Better far to give them some legislature, than leave them for three or four years in their present situation. The honourztble gentleman put a question to me concern- ing a revocation of the judges’ commissions.‘ Certainly, there can ho no intention to remove any of those ofiicers who are now there. It is a happy circumstance for this country, that gentlemen of their merit should have been willing to go and establish themselves there. It is a happy circum- stance for the Canadians, that they are there established: but as the form of the courts of justice is not agreeable to the practice in England, it must he altered ; which will make (l) The King, in a message of the ’7th of Mm-ch, had called upon the House of Commons “to enable him efi‘ectualIy to take such measures as might be most likely to put an immediate stop to the present disorders in North Ainericn, and also to take into their most serious Consideration, what regulations and permanent lnorisions might be necessary to be established, for better securing the just depemlanee of the colonies unon the Crown and Pzulisnnent of Great Britain.” “l/1‘ DEIKATES on Tim .n1I.L lltlaygfi, a revocation of their commissions necessary. I dare say, and I am sure I hope, they will be given to the same indi- viduals, who have exercised their functions so honestly. Nothing, I am confident, will stand in the way of it, but the wishes of the gentlemen themselves. I have not heard that any of them desire to quit their situations; and it most assuredly is neither the interest of his Majesty, nor that of his subjects, to rlcsirc them to quit the posts they so honour~ ably hold. Mr. ‘1’. Towns/Lend, jun.—The noble lord misunderstands me. I certainly did not wish to have it go forth to the world, that the whole of the country was to he subject to French law, and that the established religion was to he that of the Roman Catholics; but what I complained of particularly was, the carrying that system of law into it country where it was not extended at present. Near the Illinois and Fort clu Cane, I am infbrinetl there are at this time upwards of five-ancl-twenty thousand British settlers. VVith regard to the hishop, and with regard to religion itself, youiwill find, that to leave the matter in doubt will he worse than any thing. 1\Iy reason for giving an opposition to the bill in this stage of it is, because I think the period of the year is one in which no attention will he paid to it; and I am convinced that it would be better for the Canadians themselves to wait another year, when Pzirliament could pay (lue attention to it, rather than to take it up at this present period of the session. I could have wished, when you have a lzu-geportion of the country settled with regard to its civil jurisdiction, to have seen the political part of it, the part the most dear to Englishmen, and at the same time accept- able to the Canaclians, achnittecl. Does the noble lord think the law of Hahc-as Corpus of no value to Englishnieni’ I should he sorry indeed to sec any Itlnglishman deprived of’ it; and I think that, having promised the Canadians your English law, the giving them French, is doing them a great injustice. 1774.] F011 THE oovi-:nNM1sN’1‘ OF QTIEBEC. 15 Mr. Dunnin_g.(‘>–Sir; late es it is in the session, and thin
as is the attendance of the House, I should hold myself in-
excusable, ii’ I suffered a bill of this importance to pass
through the present stage, without delivering my opinion upon
it, and without giving it as much opposition as can he given
by at single negative. Having prefaced thus much, it will
he proper for me to state the reasons that have induced me
to act in this manner. I collect, and am sure it is to he
collected, from what fell from the noble lord, in answer
to the honourable gentleniarfs question, whether this was
meant to be a permanent measure, or to he qualified and
made temporary by some provision, which it was the busi-
ness of the committee to add, that it was not the intention
of the noble lord that it should he temporary, but that we
are to take it in its present form, for we can get it in no
Conceiving the1’efo1’e, Sir, from the omnipotence of the
noble lord, that this hill will be perpetual, not temporary, I
See the mischief in a light still more mischievous. I see the
bill stripped of all those reasons in its favour, which my
imagination had enabled me to foresee might have been
assigned for it. Sir, the bill is as extensive as any hill that
was ever offered to the consideration of Parlitnnent. Its
direct object is to take from a large number of the King’s
subjects that constitution which was given to them ten
years ago; to take that constitution from them, and to give
them another in the place of it. Have, Sir, those subjects
expressed a wish to pen-t with what has been given them?
Have they expressed a wish to have the one which is to be
given in the place of it ? I apprehend no such wish
(l) This cminentlawyer had, in I767, filled the office of solicitor-general;
which he resigned in l’/’70. Through the influence of the Em-1 of Shellmi-ne,
he sat in three parlianients for the borough of Calnc. In I782, he was
made chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and advanced to the peerage,
hy the title of Lord ASlXlJUl‘tUll- Ile died in the following year, at the age
nl‘ fifty-two.

16 Dlf.BA’l‘ES on ‘rnr: mm. {Mu} 26,
has been communicated to this House; and if any servant
of government in that country has sent home :1 repre-
sentation to that ‘effect, such representation is equally
unknown to me, and I apprehend to the rest of the members
of this House; but if any such representation is intended
to be \nade, I should wish this House to be acquainted
with it.
The provisions of this bill so far partake of all the
American regulations of this year, that they are offered at :1
time, and are to he carried through in a time, which pre-
cludes the inclividuals interested from being heard; whether
they do desire, or do not desire, to show how their interests
are affected; whether they expect benefit, or apprehend
mischief theret’r<>m. The first object of the hill is to make
out that to be Canada, which it was the struggle of this
country to say, was not Canada. Now, Sir, if this province
should ever he given back to its old masters–and I am not
without an inclination to think, that the best way would he
to give it hack to its old masters»-it’ it should ever become
right to give back Canada, with what consistency can a
future negociator say to France, we will give you back
Canada; not that Canada which you asserted to he Canada,
but that stated in the proclamation, having discovered that
we were mistaken in the extent of it; which error has been
corrected by the highest authority in this country. Then,
suppose Canada thus extended should be given hack to
France, the English settled there will then have :1 line of
frontier to an extent undefined by this bill; for this country
is bounded by the Ohio upon the west——God knows where !
I wish God may not alone know where. I wish any gen-
tleman would tell us where. I observe in this description of
the frontier, at studied ambiguity of phrase. ‘I cannot tell
what it xnezms; but I conjecture that it means something
had. The Ohio is stated as a boundary confirmed by the
Crown; but what act, what confirmation by the Crown, has
passed upon this subject? I know of no such act, -of no
such confirmation. I know, by the terms of the charter, the

1774.] FOR THE GOVERNI\l.’ENT or Quunise. 1’7
colonists suppose, and I think they are well grounded in the
supposition, that they are entitled to settle hack as for as
they please to the east, to the sea, their natural boundary.
They did not like a cli{l’e1’ent barrier, I know some assert
this right, and that others content themselves with a less
extensive claim. Whether so extensive :1 claim has been
allowed I know not; but I do understand, in point of fact,
that there has been long subsisting a dispute about the
Western frontier, which was never discussed, still less cle-
cided: and when this bill shall become a law, those colonists
will then learn, that this Parlian’ient, at this hour, have
decided this dispute, without knowing what the dispute was,
and without hearing the parties.
Looking, Sir, at the mhp, I see the river Ohio takes its
rise in a part of Pennsylvania, and runs through the pro‘
vince of Virginia; that, supposing myself walking down the
river, all the country to the right, which is at this moment
2. part of the province of Virginia, has been loppcd oil‘ from
this part, and becomes instead a part of Canada; for we
tell them, the instant they pass that river, which by the
terms of the charter they may pass, that matter is now for
ever at rest; the moment, say we, you get beyond that
river, you are in the condition in which this bill professes
to put Canada; the Indian finds himself out of the protec-
tion of that law under which he was bred. Sir, do we
treat the proprietors of the next province, Indiana, well?
Some of them are resident in this country. I apprehend, at
this very hour, they are unapprized of this hill to stop them.
To decide upon questions without exactly knowing whether
such questions are existing, is an obvious injustice.
As to extending the country, this is the inconvenience: it
is abundantly safer to have regular posts of arms from the
north to the south. . Forts maybe erected, and lawfully
erected; troops may he convened, and lawfully convened,
whenever there is occasion to use them, to take possession of
all the English colonies This seems to me to be a danger,
which this extent of territory threatens. These are the mis-

18 DEBATES on THE mm. [May 26,
chiefs; and I should be glad now to learn, what is the good
intended to he eflbcted by this extent of territory? The
noble lord says,-—-it is to comprise a. few straggling posts,
under seine form of government. If I should admit the neces-
sity of so comprising a few straggling posts, does it follow,
that this is a form of government fit to he estzthlishecl P Does
it follow, from any local reasons, why Canzula should be so
extensive? or that the English settlers should likewise be
involved? What objections are there to making more settle-
ments? VVhatever they are, they will he found trivial,
coinparecl to the consequence of involving this whole region
in this form of government.
However, let us see, Sir, what is the furnr of government,
for the sake of which this bill is to he s\1pp0rted. The
form of government is this. The ilonnan Catholic religion
is established by law. All the zwgunients urged by the
noble lord, tending to shew that, do jmie, the Roman
Catholics are entitled to a full toleration, I admit to be well
founded in law; hut does that imply, that the some tolera-
ticn should he given to them every where P Upon the last
part of the case, diii’e1~ent gentlemen may entertain different
opinions. My opinion of toleration is, tliat nothing can be
more impolitie than to give establishment to that veligion
which is not the religion of our own country. Among the
circumstances that unite countries, or divide countries, a
rlifierence in religion has ever been thought to be the prin-
cipal and leading one. The Catholic religion unites France,
but divides England. Without going further into the sub-
ject, it suffices for me to say, that the religion of England
seems to he prefemble to the religion of France, if your object
is to make this an English colony. When one sees that the
Roman Catholic religion is establislrecl by low, and that the
some law (loes not establish the Protestzmt religion, the
people are, of course, at liberty to choose which they like.
Permission is given to the governor, to do what he will with
the Protestant religion ; and this, to those who are gone
there in pursuanne of the proclmnzttion, may give €\lG0l\l‘agg..

1774] FOR TI-[E sovEm1M1tn’1‘ 01-‘ QUEBEC. 19
ment; but the hill gives them none, Are we, then, to
establish the Roman Catholic religion, and tolerate the
Protestant religion? I conceive so; for this Liistinction is
fountled in the terms of the hill.
The noble lord says, the free exercise of religion was
promised by the treaty of peace-—was promised by the pro-
clamation. Does the noble lorcl say, that this hill gives
them nothing more? If the noble lord will do me the
favour of casting his eye alittle down the same page, he
will see that the clergy of the Roman Catholic religion are
reinstated in all their accustomed rights and dues. What,
Six, are those accustomed rights and dues? I wish some
gentleman would do the House the favour to inform them,
what is the extent of the rights and dues of the Roman
Catholic clergy. I take leave to suppose that, under the
tienomination of Catholic clergy, the bishops’ rights and
dues are included. The noble lord says, there is no papal
jurisdiction. I wish to he told, what is the authority by
which he becomes a bishop? I know he becomes such by
consecration in France; but, in order to qualify him for
this present ofiice, the noble lord will be so good as to tell us
what the act appoints. We shall then he able to judge how
far he considers himself of papal oonstitution,or instituted by
government. Sure I am, if he is allowed to exercise this
right, he will be found to insist upon it.
But, Sir, the religion of the country is only one of the
various ohjeots which this bill professes to regulate and
establish, throughout this vast extent of territory. The
bill provides, that the laws of Canada. are to he in future
the laws of the country. As the bill first stood in the other
House of Parliament, it was not expressed whether the
laws were to he those of Canada or England. The
clause stood, with the omission of those words; but
Canada is new inserted, and all persons are henceforwarcl
to be subject to that law. As to all their civil rights,
the noble lord has informed us, that the criminal law of
England is to be preserved by this bill, agreeably to the
0 2

20 DEBATES on run BILL [l\Iay2G,
proclamation. But, Sir, is the criminal law alone that
on which we pride and value ourselves? Have we no
civil law, on which we pride and value ourselves P Is
there nothing at all in the constitution of England worth
pricling and valuing ourselves upon, but the mode of trying
criminals? Is that the single circumstance that makes the
English constitution valuable? This is new language to
me. If that is the idea of the noble lord, I wish him joy of
it; but, to (lo him justice, I believe he did not mean to be
so understood, in the largeness of the phrase. Wl’1oeve1′
may think the criminal laws are alone the valuable part of
this constitution, I beg leave to say, that the civil distribu-
tion of justice in this country is, in my apprehension, its
pride, its boast, and its glory; and that iris among the most
valuable rights that any country can enjoy. To my appre-
hension, the trial by jury is the best adapted for the inves-
tigation of truth-for the establishing of truth——for the
distributing equal justice-—0f any measure oi’ which the
annals of history have furnished us with any intelligence.
Young, Sir, as I am in my profession, I am old enough to
rernemher,—and it will for ever dwell in my recollection,
unless driven out by the principle which the noble lord has
endeavoured to establish-I am old enough to remember to
have heard, that the institution of juries began at a time, and
was adapted to a state of things and persons, very different
from the present. To find out the time, it is necessary to
contrast it with the trial by ordeal and the trial by battle.
VVill this earlier principle he avowecl now to he the principle
of the King’s lawyers in this House, or the Other House, or
in any house?
The honourable gentleman who opened the debate asked,
whence this bill came? He was only answered, that it came
from the House of Lords. I am glad it is imputable to any
house rather than our own. I believe no individual in this
House will own it. I believe that I shall not do injustice
to my learned friends opposite-—that I shall not be found a
false prophet-—when I take leave to say, that they will dis-

1774,] non ‘run oovmmmmr or ounnuc. 921
own it. But if, Sir, it was neither a measure of any man
in that House, nor in this House, does it come from the
Kings servants in the law department in Canada? No-
body respects them more than l clo; nobody knows them
better. I am persuarled, that the degree of respect in which
they are held clepencls upon the degree of knowledge which
all men have of them. But we are not left in the dark
upon that subject; for one of those gentlemen has com-
municated to the world his ideas upon the subject of this
bill ; and whoever has taken the pains to read his work will
have found, that nothing can be more diametrically opposite
to the hill, than the opinion that gentleman entertains upon
this subject. It is not proper for rne to ask~*it is not
proper for me to answer, even if I was asked myself-what
his opinions are; but I have goori authority for knowing
his opinions upon things in general. I know him to be
so good an Englishman, so good a lawyer, so good, so firm
at friend of this constitution, that for his sake I shall hope
the House will not suspect he has anything to (lo with
this business. From that congregate and aggregate hotly,
then, the House of Lords, this miscliief comes; but are we
to cherish it ? It is easy to see what treatment it will meet
with here. This proposed constitution for Canada does
this: it denies to English subjects the English birthright,
trial by jury. Sir, the most valuable of their civil rights
is taken from them by this bill. The honourable gentleman
near me‘ observes, that the Haheas Corpus is among those
civil rights. Is that among the laws of Canada ?——I do
not know what they are. I cannot put questions. I
cannot see any man here who would _be warranted in giving
me an answer, if I clici ask questions about those un-
known laws of Canada. We know, however, so much of
them, as to know that they are adopted from France. The
Canadians brought them from France; and is it not among
those laws, that the governor may issue a Zettre do cachet to
send away whom he pleases, to shut up whom he pleases?
I know lettres de cachet are issued against persons not

22 DEBATES nu run BILL [May 26,
charged of any crime; not even suspected of any: some reu-
sons have, notwithstanding, operated to make a man invisi-
ble for a time. This law of France I take to be transplanted
to Canada by this bill. By the laws of England, a man
may find his remedy : the laws of Habeas Corpus are among
the laws of England: they existed at common law; in some
instances, they are made more beneficial by the statute law.
But when the laws of Canada are looked to in order to
furnish redress, the same laws will, of course, refuse any
redress. Is this a. trifle, to leave the people of Canada. in a
situation, which any man who hears me would shudder to
be left in himself? VVhether this legislative council has
authority to add to the number of those la\\’s~—whetlier
those laws are the groundwork, as the noble lord says, in
conformity with which, according to the plan sent to them,
this legislative council is expected to make new laws, in
the spirit and temper of the old ones–I trust that those
gentlemen who are new sending to Canada, to a district of
this immense extent, a constitution of this nature, will not
he found to furnish arguments in favour, either of abolish-
ing; the trial by jury, or of establishing the laws of France.
lsee also, that this country is henceforward to he go-
verned by a. legislative council, consisting of seventeen at
least, and not more than twenty-three. The governor may
make and unniake his creatures, as they become fit tools for
his purpose. They will therefore at all times, while in their
senses, be solicitous and anxious in encleavouring to guard
against incurring his displeasure. The minister has nothing
to do but issue his order: those individuals have nothing to
do hut obey. He will {ind the inhabitants at his disposal;
because the inhabitants who are at his disposal are creatures
of the minister. In my apprehension, Sir, if the King re-
mained. the sole legislator of the country, the condition of it
would be better than when the governor is put in his place to
exercise that power.–[I-IcreMr. Dunning pauserlalong time]
I should have been sorry to have forgotten the avowecl
purpose of bringing in this bill. It is no less than to exer-

1774,] non run GOVEXRNMENT or oumnnc. 23
cise, by assuming, for the purpose of exercising it, the
dispensing power: which, hitherto, is claimed only by the
great pontitf, the pope. We are to take his place; we are to
regulate, model, dispense with the Kings conscience. The
King, thirteen years ago, gave a constitution. The King,
upon that occasion, gave encouragement to future settlers.
Though the King is said to be the sole legislator, it is :1
strange inconsistency, that he should he hampered by his
own legislation. Some doubts have arisen upon this part
of the case, for w-amt of looking fouvarcl; and the conse-
quence is, when any temporary inconvenience arises, then a
breach of the Kings—a breach of the King‘s
compact, is talked of: but is it fit, is it decent, that the
King’s word should be brought into question? But some-
body else should do it for him ! The King would be thought
to act an unbecoming part if, in violation of his promise,
he were to take from them their former constitution, and
give them a different one; but it is proper enough for Par-
liament to do that ! Sir, how comes this to be so? Have
gentlemen at precedent to produce, to prove that it is
proper for Parliament to do it, and not proper for the
King himself to do it? But is it not, at the same time,
fit that the promise should be kept? Ought you not, upon
the principle of strict justice, to make some provision for
persons coining to the place upon promise that the English
laws should be continued, who find out that they have got
into a country governed by at despotism ;-that they have
got into a country where the religion they carried with them
has no establishment P-~tha1: they have got into a country
where they are to wander throughout an immense extent
of territory, or to find their way back again as they can;
which they will do, when they consider the treatment they
are to meet with if they remain there?
Sir, the bill professes ostensible good, but is pregnant
with ostensible mischief. It is not adopted or avowed by
any body, abroad or at home. All the answer the honourable
gentleman received to his question was, “this is a bill

M DE1!A‘l‘ES on rue 1211.1. [M3,-26,
that caule from the House of Lords.” If that circumstance
alone is a suflicicnt reason for passing it, without any argu-
ment, to be sure the bill is so far entitled to the concurrence
of this House ; but if something more like a reason is
thought necessary, I shall he glad to hear it; I shall be
glad to have a ground to change my opinion. Until then,
Sir, I shall certainly give this bill a decided negative.
The Attorney-Gmteml.(1?-I do not rise to avow or dis-
avow any thing. I should think I flattered myself’ if 1 pre-
sumed, in case I had drawn every line of the bill, that that
circumstance would go any way to recommend it to the con-
sideration of the House ; much less do I hope to change the
opinion of either of my honourable and learned friends who
have spoken upon the subject ; because, when they have told
you they oppose the second reading, they have not acquainted
the House with any measure, either of policy or justice,
which they would substitute in the place of it: and yet I
flatter myself it would require very little argument to eon-
vinee us, that something ought to be done upon the present
Occasion. But the honourable gentlemen have gone a conside-
rable way beyond the question immediately before us; for, not
confining themselves to that question ,they have anticipated the
business, and have gone to new arguments for new-forming
the bill, which do not apply against reading it a second time,
hut rather for it. Sir, I will follow them so far as to state
to the House, and endeavour to answer, the objections they
have urged. The honourable gentlemen complain, that the
bounds of Canada extend a great way beyond what they
were acknowledged to do formerly, and that it was pecu-
liarly bad policy, as far as regarded the French, to give the
limits so great an extension. Now, the House will remem-
(‘) Edwztrd Thurlow, esq. I-Ie was appointed solicitor-general in l\’Im~ch
1’7’/0; zntorney»generul in June 17″/l; and, in June 1778, succeeded Lord
Apsley us lord high chancellor of England, and on the same day was raised
to the pcernge by the title of Lord ‘l‘hurlo\v,of Ashfield, Suffolk. He re-
signed in April 1788, but was re-appointed in the following Deceinber, on
Mr. Pitt’s being noniinatetl prime minister. On his final resignation in
17932, he was created Lord Thuilow of Thurlmv, in Suffolk. He died in I806.

her, that the whole of Canada, as we allowed it to extend,
was not included in the proclamation; that the bounds
were not cc-equal with it as it stood then, and that it is
not included in the present act of Parliament, if that were
But I will not, Sir, consider it as the province that for-
merly belonged to France, nor as called by the same name:
it is a new scheme of a constitution adapted for a. part of
the country, not that part only which was under French
government, but embracing many other parts of great
extent, which formerly were not actually under French
government, but were certainly occupied, in difi-‘event parts,
by French settlers, and French settlers only. The honour-
able gentlemen are mistaken if they suppose that the bounds
described embrace, in point of fact, any English settlement.
I know of no English settlement embraced by it. I have
heard a great deal of the commencement of English settle-
ments; buj,as far as I have read, they all lie on the other
side of the Ohio. l know, at the same time, that there have
been, for nearly a century past, settlements in <1ifl”erent parts of all this tract, especially the southern parts of it, and to the eastern bounded by the Ohio and Mississippi; but with regard to that part, there have been different tracts of French settlements established, as far as they are inhabited by any but Indians. I take those settlements to have been altogether‘ French; so that the objections cer- tainly want foundation. VVith regard‘ to the east, there is no doubt hut the bounds of those parts are extended largely ; and that the laws by which they are proposed to be governed are calculated either fona country perfectly set- tled, which is not the case of that country at present to the South, or they are calculated to carry that degree of control and authority which is necessary. As to the settlements that lie to the south, in order to prevent the inconvenience of uncontrolled settlement, in that view I have heen persuaded to think the extent of this province may be a political and at proper measure; but with respect to_the circumstance of $6 DEBATES on THE nun may 26, the French founding any claim upon it, I confess it is a notion more refined than my understanding will embrace. My notion is, that in the state they were in, they weie nearer to this country, and their claim against the length of that extent depends upon no other circumstance whatever. It is undoubtedly true, if you read the French history, that the bounds prescribed neither are, nor ever were, the hounds of the province of Canada, as stated by the French; and, therefore, the argument itself is not a proper one to proceed upon. But, Sir, let us consider it in a point of view more serious. Let us considerit established as an English pro- vince. The House has been told, that this hill trenches eon- siderably upon the claim of other chartered provinces. I do not pretend to be extremely familiar with their hounds, but I apprehend Pennsylvania has never been stated by any of its proprietors to go one acre of land within the precincts of this new province. VVith regard to other chartered governments, there is no doubt that various contests to the north of Pennsylvania have arisen upon their bounds; and this has been stated, and allowed by his Majesty in his privy council ; which, I suppose, was the occasion of intro- ducing the phrase in this part of the bill. VVith regard to the more southern part of the country, I do not take it that Virginia has ever made a single claim within more than a hundred miles of the bounds preseiihed for the present pro~ vince. The most extensive claim I ever heard oi’, went to what is called the Endless Mountains, just in a. nook of the province of Virginia. I lmow of none that ever pretended to exweed that, nor ever heard that some new settlements which were applied for, between those mountains and the Ohio, have ever been looked upon as an invasion of the rights of those who have claims upon the province of Virginia. With regard, Sir, to the rest of the inconveniences: we have been told, that this hill proposes to take from our fel1o\v~sub_jccts of Canada a, constitution, which has already been given, and to place them under a despotism, unfit to 1774,] F01! run GOVE!LNI\i’E:~}T or‘ Qumznc. Y6”! he established in any province belonging to Great Britain. The articles mentioned in support of this assertion me, the religion and civil law of the Canadians‘ being established at Quebec, and the political government formerly in Ganada being continued there. I will say one word,if the House will indulge me, as to the taking away the right formerly given. Canada was a country that had been held by the French for above twohund red years before our conquest of it. It had been taken from the people of Fiance by the King of France, and put under his inainedizete government, for alxzrve a hundred years before it was uxktm by our people. At the time of the conquest, with 1%0,000 souls, if I recollect right, there were about one hundred and fifty of those o€ the order of noblesse. The original form, not of the govern~ xnent, that is not said, but the original form of civil justice, under which they lived (using the word “civil” in the largest sense, for it took in both civil and criminal law), was taken from them ; hut there was very little of the law eon- tained in” the Parisian hook carried over to the country. The reason is exceedingly obvious, because, in the establish- ment of a country totally new, differing in all pa1’ticulzu’s from the country of old France, it would have been the most enor- mous of all cruelties to have carried over =1. law, from the meridian of Paris, in order to put it into immediate execution in ztraw, unformed province. So much as was carried over appears to have received very considerable alteration from the legislature which the King of France established there. The legislature consisted of the governor and of the council, which they called the superior council, and in which the intendant of police bore a principal part. Beyond the authority which he had as zt magistiate, and as the president of the council, he had great independent authority in making laws of police; he had great independent authority in being sole judge of all causes that related to the revenue; and under that establish- ment the province remained for ninety or one hundred years, before it was taken by the English. VVhcn it was taken, gentlemen will he so good as to recollect upon what terms %8 DEDATES on THE BILL [May 26, it was taken. Not only all the French who resided there had eighteen months to remove, with all their moveahle effects, and such as they could not remove, they were enabled to sell; but it was expressly stipu- lated, that every Canadian should have. the full enjoy- ment of all his property, particularly the religious orders of the Canadians, and that the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion should be continued. And the definitive treaty of pence, if you examine it as far as it re- lates to Canada, by the cession of the late King of France to the Crown of Great Britain, was made in favour of pro~ perty; made in favour of religion; made in favour of the several religious orders. In this situation it was, that the Crown of this country was called upon to form a constitu- tion for Canada: yet, something has been thrown out, as if it was a favourite idea of certain men of this country, that the Crown should be considered as the legislator of a country newly conquered. I will not run through all the autliorities, and all the arguments, which are conimoxrplaee upon the subject; but I have always considered the English consti- tution, upon that point, to be this,—that what was con- quered by the arms of England acceded to the English sovereign, which is as much as to say, to the King, Lords, and Commons of England. I have always understood, also, that it was under that authority, and in conformity with the rule and measure of law, that in every instance, through every period of English history, the King has given to newly-conquered countries their constitution; sub- ject to he corrected by the joint interposition of the King, Lords, and Commons of this country; and that such con- stitution might be retbrmerl, by correcting the ill advice, if any ill advice had been given, under which the King had acted, in giving them a constitution, upon the event, and at -the moment, of the conquest. Then, Sir, the question ocours-—upon the conquest of this country, what was it incumbent to advise the King to do with respect to it? I have heard a great deal of the history |774.]’ FOR THE GOVERNMENT or oumme. 29 of the famous proclamation of 1765 ; which, though not an act of Parliament, fares pretty much as ill as this proposed act appears to do; for I think it meets with nobody to avow it. The proclamation certainly gave no order what- ever with respect to the constitution of Canada. It cer- tainly, likewise, was not the finished composition of a very considerable and respectable person, whom I will not name, but went unfinished from his hands, and remained a good while unfinished in the hands of those to whom it was con- signed afterwards. It professed to take’ no care of the consti- tution of Canada: it states all the acquisitions, both of the peopled countries and barren territories–the latter being many hundred times larger than the former#which were made in the course of the last war ; and, speaking of them all in ‘general, it declares to manldnd, that his Majesty thought proper to divide them into certain distinct and separate go- vernments; that it was in his Majesty’s contemplation to give them a constitution, like that which had been given to the other colonies, as soon as the circumstances of the colony would admit of it; and it promised to settlers, expressly to invite them to settle, that, in the mean time, they should have the benefit of the laws of England. So ran the proclamation. Now, Sir, st proclamation conceived in this general form, and applied to countries the most distant, not in situation only, but in history, character, and constitution, from each other, will scarcely, I believe, be considered as a very well studied act of state, but as necessary immediately after the conquest. But, however proper that might be “with respect to new parts’ of such acquisitions as were not peopled before, yet, if it is to he considered according to that per- verse eonstruction of the letter of it; if it is to he considered as creating an English constitution; if it is to be considered as importing English laws into a country already settled, and habitually governed by other laws, I take it to be an act of the grossest and absurdest and cruelest tyranny, that a conquering nation ever practised over a conquered coun- try. Look baclt, Sir, to every page of history, and I defy 50 1>mm’res ow THE BILL [May 26,
you to produce a single instance, in which a conqueror
went to take :1-way from £2 conquered province, by one rough
stroke, the whole of their constitution, the whole of their
laws under which they lived, and to impose a new idea of
right and wrong, of which they could not discern the means
or the end, but would find themselves at 41 loss, and be at
an expense g1’eaier than individuals -could afl’or<i, in orrler to inform themselves whether they were right or~wrong_ This was a sort of cruelty, which, I believe, was never yet prac- tised, and never ought to be. My notion, with mzgard to this matter, I will venture to throw out as crude and general. To enter into the subject fully, would require more discussion than the nature of such a debate as this will admit of. My notion is, that it is a. change of sovereignty. You acquired a. new country; you acquired o. new people; but you do not state the right of conquest, as giving you a right to goods and chattels. That would be slavery and extreme misery, In order to make the acquisition either available or secuize, this seems to be the line that ought to he followed–you ought To change those laws only which relate to the French sovereignty, and in their place suhsti— tute laws which should relate to the new sovereign; but with respect to all other laws, all other customs and insti- tutions whatever, which are indiflkrent to the state of subjects and sovereign, humanity, justice, and wisdom equally conspire to advise you to leave them to the people just as they were. Their happiness depends upon it; their flllegifllllce to their new sovereign depends upon it. Sir, “\vl1a.t happened at the conquest? This proclamation being sent out in the manner mentioned, was not addressed to the Canadians. If it he true, that his Majesty may,a:eor1ling to the principle of law, or pursuant to the history Of the law, of this country, universally and lJ1’1l£0l’H1ly–(i2li€‘\‘€ is not an exception to the contrary)–give new laws to the con- try, in what manner is that to he clone ?—-By an instrument not addressed to them? By an instrument, so far from adding anything to their laws, not mentioning them? But, 1774,] rm: rrm GOVERNMENT 01> Q.UFJiEC. 3’1
it is said, they generally did unclerstand, that such should he
their constitution, without -reference to them in particular.
I wish gentlemen would go hack to the proclamation in 1763,
and I would ask them from what expression it is, that either
the Canadians can discover or English lawyers advance, that
the laws of Canada were gll algsglutglyj repealed, and that ca
new system of justice, as well as a new system of Consti-
tution, was by that instrument introciucecl. Sir, the con-
sequence of that proclamation was, that commissions were
granted to the governor, in the manner they were granted
to the governor of New York on a former occasion. The
difi’erence hetwecn the establishment of New York and
the establishment of Canada was, as the difl”erence of 1,700
and 120,000. It is true, there was likewise a comm-ission
of admiralty given in the English form; and a varielyof
other articles, known to antiquaxiztns, not known in Can-atlas
There was also :1 connnission of oyer and terminier. The
honourable and learned gentleman who spoke last rnade
an objection to all the present existing com-
missions. I do not know whether it had occurred to him
to read the present existing commissions. If it had, 1 think
he would not hesitate much upon repealing them; because
the general commissions of oyer and terminer, &c. are tern”-
pmary. The other commissions are, one G0 the court of
Kings Bench, and another to the court ofCo1nm0n Pleas.
The commission to the court of Kings llcncli is to inquire,
by the oath of good and lawful men of the country, into all
crimes, causes of actions, and upon issue ; jumbling together
the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the country. They
were framed, I believe, in Canada, How they came to be
so framed, I cannot imagine. The first thing discovered
was, that rthey were impracticable; not only iinpmctiwble
with respect to the people, but impracticable with respect to
the commissions themselves. The people were so ignorant,
not only of the form of our law, but with respect to personal
actions, that it was totally impossible to execute them. If
any dispute arose, there was no instance of the Canadians

82 nlrisnrns on 11111: zntr. ‘ [May 26,
resorting to the English courts ofjustiee; but they referred
it among themselves, for among themselves only could they
find any idea of what they had been used to. I would ask
any gentleman, whether, if the thing had heen done accord-
ing to some men’s opinions, they could have atllicted any
country with a. greater curse, than an intricate system of laws,
which they could not understand the terms or meaning of?
‘With regard to the criminal law of the country, in the
first place, it is more simple, in the next place it is more
compulsory; so they (lid, in point of fact, find their own
way. The first thing that happened which I recollect in
the history of Quebec, \vas,5that’the grand jury desired to
have all the accounts of the province laid before them ; and,
in the next place, there \v’ere some very laudable, good Pro-
testants among them, \vho clesirecl that the Popery laws
should be carried fully into execution. They lodged a
general presentment against all the inhabitants of the co-
lony for being Papists.
VVith regard to the civil laws, the whole was overturned.
In their tenures, when any man found himself wronged by
the French laws, he went to an English attorney, to know
how to get rightecl. If wronged by the English laws, he
was told, that a proclamation was no law. T he consequence
Was, that the King lost all profit from tenures; and in many
other articles, such as transmutatiorrof property, they were
unwilling, because they had not the benefit of English laws,
to pay any thing to the King.
The state of confusion the country was reduced to, and
individuals were reduced to, was beyond all manner of dc»
scription. In this situation they remained uncorrected
during all this compass of time; and now the present bill is
uphraided, because it does not adopt a trial by jury, which
necessarily includes the form of English actions, in a case
where it would he destructive to the peace and happiness of
the country. If it would make them happy, undoubtedly
let us give them English laws. If the English laws would
be a prejudice to them, it would he absurd tyranny and

177/1-.] FOR TLUE novnrtimmnr or Qunuicc. 88
barharity to carry over all the laws of this country, by
which they would lose the comfort of their property, and in
some cases the possession of it. As far as that goes, I con-
sider it merely as a gift of the conqueror to the conquered
people, whom he does not mean to treat cruelly. The cri~
minal law stands as in England. I have observed many
things exceedingly strong which have, in my poor opinion,
prejudiced the Canadians against the bill; but as to the
criminal law, it is certainly liable to none of the objections
now urged.
The next article is with regard to religion. To take
away religion is what nobody wishes. “That is to be sub-
stituted in the place of it? Why, a general toleration, says
my learned friend, without any kind of establishment; or if
an establishment, that oi‘ the church of England; or that
the church of England should at least go paid passu with
the church of Rome. Taking it in either of those views, I
fairly own, I differ very much in opinion with regarcl to the
law of this country. By the first of Elizabeth, I take it
that there is no reason whatever, why the Roman Catholic
religion should not have been exercised in this country as
well as in that: confining it entirely to that act, I lmow no
reason to the contrary. The 37th article of our religion
speaks in such language; that the poorest Roman Catholic,
who had any sense, might use it just as much as the warmest
Protestant; for the language by the act, and article, is only
this, that no foreigner whatever should have any jurisdiction,
power, or authority within the realm : but there is nothing
in the act to prevent a man believing the infallibility of
Popcry, if he thinks proper to believe it. It may refer to
any church in the known world. I take the act of parlia-
ment to be purely declaratory of that which is the law-of
that which must be the law, in every sovereign state uncler
heaven. Then as to the right of the clergy to their dues;
the right of the bishop to his dues-~these rights do not ex-
tend to his ecclesiastical functions; they extend only to that
maintenance which he was possessed of before, and which was

54< DEBATES on THE mm. [May 26,
small enough before. In lieu of tithe, there was a thirteenth
paid to the clergy. The bishop has always lived in a semi-
nary: the see was not suflieient, in point of effects, to
tain him: but observe in what manner his rights are reserved.
They are reserved to be exercised only with relation to
sueh as choose to be Catholics. Nobody is compelled to be
a Catholic: they are rather invited not to be Catholics, by
having an exemption held out to them. If that he the suf-
ficient performance of the stipulation in the treaty of peace,
and if the country is ready to accept of it co nomine, gentle-
men should make no objection to it. It is the very least
that could have been given either to humanity or justice;
considering them as having stipulated for that religion at
the time. If I ha/<1 had to prescribe what was to be given
them, I should, instead of stripping the Roman Catholics
of their religion, which was the religion of all temporal and
all judicial authority, have thought myself bound in con-
science ancl humanity to have allowed the religion, with one
degree more of establishment, if it must be called establish-
ment; I mean with one degree more of maintenance than it
had before.
The next objection is that which relates to the governor
and council. I could wish that those gentlemen who object
to the legislature would be pleased to substitute something
in the place of it. I have never yet heard the most san-
guine‘ of those who desire to assimilate the government of
Canada. to the constitution of Great Britain say, it is fit to
give the Canadians a governor, eouneil, and assembly; but
if it is not fit, what kind of government would you reserve
for them, preferable to the one chalked out by the bill
before us? Do not let us amuse ourselves with aggra-
vating the possible consequences which may befall the
wisest constitution in the world. But how is it to lee car-
ried into execution? Wliy, by drawing as many of the
Canadians as it is possible to do with safety to the sove-
reignty of Canada, into that assembly; by making‘ it a
somewhat better thing than the form of their present con~

stitution. At present, it consists of at governor and council,
with authority to nnake laws, which do not affect the life
or limbs of any person; in which every law that has been
thought necessary has been brought under a doubt, by the
form in which the authority is conveyed; for if they are
enabled to make only such laws as do not ailhct the life 01‘
limbs of any person, what law does not come within one of
those bounds? It is meant to give them a more active
constitution. It is confessed, on all hands, that this is
essentially necessary, and that it is impracticable to put it
in the form which other gentlemen seem to wish.
VVitl1 regard to the question asked by the honourable gen-
tleman, whether this is to be a permanent constitution P–
whether it is wished there should be so rough a form of
government established in any English provineewhatever P-1
can only say, that unless the present government he not only
objected to, but the objection so stated as to point out some
period of tiine in which it is fancied to be right to create
the assembly which is now confessed to be wrong, I do not
see how it would be possible, with the fullest purpose of
doing it, to assinlilzste that constitution, in point of form, to
this. But it is to be assimilated by a new clause, to be
added to the present hill! If you were to give them a
very short duration of time, every body knows that the
same argument against assemblies would go to the short
time to he prefixed. If the idea were to make the law to
last from period to period, from three years to three years,
is that the method of treating the country P-—giving them
no hopes of permanence? But if you do not fix the time,
they will not look upon this to be the constitution, nor be
anxious to assimilate with it! VVhen gentlemen apply the
word “ as-sinnila_.tion ’° to religion, to law, to civil laws, and
to manners, I can easily conceive it is not an undesirable
object in policy, that they should be so far assimilated. To
a certain (legret-, I can conceive that the government of the
country, under the present constitution, will look upon it
to be their duty to assimilate the people in language, man~
\ 1: 2

86 DEBATES on THE mm. [May 26,
ners, and every other respect in which they can he expected
to hold a more intimate co_nnexion. But when that assimi-
lation is proposed to be carried into the law~forin of the
constitution, I cannot conceive the form of the British coir
stitution, as it at stands at present, proper for them. Upon
this main principle, you ought to make a repartition of the
sovereignty of the country between the King and the people,
of whom 558 are to be elected :1 parliament. On this prin~
ciple, the sovereignty of this country was intended to
reside, and does, in fact, reside there. But do you mean to
vest the sovereignty of the province, either by repartition
or otherwise, in any other place than in the House of Lords
and Commons of Great Britain ? Yet, if you follow your
assimilztting idea, you must do that. I only know that
none of the charters intended it. It is impossible for the
King to have done it-to have created the sovereign authority
of governor, council, and assembly, in any one of the pro-
vinces. In point of fact, they have considered themselves,
in more views than I wish to draw into debate, masters of the
sovereign power. Is their money to he applied to support
the British empire? Are their forces to be applied to the
support of the British empire? Are they content that
the King. Lords, and Commons of Great Britain shall be
the judges of the <:lra.\ving forth of those forces, and the
applying of that money to the protection of the British
empire? I think I drew at degree of attention and convic-
tion, when I stated it as an absurdity, that the sovereignty
of the province should be divided between the governor,
council, and assembly ; and to be sure it is a grossness,—-
it is making two allied kingdoms, totally out of our power,
to act as at federal union if they please, and if they do not
please, to act as an independent country–at federal condi-
tion pretty near the condition of the states of Germany.
If you do not like that idea, in all the extent, in all the
grossness of it, would yon create a constitution in such rt
(‘use which would make it, in fact, the very thing you cleny
in words? *

1774.] rort Tlllt GOVERNMENT o1~‘~<w1<:nuc. 37
The next thing that has been said is, that Englishmen
carry over their constitution along with them ; and in that
respect it is a hard measure to take from them any of the
Ennrlish laws they carry over with them. Iv no more
.undberstand this proposition, especially as applied to the
present subject, than I do the former. Wlien the Crow-n
of Great Britain makes :1. conquest of any foreign established
country, if it be true that it is an article of humanity and
justice to leave the country in possession of their laws, then,
I say, if any English resort to the country, they do not
carry the several ideas of laws that are to prevail the moment
they go there: it would be just as wise to say, if an English-
man goes to Guernsey, the laws of the city of London were
carried over with him. To take the laws as they stand
has been allowed ; to act according to those laws, and to be
hound by their coercion, is a natural consequence. In this
view, I thinl{the bill has clone nothing obnoxious. I_h:\-ve
no speculative opinions. I would have consulted the French
habit to a much greater extent, if it hzul been for me to have
framed the law.
Colonel Brm’é..<1>–I do not rise, Sir, to follow the learned
gentleman through the course of his argument. Imean to take
up as little of the time of the House as possible. Ido not flatter
myself that any‘ questions I shall take the liberty to ask the
gentlemen on the other side of the House are likely to be an-
swered, as those answers were refused to the h0no\11’ahle gen-
tleman -near me, and likewise to the learned gentleman on the
same bench; but as I certainly shall give my vote against
this bill, I will ofl’er my reasons for so doing, if the House
will give me leave, in as short and concise a manner as I
am able. The parts of the hill I shall object to are those
which relate to the King’s proclamation, the establishing
the law of France, the establisliing the religion of I“r-,\nce,
(‘) Colonel Isaac Barre was, at this time, member for Wycomhe, Ilc
was dangerously \vcun(1ed at the taking of Quebec, uml, in West’s picture
of the tleath of Wolfe, is rcprescnterl as one ofa group of olllcers collected
round the expiring general. Under Lurtl Clmtlnnu’s allministration, jn
1766, he filled the situation of vice-treasurer of lrelzxnd.

88 ‘l)EB.~\’l‘ItS on TI-IE mm, [l\l1\y2G,
and, lastly, Sir, the establishing this new legislative body
that is to be formed in the colony»
Sir, the honourable and learned gentleman who spoke last
has thought proper to gives short, but very imperfect, and for
ought I know, :1 very incorrect, history of this proclamation.
He says it was left in an ofilco; it was left a sketch, and
that sketch was unfinished; it was left by one ‘noble lord,
and taken up by another, who thought proper to make
considerable additions to it. The honourable and learned gen-
tleman seems to be very much displeased with this procla-
mation. He has reasoned against it in difi’erent parts, and
stated divers inconveniences in it. I cannot help observing,
that the honourable and learned gentleman seems to be more
solicitous upon this occasion than the conquered inhabitants
of that country, and, in some measure, more than those who
have been the conquerors of it. This proclamation, Sir,
gave at certain lbrm to the colony. It provided, that the
inhabitants should have an assenibly, as well as all the other
royal governments, as soon as possible. The proclamation
held out this language, that “ until such assemblies could
be called, all persons inhabiting in, or resorting to, the said
colonies, might confide in the royal protection for the enjoy-
ment of the benefit of the laws of England.” Under this pro-
clamation, thus helcl out as a solemn act to the people of that
country, many Englishmen went, and settled in the heart
of Canada: but their rights, their privileges, were not
thought worthy of the honourable and learned gerrtlemaifs
consideration ; he stood up only in defence of the Canadians:
but there is a very consitlerable number of men, no matter
of what (lescription-—they may have been poor bankrupts,
but they are English subjects, who have settled there under
the faith of this proclamation. The honoumble and learned
gentleman was not precise in stating the limits of our colonies.
He seemed unwilling for the House to think that any one
of the colonies, especially Pennsylvzmia and Virginia, had a
right to settle beyond the Endless Mountains; as if the lio-
noumble and kgrned gentleman could be ignorant of the

1774] FOR rue GOVERNMl~JN‘l‘ 0F quinine. 39
fact, that many thousands of English subjects are established
some hundred miles beyond the Endless Mountains, llpflfl the
very spot which you are now going to make a part of this
country of Canada.
Sir, with respect to the Canadians themselves, the learned
gentleman asks-~\vhat would you do with them? \v0uld you
do the cruelest thing that ever was done to any conquered
nation upon earth? would you take away their laws, their
customs? Now, Sir, I never yet knew it was found a.
grievance to any nation, to give them the English laws, the
English constitution. So for from it, the Canadians admired
and revered those laws, as far as they could be made
acquainted with them. If it is doubted, I have an evidence
to produce–the honourable and learned gentleman himself‘.
He says, “what did they do when their grand jury met?
they called for their accounts, the public accounts. They
likewise wished to put in execution the Popery laws.” Could
there be any stronger proof in the world, that they knew the
value of those laws? The criminal laws you have thought
proper to give them; hut you have not given them all.
To my certain knowledge, they wish to have the Habeas
Corpus. You have retained the civil law. WVhat you will
ai’ter\va\‘ds do to get theluw administered, is to me incom-
prehensible. The civil law of the country stands founded
upon what is called the custom of Paris. Thirty folio
volumes of that custom those learned gentlemen are to make
themselves mztsters of, and lay open to you, instead of
making‘ the English law the basis of their constitution. If
any customs, or any particular laws, are applicable to the
people of that country, take those customs and laws, and
graft them upon” the law -you give them. Mr. Museres has
stated his opinion to you. It is in the hands of the public.-
hut you have not followed his advice. My honourable friend
wishes an estahlishmentof a. difilzrent kind : others think the
establishing such a government as this is right. One law of
illherittmce the Canadians complain of 2 the court of I~‘ranoe
has coinplainetl of it, and once attempted to correctit. It is

4:0 I)E73A’L‘ES on THE BILL {Miy 26,
that which the learned gentleman knows to be a custom
with them; namely, the quantum taken for the crown upon
the alienation of any estate; they wish to get rid of that.
In short, if you had led them with any address, by degrees
they would have received great part of the English law:
they would have hugged it to their bosoms; they would,
from time to time, have abolished stated customs» end» by
this time, you would have assimilated them to your c0nsti~
tution, and not left them standing single, as Catholics, under
an arluitrary power.
Another thing I wish to notice. Has there been any
application from the country ? any complaint of all this chaos
which the honourable gentleman has complained oi? No:
there is no complaint. The principal people of the country
are of a very particular east; they take a. liking–—ihis I
know to he the fact——they~tal think they ha-ve as good a right to have assoinlolies as any
other colony on the continent It is strange, if they like
this constitution, that you will not give them all the benefit
and advantage of it. They ask for it :, and when I say
they ask for it, I do not mean to say that they have made any
application in form to the court here, but they have stated
their wishes to the governor there. VVhy not let them have
assemblies? But it is said, they are not ripe for assein~
blics! Government has, to he sure, made use of the same
argument to induce them to drop that idea. It was said,
“ l)on’t you see very plainly, that the colonies upon the
continent hove all of them assemblies? Don’t you see they
are quarrelling with their King? If you have an assembly,
you will probably he in the same situation.” Now, a
quarrel with their King, to the Canadians, is reckoned worse
than any vengeance that can be poured upon them. ‘l‘hey
will not he:1r<>f any thing that would put them upon had
terms with their King. The rnethotl that T should have
thought most natural, is the method recommended by
Mr. Maseres, \vhi<~,h was, by clegrees to introduce what is
proper in your laws, and to let what is proper in the French
laws remain with them.

1774] FOIL THE GOVEItNMEN’l‘ or ounxme. A1
You have deterininecl to establisli, by this bill, the Roman
Catholic religion: by this bill the Roman Catholic religion
has its establishment. Sir, it is very singular how this poor
Roman Catholic religion has been treated: in lVlaryland it
has been tolerated, in Ireland perse<:uteLl, in Canada. you
choose to give it an 9Si£tl)llSl1lll€llC- I do not mean to say
you ought to strike at their religion. I think you ought to
give it them within certain bounds.
The next thing I shall consider, is/the extent you have
given to this province. One would imagine there was some
secret purpose in this business, which has not yet come out;
and I exceedingly susnect there was, but I shall not touch
upon it; “ sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.” But
I cannot find out, from any thing the noble lord has said,
or from any thing the learned gentleman has said, why this
country should take this wonderful shape. The learnecl
gentleman near me has put sundry pertinent questions,
which have not been answered. VVhat my opinion is,I
will state as shortly as I can. You would not take the
shape given to Canada by the proclamation; you wish it to
go further. It was, says the noble lord, -necessary to take
in, and to annex, the scattered posts in the neighbourhood of
Detroit and Lake Michigan. If the noble lord will he so
goocl as to look at the map, he will find he could l’ taken
in every one of those posts, and never thrown out any doubt
about the shape of Canada; at the same time that all that
part between the lake and the Ohio would have been kept
out by this bill; and all the purposes of the bill, except
the reference to settling upon the Ohio, would have been
answered by his taking thért boundary. If there had been
any doubt, what would have removed that doubt would
have been looking at the course pursued between the
English and French negociators, when the French offered
to withdraw from that part of the country which they
had taken possession of on the south of the Ohio, and
retire to the north side, making that river the bountiztry of
the eolony. The English ministers said: “ No; we will
not submit to those terms; they are not the boundaries;

4% DIJBATES on THE mm. [May 26,
the river St. Lmvreilce and the lakes are our boundary; we
will agree to no other.” Their language now is: “ the
river St. Lawrence is the centre, not the frontier; we will
not be deprived of our property in the country.” And yet
the noble lord has thought proper to take this shape of the
country, which may, as the learned gentleman has observed,
upon some subsequent occasion, prove a very strong argu-
ment in negoeiating, when perhaps the success of our arms
is not so favourable: your own act of parliament will he
stated against you, as fixing the limits of Canada. As to
the eastern boundary, we are totally left in the dark. I
cannot, for one, make sense of it. No one gentleman has
thought proper to answer, why the noble lord has taken this
sweep for North America. He runs a frontier at the back
of almost all our capital settlements: hut why Canada
should go so olose to all our frontiers, leaving the English
“slavery” behind them, I cannot conceive. I suspect some~
thing behind which has not yet -come out.
The next thing I shall take the liberty to mention is,
that this council, chosen by the governor, is to he suspended,
and removable by him. It has been said, you have taken
no measure to make a quorum, to say what is a hoard: hut
give me leave to tell you, from my friends, the Canadians,
that the governor may summon every one of those persons, or
seventeen of them ; and yet he may give them to understand
he does not wish to see them. In that case, not a man
to whom such a hint was given would dare to show himself:
to be well at court, with them, is every thing, and the
court is at present the governor. Ido not mean to say,
that such a thing is likely to arise from the conduct of the
governor there; but I have more apprehension from :1
wicked measure when I see an honest man is put at the
-head of it. I should be less alarmed at seeing this measure
proposed, if he were recalled, and an unprincipled man
placed at the head. This last proposition alarms me the
‘more, because the noble lord declares, and some other gem
-tlemcn say the same, that this bill is to be perpetual. A

l774.:l FOR ‘FEE GOVl<‘|ltNMh§N’l‘ OF QUEBEC. 4’3
‘learned gentleman near me wishes it to be temporary. Now, if
there is any part of the bill that ought to be temporary, it is
this; and with respect to the law of Canada, with respect to
the religion of Canada, they are two very important matters.
It is not very easy to make a change in the establishment of
them. \’Vith respect to religion, it is impossible to do it;
hut with respect to this arbitrary power it is possible, unless
you mean to say, they shall be slaves to the end of time.
Though you have taken great pains to defeat the purpose
of settlers, yet if the Canadians should give up their con-
science a little, and accept of your religion, which is possible
as many English are settled there, and you should wish to
give them a legislature, by making this bill perpetual you
never can do it. I may be told, that the committee is the
fproperest stage in which to vcliseuss the bill. Certainly, we
are now not a full house; hut perhaps not half the present
number of members maybe here next day this bill is taken
into consideration; and for that reason I throw out these
observations. I am afraid I have detained the house too
long. I have stated, very loosely, the objections I have to
the bill. I have more to urge, but 1 do not choose to men-
tion them in so thin a house. One thing I would say-—-that
I look upon this measure as bad in itself, and as leading to
something worse; that I foresee it will not contribute to the
peace of the country for which it is intended; and that it
carries in its breast something that squints and looks dan-
gerous to the inhabitants of our other colonies in that
country. Foreseoing this, and looking upon the measure
in itself as a very dangerous one, I shall give my hearty
negative to it in this stage.
Lord John Czwemdislz-.~—’I‘he honourable and learned
gentleman who spoke the last but one, seems to lay great
stress upon the propriety of our passing this bill, from the
ill effects flowing from the proclamation, and from the ill
state of _the colony from that time to this. Sir, it is rather
a reproach to administration, that the country has heen so
long in that state. It is seven years since the House of

‘M nrnnns on Tl-IE mm, [May 26,
Lords came to a resolution, that it was necessary to do
somcthing.<‘> I have often seen this house the parent of
wrong under such cireun1stances:——from the necessity of
doing something, they argue the necessity of doing wrong.
That something should be settled, I agree; hut this some-
thing should be settled with as tender a view to the inhabi-
tantsiof that country, as possible. It is shocking to think of
a hundred thousand persons tr:1nsf’erred like deer in a park.
At the same time, l would look forward to the future state
of the colony: I would assimilate them as much as possible,
that they might become fitter subjects of Great Britain.
For that reason, I should think it material not to give them
directly their own law again: it keeps up that perpetual
dependence upon their 8.l’iClG11l.l.6.WS and customs, which will
ever make us a distinct people; and though you should in
general fincl people knowing in French law, there is little
likelihood of their being suificiently so, for the purpose for
which they are sent. .
I come now to the main point of the bill ; the point which
I look upon with aparticular dislike, namely, themaking it
perpetual. I think by consenting to this we disgrace our-
sclvs. A measure of this sort ought to be temporary, because
it should force itself under consideration from time to time.
I have read some papers drawn up by order of the hoard of
trade. There were plans made out, fitting a little of that
constitution to this, on which there was a report of the law
officers and governor of the colony. Even if they incct with
no ill treatment, a people acquired by conquest, and _difi’cring
in language and religion f’rom the conquerors, will naturally
be suspicious. It should he our policy to create a feeling
the contrary of this. The bill ought to he temporary, that
it may he remodelled by Idegrees. It is the duty of the
(‘J On the 211 of June 1767, the House of Lords, being in a committee,
resolved, on the motion of the Duke of Richmond, “That it appears to
this committee, that the province of Quebec, for u considerable time past,
has wanted, and does now stand in need of, further regulations and pro-
visions, relating to its civil government and religious es\ul>lisliment.”

servants of the crown to examine it with attention; to do a
little at a time, and never unnecessarily to employ the
strong hand of power; which will defeat its own object, and
prevent the Caiiadians from becoming the good subjects
they would otherwise he.
Mr. Serjeant Glymz.(‘)–I beg leave to take up a little of
the time of the House, while I state my objections to the
present bill; which I am confident you never can make at
good one, You are incompetent to decide upon the limits
of the country, or whether the description of it in the bill
is most conformable to the claim of the French, or to our
claim before the war : but I shall take it as I find it stated
on both sides of the House, namely,»-that there is to be a
newly erected province, comprehending a great part of
North America, partly inhabited, partly uninhabited; that
such parts are to be erecteti into a province, in hopes that
the population will increase, and that all those parts of it
will, by degrees, become peopled. The hill then proceeds to
prescribe a law for the government of this province. In
settling that law and that government, under which the in-
habitants of this province are hereafter to live, the laws of
France and the rules of the atirninistration of justice of
that kingdom, are established; and a countenance is given
to the Itomzrn Catholic religion, as far as the law takes
notice of any religion, by making a direct provision for
it. That is the only religion that receives countenance and
protection. The Protestant religion is left to shelteritself
under such regulations as lierezifter may be found necessary
for the clue exercise of it; and this is done in a tract of
country, where many of the suljects of this kingclom now
reside, in full confidence that they carried with them their
birtllright, the laws of this country, and that they should
continue to be governed by them, as long as they continued
(‘) Mr. Scrjennt Glynn was, at this time, one of the members for Mid-
dlcsex, and recorder of the city of London. Lord Cliutlmm, in a letter to
Mr. Calcrcft, describes him as heing “ e most ingenious, solid, pleasing nmn,
and the spirit of the constitution itselfi”-—~Carmzspomlencc, vol. iii. p. 483.

46 DEBATES on THE sum. [May 26,
to live in that country: but now they are to be told,
that they must learn French laws; that they,f‘or the future,
are to receive justice from the mouth of a French judge;
and that all disputes that may arise are not to be determined
by the rules of that law to which they have been accustomed,
but by the rules of the French law.
Sir, the learned gentleman who spoke lately, has laid
down many positions. From the best attention I could
give to them, I am at a loss to say whether I concur in
opinion with him or no; but, with regard to the topic
which the learned gentleman has more particularly dwelt
upon, I will venture to give my opinion. T he learned
gentleman says, that all acquisitions made in war he
come the acquisitions of the state; that they are subject
to the supreme power of this l§iltgLlO111,tl1E King, Lords,
and Commons. In that position, I have not the least
hesitation to concur with the learned gentleman ; hut, when
he proceeds to state what is the condition of a conquered
country, I cannot agree with him to the extent in which he
lays down his doctrine. I have always understood this to
be the condition of the conquered country, that before new
rules are prescribed for the administration of justice, they
are not to be left unprotected; that whether they are to
retain their own laws, and for what time they shall continue
under the old laws before new ones are introduced into the
country, is in the breast of the conqueror : that the King has
no absolute power to p1’escril1e what set of laws or what form of
government he pleases, but that he may, if he thinks proper,
when the time comes to make it expedient that the inhabi-
tants of the conquered country should be united with the
rest of his subjects, cletermine then that the old laws should
have an end, and that they should he governed by the laws
of England. The priyjilege goes no further. The King
has no power to prescribe other laws; and I am persuaded
the learned gentleman, in any situation, would never advise
the government to make the experiment. He says, the laws
improper to he given to them, are the laws of this country;

1774,) FOR ‘rm<: GOVEILNMENT or QUEBEC. 4’?
and he proceeds to describe the misery, the confusion, the
unhappiness that attends a conquered people, when they
me compelled to receive a new system of laws. The intro-
ducing of new laws must certainly he 21 temporary evil,
although in the end ztpermanent benefit. In this I fully
agree; but it has ever been maintained in civilized times,
and in the history of all kingdoms, that in cases of conquest,
Whenever it has been decided to retain those conquests, the
laws of the conqueror have been introduced, In proof of this,
I need only instance the two nations that are so happily
united with this country. I mean the Irish and Welsh. They
were subdued; they receive the laws of the conqueror to
this day-and to this they are indebted for all the happiness
they enjoy. That, therefore, is an answer to all the learned
gentleman has said with regard to the great inconvenience
attending the introduction of those laws.
The learned gentleman next takes notice of the pr0elamat~
tion that was issued in 17655; and hc speaks of it as a very
incorrect and imperfect document He says it was not per-
sonally avowed. It was, however, the act of the Crown, and
as far as it was within the limits of the prerogative, it must
have its operation; it must have its effect. Wlnat, then,
Sir, is that effect that it should have? The King therein
declares, that the Canadians shall no longer continue a.
French people, governed by their ancient laws; hut that it
is his will and pleasure, that the laws of England shall he
Subslitubed in their stead; therehy holding out to such
English subjects as might be inclined to emigrate thither,
at full assurance, that they would carry with them the la\VS
of this country. Now, Sir, with regard to the Canadians,
it was plain that such a measure would, in the end, he for
their advantage; but with regard to the people of this
country, who, in confidence Of the royal word, have gone
there to settle, it inflicts the crnelest injury the hand of
power ever inflicted, in taking from them the laws of their
country. They therefore insist upon the rights secured to
them by the laws of this country, as well as by the royal

4<8 nmuvrns on T1-in mu, [May27, proclamation. As for the ancient inhabitants, the new sulo~ jects, they have no right to complain, seeing that they have been treated as all conquered people have been, who have been treated with the greatest kindness and lenity; and who, in consequence of such kindness and lenity, have reaped a great national advantage: but the other party, if this bill passes into a law, may with reason complain of the violation of public faith, in the most essential of all points. VVith regard to the law by which the Canadians are to be go- verned, it is said, that the criminal law of England is to he continued in the province; and the learned gentleman, in his remarks upon the inconvenience of introducing new laws, might have extended his compassion to the old inha- bitants of Canada. l/Vith respect to the introduction of the civil law of Canada, in all matters of controversy relative to property and civil rights, it cannot be consonant with the rights of the English inhabitants to leave them without that security which the laws of this country have provided for the protection of personal liberty. But if the laws of the country are to he changed, the next thing to he considered is, what is the legislature that is to he given it? The English inhabitants will now have to learn the French law, to consult French lawyers in every question connected with property and personal saf’ety.. The noble lord says, that this was the only system of legislature that could possibly he provided for the country. Now, if this he so, I am cer- tain it is of itself a suflicient argument for our stopping here; and leaving the Canadians in the condition they are now in; for I am sure that condition cannot possibly be worse than this bill will make it. But what, Sir, is the form of the legislature provided for those countries? An absolute form; a governor, assisted by a council of twenty- three, who may be removed at his pleasure. It is false to give it any colour of distinction of laws, when it is to be made by the personal authority of the governor. It is evident, whatever his will and pleasure may he, that he will find a ready submission thereto; that he will find, from this 1774.] ran rum oovnmmrznr or QUEBEC. 4×9 nominal legislature, no check to the passing of any laws that he may set his heart upon passing. Consiclering, there- fore, Sir, that the laws about to be given to the Canaclinns are the French laws; that the religion, as far as it becomes a. subject of legal attention, is to be the Roman Catholic religion; that the Protestant religion is no otherwise taken notice of than as being one that ought to be tolerated ; and that, whatever the disposition of the governor from whom they receive those laws may be, the government itself will be as absolute as any King of France oould make it, and that without an irresistible necessity;-I arn persuaded, that no gentleman, who carefully attencls to the subject, and reflects upon the consequences, can, as a friend to the British con- stitution, give his consent to the bill now before us. In times past, a minister of the Crown was censured for pro- posing an arbitr’ar_y form of government for the colonies. However objectionable that proposed form of government may have been, we do not find that the powers given to the governor on that occasion were so extensive as those vested in him by this measure. The principles which prcvailedrin the days of Charles the Scconcl will not, I trust, receive the sanction of the legislature of the present da,y.(‘>
TheSolicz’tu’r-General.(B)–Sir, in this stage of the business
the only question before the House is that which relates to
the second reading of this bill; against which only two ob-
jections have been raised, which resolve thernselves into this~——
that we must either have no act, or regulate the subject of
(‘) It was one of the articles of high treason exhibited, in 1667, against
the Earl of Clarendon, “that he had introduced an arbitrary government
in his Mnjesty’s foreign plantations, and had caused such as complained
thereof, before his Majesty in council, to be long imprisoned for so
(2) Alexander Wcdderbnrn. He wns appointed solicitor-gerrerul in 1771,
and held the oflice till 1778, when he was advanced to that of attorney-
general; and, in 1780, was made chief justice of the court of common
pleas, and raised to the peerage by the title of Baron Longnbnrouglr; in
1793, he was appointed lord chancellor, which high situation he held till
18Ol,wl.\en he was created Earl of Rossyln. He died in 1805.

50 DEBATES on run inn. [May 26,
that which is before the House. It is in vain to object totally
to the plan proposed, without stating the outline of one which
it would be right to substitute in the place of it. Most of
the objections are partial objections to particular parts of
the bill, which it will he the business of the committee to
consider particulzuly : many may he easily corrected by
‘the attention which gentlemen will give to the bill in the
progress of it. Vllith regard to the proposed line of terri-
-tory, if it should turn out to he incorrect, the committee can
correct it; if wrong, in point of largcness, that also it will
be the business of the committee to set right. I should not,
Sir, have troubled the I-louse, in the present stage of the
bill, ifsomething haci not (hopped in -the course of the
debate, and particularly from the learned gentleman who
spoke last, from which I totally dissent, and differ in prin-
ciple. VVith respect to the government of the country, the
first question is, what is the extent cf the right? The
learned gentleman says, that the right of the conquering
nation, generally and iiitlefinitely, is, to give the laws of the
conqueror to the conqiiei-ccl; that if that constitution was
imniecliately adopted, the conquered people would have no
right to complain ; and he maintains, that, with regard to
this country in particular, such has been the policy, and
such ought to he the policy. “That such has been the policy
of one very great country, I certainly admit. It was the
avowed policy of the Ronlan republic; but, with that ex-
ception, that single exception, which arose entirely from
the particular frame of that country, and the genius of that
people, there is not another country, civil or barbarous, on
the face of the earth, that has adopted the principle.
Having saijec_
tion. If I had heen compelled to have proposed my views
upon the subject, perhaps they would not have been the
views of the present bill: yet, I am sure I should be guilty
of an unwarrantable presumption, if I thought the views of
tho present bill \vi’o1ig, because they diiier from those which
I had formed. Gentlemen who have considered the subject
but slightly, may regard it with partiality ; those who have
considered it deeply, must contemplate it with difiidence. I

5/l< 1>mm’r12s on run mm [May 26,
confess, upon a perusal of this bill, that none of the leading
views embraced in it appear to me in any degree complete.
With regard, Sir, to the great point of religion, I believe
I should do an injustice if I attributed to any gentleman at
desire to convert the Canadians, by an act of force, to the
Protestant faith. However desirable it may he, that there
should be a coufornnity of opinion, I do not believe there are
any gentlemen in this House who wish to effect the conversion.
of‘ theCanadians, in any way but by the force of persuasion
and conviction. Is the Roman Catholic religion made the
essential article of this bill? I can sec, by the article of this
bill, no more than a toleration. The toleration, such as it
is, is subject to the Kin;>;’s supremacy, as declared and
established by the act of the first of Queen Elizabeth.
VVhntever necessity there may be for the establishment of
ecclesiastical persons, it is certain they can derive no autho~
rity froin the see of Rome, without directly oilendiiig against
this act. That the bishop may ordain priests, and that
he may dispense with marriages of cousins german, nobody
will have the least objection. If the Catholic religion is to
remain, the bishops must ordain priests: the worship can-
not exist without priests; and there cannot be priests with-
out bishops; unless you \vill permit missionaries to go from
other countries to fill the cures in Canada. Of Tthe altcrna~
tive, which is the most politic P-—that the priests should he
bred in the country, or that the Franciscans or Dominicans
should go over, and you of necessity be obliged to connive
at their so doing? But then it is complained, that these
clergy are to be allowed to hold, receive, and enjoy their
accustomed dues and rights. Vi/‘hat, Sir, would you tolerate
their religion, and tell them, at the same time, that they
shall have no priests? or would you have these priests sub-
sist upon the casual benefactions of individuals? Is it not
better that they should subsist under the authority of the
state, than that these nriests, who so zealously endeavour to
gain an empire over the minds of the people, should be
placed in a. state of dependence on them for their main‘-

tenanoe? And further, Sir, is not all this indulgence given
subject to his Ma_jesty”s approbation, and not that of any
Canadian authority? and is it not provided, that nothing
contained in the act shall disable his Majesty from making
aprovision out of the rest of the accustomed dues and rights
for the Protestant clergy, in such manner as he may from
time to time think necessary and expedient? So that all
their tithes are subject to-he taken from them, as ailirmed,
for a Protestant clergy. I should suspect, that the Cana~
dians‘ objection would be, that this provision defeats such at
rc-establishment of priests as they expected from the former
part of the bill ; and 1 am sure it would he perfectly ridi-
culous to make a fund for the establishing of the Protestant
religion, especially as there is not any great number of
Protestant clergy in the country. –
Y/Vith regard to the civil and criminal law established by
this hill, I have no. difficulty to say, that the criminal law
there established ought to be the law of England. I would
not have compelled the Canadians to adopt the criminal law,
if they had found it a hardship. I have not a doubt of
the preference of either of the two codes of laws being in
favour of the English. I should think it would be so in
theory, and I am confirmed in my opinion by the testimony
of those gentlemen who are best acquainted with the state of
Canada. I speak from the best authority, from that of the
chief justice. VVhat does he say? That the Canadians
are fully sensible of the benefit of the criminal law, and
that they would prefer it to the returning to tho criminal
law under which they lived. If we change their laws,
where it is clearly for their advantage, and they are sensible
of that advantage, we repair, in some measure, the evil of
conquest; and this we have done, by the boon we have
given them in this part of the bill. It is similar to that
instance which Montesquieu quotes, of the demands of the
conquering nation, that the vanquished should abolish the
custom of exposing their children; which, he says, is one of
the finest exercises of the power of the conquering over the.

56 DX£l5A’l‘I\lS on THE mm [May 26,
conquered nation, that was ever heard of. I have no doubt
the Canadians will be fully sensible of the benefits of the
proposed change, and will not complain that they are sub-
ject to the English criminal law, which is mild in its punish-
ment, and certain in its description of the ofiencc.
Vvith regard, Sir, to the civil law, at present to effect a
change in that law, would be to deprive the Canadians of that
property which they are entitled to enjoy. In civil cases, until
they shall have adopted ideas very difi‘erent from those which
they at present entertain, certainly the trial by jury would
be no blessing to them. To alter long-established habits,
to create a more manly course of thinking, to make the C2»
nadians competent judges in civil matters, must be the work
of time. Individuals bred up in a country Where trial by
jury does not prevail, would find it very ditlicult to exercise
the oflice of a juryman. They would consider it a hardship,
instead of accepting it as a benefit. The introduction of it
must, I repeat, he the work of time. I consider the assembly as
sitting to make experiments, for the purpose of bringing the
country as much as possible into that mode of living, and into
those sentiments of cordialitywith the Government, which the
nature and habits of the people will admit. I assuredly think
it desirable that they should acquire the mode of thinking of
British subjects, and be brought, as much as possible, to
adopt British manners; but if you alter their laws, it will
be diflicult to produce this change; if you alter their man-
ners, it will be still more difficult. You must not seek to
attempt it by any violent or sudden alteration; if you do,
you put oil’ the wished-for event to a greater distance, than
if you suffered things to take their own course.
Another objection has been urged against the measure,
which more properly belongs to the committee; namely,
that there is no clause in the bill to make its operation
temporary. Now, Sir, I consider this bill, in its nature, to
be temporary. A bill of this kind cannot but be tem-
porary, because it is a bill of experiment. As to how far
it is adapted to the wants of that country, gentlemen differ ;

1774,] non rim: covnnnmnsr or ouzasnc. 5’?
hut I think it will bring the Canadians much more to the
resemblance of British subjects than they are at present.
Gentlemen who oppose this measure have not attended to
two points. In the first place, will it secure the law of
Canada as to civil rights? Witli respect to this, it makes
two material alterations; one, that the property of the
state may be devised by will, the other, that all land given
by his Majesty may he held in fee and common soccage.
By these means, those lands will henceforwartl he held by the
law of England; and no doubt the people will avail them-
selves of the power of devising, which that law gives them ;
which will luring the estate, of course, to the eldest son.
This will bring them nearer to the general laws of England.
But should the Canadians not he inclined to receive these
alterations, they will have very little effect. I consider,
therefore, this bill essentially a temporary one; hut I shall
be against any clause to make it so. In the first place, for
What period would you take it? If for any period, it
would have this had eileet with regard to the Canadians;
it would hold out to them a period, when it would cease
to operate, and it would induce them to he stirring up
objections against it during all the term that you per-
mitted it to he in force. If you take a. long period, the
efliect will he the same as if it were made perpetual; if a.
short one, it is merely an experiment. And let me only
remind gentlemen of the difii culty of fixing the period,
. I have hitherto, Sir, in all I have said, considered the
Canadian inhabitants as the objects of the legislature. A
great cbeal has been said with regard to the British subjects
settled in Canada. Now,l confess, thatithe situation of the
Bfitish settler is not the principal object of my attention.
ldo not wish to see Canada draw from this country any
eonsiderahletnumber of her inhabitants. I think there
Ought to he no temptation held out to the subjects of
England to quit their native soil, to increase colonies at the
expense of this country. If persons have gone thither in
the course of trade, they have gone without any intention of

58 nnn/rrns on THE BILL [1\iay26,
making it their permanent residence; and, in that case, it
is no more a hardship to tell them, “this is the law of
the land,” than it would be to say so to a man whose aflhirs
induced him to establish himself in Guernsey, or in any
other part of North America. Witli regard to the English
who have settled there, their number is very few. They
are attached to the country either in point of commercial
interest, or they are attached to it from thc situations they
hold under government. It is one object of this measure,
that these persons should not settle in Canada. The sub-
jects of this country, in Holland, in the Baltic, and in
different parts of the world, where they may go to push
their commercial views, look upon England as their home;
and it should be our care to keep alive in their breasts this
attachment to their native soil. Witli regard to the other
portion of the inhabitants of North America, I think the
consideration alters; if the geographical limits are rightly
stated. I think one great advantage of the extension of
territory is this, that they will have little temptation to
stretch themselves northward. I would not say, “ cross
the Ohio, you will find the Utopia of some great and
mighty empire.“ I would say, “this is the border, beyond
which, for the advantage of the whole empire, you shall not
extend yourselves.” It is a regular government; and that
government will have authority to make enquiry into the
views of native adventurers. As to British subjects within
the limits, I believe there are not five in the whole country.
1 think this limitation of the boundary will he a better
mode, than any restriction laid upon government. ln the
grant of lands, we ought to confine the inhabitants to keep
them, according to the ancient policy of the country, along
the line of the sea and river. Upon these grounds, Sir, 1
think this hill ought to go to the committee.’ I do trust
that that committee will, at least, he as well attended as this
House. The project is one that deserves most serious con-
sideration; and I am satisfied it will be the endeavour of
gentlemen to make it as perfect as possible.

1774.] ron rx-in eov1nt1~uv1mrr or ouisnnc. 59
Mr. Serjeant Glynn.»-I beg leave to set myself right in
the opinion of the House. I am cliargecl with having very
rashly quoted a. piece of history, and given it a construe-
tion directly contrary to the true meaning. As the learned
gentleman has not put the House in possession of the
authority, I will. Lord Coke, in his fourth Institute, says,
that upon the conquest of Ireland by King John, the
English laws were given. The learned gentleman is correct
in this observation, that the unconquered Irish received
the laws of England only gradually, as the English arms
prevailed. The Irish history, as written by Leland, says,
the country was reclueecl into the form of English counties,
had English ministers of justice, and was then governed by
the English laws. Certainly, a part of the country was not
totally conquered until the time the learned gentleman
speaks of. Though homage was receiveti—though their
laws were reprohatecl-—for they were called lewd customs,
not laws–yet it was impossible for the English to tench them
better, until they were in direct subjection. With regard to
“Tales, the learned gentleman is much more correct in his
observation. The Welsh (lid not receive the English laws
imineciiately upon their conquest. The miserable state of the
people of that country then, their happy state now, and the
strength this country receives from them, shew how politic a
step it was to give them theEnglish laws. From that time,
they became good subjects, whereas before they were not. In
quoting history, I meant no more than this, that it was a wise
and just policy, and had been proved to be expedient, that
there should be similar laws, and those laws received by the
conquered. By the present bill the Protestant religion is
not suflieiently provided for. There is every thing that
gives encouragement to make pi-oselytes, and alterations in
favour of the Roman Catholic religion; and it is at least
silent with regard to the Protestant. The learned gentle-
man says, it is in the power of the Crown to provide
entlmvrnents for the Protesta’ut clergy, by depriving the
Roman Catholic clergy of their possessions. It is a right

60 onnnms on run mu. _[May 26,
that is to he established, which cannot, under such’ savings
as that, be taken away. I am confident I shall not be con-
tradicted in this.
The Solicitor-Gene1’aZ. —- My authority is Sir John
Davis’s State of Ireland, which I take to he a more correct
one than Lord Col<e’s, in his fourth Institute. Having
happened to read Leland’s History lately, I should have
drawn the same conclusion, particularly from the notes. I
shall only add, with regard to the proviso for the Protestant
clergy, that I believe the learned gentleman will find it as
extensive as the grant to the clergy of the church of Rome;
if it is to he taken as a grant.
Mr. C/zarles Fomf”»I rise, Sir, merely to state one ob-
jection to this bill; and, if it is allowed to be an objection,
it is a fatal one. The hill says, that the clergy of the
church of Rome “ may hold, receive, and enjoy their
amustometl dues and rights, with respect to such persons
only as shall profess the said religion.” Now, Sir, by hold-
ing and enjoying such dues, I understand is meant the
receiving of tithes; and I want to know, how far that
zliffers from a tax. Are they entitled now to a tax? The
bill says, no; but they may hold and enjoy tithes; which
is, to all intents and purposes, a tax upon the people of
Canada. Taxation and legislation—we undcrstancl that
distinction well; but we have not given the Canadians
credit for understanding it as well. I cannot suppose that
the House will agree to a second reading of the hill, until
some member shall have explained to us, that this House is
not laying a tax. Until that is explained, I will not enter
into the merits of the bill.
The Attorney/—Gene2~aZ.-—Tl\is tax consists partly of the
lands belonging to the Popish clergy, under foriner kings.
(‘) This great orator and statesman lind, at this time, just completed his
twenty-firth year. He took his sent in the House of Commons, for Mid.
huist, in May 1768, before he was cl‘ age : in February l”/’70, l.\c was
appointed at lord of the admiralty, and in 1773, :1 lord of the treasury; which
sitnntion he had resigned only fourteen days previous to this debate.

It consists of tithes then in possession. It was first of all
laid before the English authorities, when it was stipulated
that they should remain. That stipulation was confirmed
by the House of Commons, when the definitive treaty of
peace was coneluded;<‘> and they have been in possession
down to the present time. All that this hill provides for is,
that they shall remain in possession.
Mr. Charles Foaz.–I*‘irst of all, Sir, my learned friend
has not sufiieiently attended to what I said, that I objected
as much to the levying of the tax by the House of Lords, as
to the tax itself. You know how exceedingly nice we are on
this point. My learned friend says, they have been in pas
session 2 now, I do not apprehend they could have any
legal right, if the proclaination had any fame; for that, hy
the laws of England, the Roinan Catholic clergy should be
entitled to tithes, is what I cannot comprehend. That the
proclamation did not aflect Canada, I have not heard my
learned friend aflirm. The question is, whether this be not
literally giving a right to the clergy of that country; whe~
ther it be not giving them a right to exact that, which they
had not a legal right to exact before this act passed? If so,
it is giving a power to raise money; and we never permit
hills of this nature to originate in the House of Lords. I
think this objection alone fatal to the bill, without going
further; but with regard to the measure itself, I will say,
that it is not right for this country to originate and establish
a constitution, in which there is not a spark or semblance of
liberty. A learned gentleman has said, that by this means we
should deter our own countrymen from settling there. Now,
Sir, as it is my notion, that it is the policy of this coun-
try to induce Englislnnen to mix as much as possible with
(‘) By the fourth article of the treaty of 1763, his Britannic Majesty en~
guged “to grant the liberty of the Catholic religion to the inliabitants of
Canada; and to give precise and efllectunl orders, that his new Roman
Catholic subjects might profess the worship of their religion, according to
the rites of the Romish church, as far as the laws of Great Britain per-

6% LDEBATES on THE BILL [May 26,
the Canadians, I certainly must come to a clifiercnt conclu-
sion. Everything that forwards the learned gentleman’s
end, defeats my view of the subj cot. The learned gentleman
has, too, with great ingenuity, stated the inconvenience in
Canada, if we give them our laws with respect to real
property. I do not suppose there is any gentleman who
would approve of those laws hcing forced upon them;
but the learned gentleman spoke, as if all civil law were
comprehended in this kind of relation, which afieets the
descent of property, the Ilabeas Corpus, and all other
rights. He quoted Montesquieu with approbation, about
exposing children, but he says, “ I cannot give the Cana~
dians trial’ by jury; I cannot give them the Habeas
Corpus;” which are laws of the same nature, and fully
as comrnenrlable as those which prevented the exposing of
children. I cannot conceive why we should not give them
the law of this country. If we gave them that law, it would
be easy to alter it in many respects, so as to niakc it agree-
able to them. That, Sir, Iconceive it to he the duty of
this country to (lo; and it is very easy to do it: but to
go at once, and establish a perfectly despotic government,
contrary to the genius anti spirit of the British constitution,
carries with it the appearance of a love of despotism,
and 9. settled design to enslave the people of America, very
unbecoming this country. My idea is, that America is not
to be governed by force, but by affection and interest. But
the Roman Catholic religion, the learned gentleman says, is
not established. According to my notion, the establishment
of that religion consists in government paying its teachers ;
and when the professors of that religion receive tithes,
that, I maintain, is establishing a tax. ~I profess I do not
myself object so much to that portion of the bill ;’ because I
think the persecution of the Roman Catholics is much to be
deprecated, and that the penal laws of this country‘ are
repugnant to every principle of toleration. I think there
might be, in some part of his 1\i[ajest_y’s dominions, an
asylum, where Roman Catholics might go, if persecuted.

1774,] FOIL THE GOVERNMENT or cwmnic. 68
i still, however, think that this provision has not yet been
distinguished from a. tax; that we are now going, for the
first time, to levy at tax, brought down from the House of
Lords, for the support of a. Roman Catholic establishment;
that we are about to levy a tax on the people of Canada, for
the support of a religious establishment; and that we are
taking this hill of the House of Lords, when it ought to
have originated here. If the Roman Catholic clergy have
been in possession of a right to tithes, they must have been
in possession of it from the good-will of the people of the
country. If they should ever he disposed to sue for their
dues, they are now to have a legal right to them, by o. bill
coining from the House of Lords.
Lord North.—-I rise merely to say a few words with
respect to this obstacle —- this insurmountable obstacle.
VVhatever the proclamation may have done, it ce1’tainly.did
not repeal the definitive treaty. The proclamation gave a free
exorcise of the Roman Catholic religion, as far as British
laws would permit» Great Britain, uncloubtetlly, would
permit that exercise to the extent of this bill; it would
permit, likewise, that in the colonies of America, the Roman
Catholic religion might have this provision. But, Sir,
what does this act give? It gives the clergy the enjoyment
of their accustomed dues and rights. They must have been
there; they must have had their accustomed clues and rights
before. This bill does not originate them; it gives no rights,
it creates no dues. If they had them not before, this bill
does not give them. Therefore, if any clergymfllb \l11¢i@Y
this bill, should claim his clues, he must shew he had a right
to them before. Consequently, wh-at the Lords have sent
down to us, is no ereution of rights, is no creation of dues.
The right suhsistecl before the House of Lords sent the bill
down to us; and without the House of Lords, it would
have still subsisted.
Mr. Charles Fom-—If the nohle lord means, that the bill
will hear this construction–that the Roman Catholic clergy
had a right to it before, then I do conceive, under pretence

ii/l< DEBATES on run 1211.1. [Msy2G,
of regulating Canada, the question will turn upon the force
of that p1‘OCl3.l1121ti0!1, which will be left to he disputed in
Canada; and this bill, which is meant to quiet the Canadians,
will leave the subject just where it was. The same ambi-
guity will remain.
Mr. Dunmlng.-I shall say a few words upon the ob-
jection that has been started. It has not mot with a proper
degree of attention. I take it for granted, that among the
privileges of this House, which have from time to time been
exercised, this privilege has, for some substantial reason,
been thought a privilege worth contending for. I have seen
many bills, proper in themselves, to which objections have
been taken by the Chair, and they have thereupon been re~
jectcd, solely upon the ground of this privilege. It remains,
therefore, only to see whether the objection applies to this
bill. Now, Sir, no man accustomed to acts of parliament
is ignorant that this is to be understood as a custom before
the conquest of Canada. To make it out to be a due–to
lIl£1l(O it out to be a. right, under the authority of this bill,
it is only necessary to prove, that it was a right they were in
the possession of antecedent to the oession. If they have
been in the enjoyment of it, but have lost it since, this not
must unquestionably give it de nova. I should be glad to
know, whether my learned friend meant to be understood,
that, in point of fact, the Roman Catholic clergy have been
in the enjoyment of this right, notwithstanding the proclama-
tion, from the time of the cession to the present hour? If
he does so understand it, I shall defer to his authority;
but, from the best authority I have been able to collect, it
has been determined otherwise. I understand they have
not been in possession, nor will they be in possession, until,
by this act of parliament, they have a right to claim it.
It may be true–that the Roman Catholic clergy, from
the Romish comrnunicants, receive such contributions as
they are in the humour to pay. They may be superior to
the tithe, for this plain reason, that, antecedent to the
conquest, they were in possession of the right to tithe from

1774] FOR THE Govnitnmianr or qiiizniav. C5
all the inlmhitants. Now, either that right is preserved by
the treaty, or it is not. If it is preserved to the extent
they had it before, they have then the right to tithe from
all the inhabitants, or from none. Clear it is, that neither
the definitive treaty, nor the proclamation, draws any such
line of distinction between the right of the Roman Catholics
and of the Protestants. That they have it not ~— that they
never claimed such tithes-1 take leave to assume to- he at
fact. Now, if an exclusive right of passing bills imposing
taxation is claimed by this House, I do not think, literally,
that this hill imposes a tax or imposes taxation ; but it is a
hill that raises money; and the objections go the whole
length of militating against a bill raising money. I speak
in your memory, Sir, when I state, that in April1‘7(i5, a hill
imposing no tax, but merely for repealing an act of Queen
Anne relating to buying and selling cattle, was rejectecl,
upon the principle of its raising money. Gentlemen may
argue, that the present is not a hill of this sort; but it is
clearly a bill that raises money——that takes money out of
the pockets of British subjects-for these Canadians are
British subjects—-and, therefore, unquestionably it is a hill
that raises money. Ifive alone possess the privilege of origin-
ating money-hills, this is a bill. directly in the teeth of it.
In what I am offering, I do not wish to be understood as
saying, that this is the only objection to the hill. I am not
willing to turn the hill rouncl upon this point. If it is to
pass, the sooner it passes the better; for, wlienfivvr :1 bad
thing is intended, the sooner that had thing is completed
the better, in my apprehension.
M1‘. Dempstea’.<1>-Sir, an objectioii has been started, that
goes to the foundation of the privileges of this House.
Late as the hour is, I shall not make any apology for saying
:1 few words upon the siibject. It is clear that this bill
(‘) Mr. Dcmpster entered parliament in W62, and represented the royal
burghs of Form, &c. for t\vcnty»eight years He died in 1818, at the age
of eiglltysix.
F .

66 uunmns on. THE inn, [lViay‘ZG1
intends to alter the situation of the Roman Catholic clergy.
They were in possession of the tithe, or they were 110t-
Does this bill impose a tax upon the suhiect? Sir, it has
been the custom, upon these occasions, to refer ourselves t0
the person who presides in this House, and who is, of
course, a proper judge. If I do not mistake, in the course
of my Observation, I think I have known the person PIC‘-
siding to state this objection to the House. In case it
should pass sub sileniiu, I shall, therefore, humbly entrcat
to hear from you, Sir, whether this is at bill which comes
under that construction. An incidental point has been
started. Many gentlemen of great abilities have already
spoken. Here is a point that has occurred relative to privi-
leges. Now, Sir, I apprehend, that those gentlemen have a.
fight, upon this point having occurred, to speak again; and
what is more, being a point relative to the privileges of this
House, I apprehend the order as to the numlser of times a
member may speak is not applicable to the present question.
The purpose of my rising; is, that you, Sir, would resolve
the doubt. [A pause]
Mr. Alderman Sawbridge.<1>—I do not see you, Sir, inclined
~to 1‘1S0 upon this occasion. I have, upon fonner occasions, re-
quested you not to give your opinion, liecausel tliought you
-ought not to have given it. Upon this occasion, I think it is
yourclnty to do so ; and tlxerefore I rise, not to request it as a
favour, hut to demand it as :1 right. If the honourable
gentleman adheres to it, as I shall, I shall put a question,
whetlicr you shall give your opinion or nut.
The Speu/ver.<2)——l am sorry to be called upon in this manner. It is very unusual to he so called upon. I have frequently seen bills, that have originated in the House of Lords, that I thought ought not to have come to this (‘) The nldernian, at this time, represented Hytlie; but, nt the general election in October following, he was chosen one of the members for the city of London, and continued so till his death, in I793. (’) Sii’Fletcl1c1’No1-ton. He was chosen Speaker in 1769, upon the resig- nation of Sir John Gust, and, in 1782, was created Lorzl Grantley. 1774.] FOR TZIE oovnimmnxr or ovmnc. 67 House; and [ have nointed it out to the I-Iouse, that the House might judge upon them. I never have presumed to judge upon them myself. An objection has been stated to the House. The House will determine as they think right‘ It would be very unbecoming in me to do it. Mr. Dempstea-.—Sir, what it would be unbecoming in you to do, would be unbecoming in me to ask; I therefore rise to make on apology to you. 1 have always understood that there is 21. right to ask the opinion of the Chair; not that I mean to Propose it upon this occasion, but I apprehend, if the majority were to appeal to you to give y0L11’ opinion, that we should hear it. I have not :1 doubt of it. The Spealmzr.-‘l‘he honourable gentleman mistakes me. I did not take it amiss in him, in calling upon me to give my opinion. Wlliat I take to he the province of the Chair is thi_s—-if there was a doubt, when the fact was decided so and so, whether it cmne within the privilege of this House, I should give my opinion, Decide the fact. I have no Clifiiculty in saying, if you decide that this is raising money upon the subject, that it comes within the privilege. But llm 1 to decide that fact? The House are in possession of it. Mr. T. Townsliend, jun.–I do not rise, after it has been already decided, to give you the trouble of giving your opinion. I did expect to hear it treated at little more seri~ ously than it has been, and not to be hiughed at. A bill levying at tax, or repealing a tax, should not be sufi’e1’ed to originate in the House of Lords. I think this is both the one and the other. I-Incl the Roman Ca,_tholic clergy a right to any thing by law, or had they not? If they had, you have repealed it: if not, you have granted it, I have heard, firom very good authority, that the clergy never dared to sue for their dues. Has any man a doubt, if this act passes, that the Roman Catholic clergy will sue from the Roman Catholic? But will he be restrained from suing from the Protestzmt? If they are dues, they are due from both, VVill F 2 63 1>E1ni’r1<:s on rm; nut. [M.\\’2G,
any gentleman tell me, after the passing of this act, Whether
the Roman Catholic clergy will not exact their dues? I
assert, that I have heard from good authority they never
clurst do it before. I see many gentlemen ready I hope to
answer this question, whether they did sue for them before.
VV hen that point is established, it is established whether this
is raising money from tl1e subject; that is, not raising a tax
for the purposes of government, but -for other purposes, like
the turnpike road bill of April 1771. The mad-house bill,
on account of the licence to be paid by the mad-houses,
could not pass.
The Attor1ze_1/-General»-I own this is the very first time
I ever heard tithe called a tax. I Wonder very much, con-
sidering it is so plain, that it should not have borne the
name of tax long before. I will suppose an exchange, or
settlement, about to be established by act of Parliament, of
which tithe makes a pa1‘t—would it set asicle the right, that
such bill had begun in the House of Lords? In the coin-
mon case of inclosure bills, is it an objection, that tithes are
part of the new settlement P The objection is, that money
is to be raised, making a right, and consequently that it
must be begun here; but was it ever objected, that tithe
could not be begun in the House of Lords? But suppose
tithes could be called a tax, to any purp0se—gentlen1en ask,
are they clue at this time? have they been, in fact, collected
by act of parliament ?——l have been informed that they have
been so collected. I have not been informed that any suits
have been brought; for an exceedingly good reason-—because
tithes, among other dues and estates of the church, were pre-
served by the eapitulation, were confirmed by the treaty of
peace, and in point of right belonged to them. I have
really no doubt. VVl1ether the Roman Catholics have re-
sorted to the law in temporal suits, I do not know; or
whether they have resorted to the spiritual court, I do not
know; but if it is stated to me, that between the oapitula~
tion and the present hour, the constitution of Canada has
been in such condition, that the clergy could not have

1774-.] FOR THE covnnmunrr or ounmzo. 69
claimed their dues, it is an additional reason for having this
bill. You do no more than operate upon the right they
had l’Jef’ore, either to give it to a certain extent, or abrogate
it to a certain extent. It is impossible, upon any definition
of 21 tax, to make tithe appear one.
Mr. Serjeant G01/2m.——-Upon this new question, I beg
leave to submit what occurs to inc. I was in hopes of hearing
a satisfactory solution of the doubt. I think it rests upon
this~—whn-t is the present state of Canada E’-—~what is the con-
dition of thelzinds of Canada P-ivhat is the condition of the
clergy? If they have now no legal authority to collect their
tithes, I think it will be admitted, that the bill is not nugau
tory; that the bill will give that legal authority. It has
been said, that it is not necessary the matter should fall
under the word “ taxation ;” that raising money upon the
subject is the peculiar right of this House-—-a right not to
be dispensed with. In order to ascertain whether this is
raising money upon the subject, the question to be asked
and answered is—~Is there now any legal obligation to con~
tribute? Was the subject under that legal obligation to
contribute before? The learned gentleman says, that tithe
has been paid; but that he knows of no suit to compel the
payment of tithe. But the effect of this bill is to establish
it as a right. If, therefore, I .unde1’stand it rightly, the
learned gentleman will not say that there is a law existing,
that will authorize the clergy of Canada to recover in any
of the courts; but that, when this bill shall have passed,
they will undoubtedly have such authority. Then, Sir, the
-right to the tithe is founded upon this act of parliament;
and if so, it is a new right given. VVe know they now
receive through motives of religion, and voluntarily, from
certain landholders; but they will honeeforward be war~
ranted, by legal authority, to receive from all “land-
The Solicitor-General.-~I do not niean to lose the privi~
loge upon a new argument. I think, however, it would be
very inconvenient to debate it. As the tithes stand at pre-

70 DEBATES on THE BILL _ [May 26,
sent, the clergy do receive them. Ihelieve it is equally
true, that they have no suits in any temporal court. The
mode of enforcing payment is by excommnnioation. They
stand as before the time of Henry the Sixth. In the second
and third of Edward the Sixth, an act passed giving an
action for recovering tithes. That hill passed the House of
Lords. It came from the House of Lords to the House of
Commons. That I talce to he ‘:1 pretty strong authority;
that when tithes were first taken up, it was not considerecl
as laying a tax.
Sir George Srwile.<‘>-1 am not quite able to follow the
learned gentleman who spoke last in this distinction, hut
wish to conline myself‘ to the learned gentleman who spoke
before, and who hals h1′<)ught it to 0. single fact. Iido not
know whether the Roman Catholic clergy have, in fact,
sued for those tithes. It is very necessary to know, \vh@tl1@1‘
they have a right to sue for them. The learned gentleman
put it upon a very short issue. He argued, that they are in
possession of the rig-lit of recovery under the capitulationg
under the treaty of peace; under the proclamation. I should
he extremely rearly to take the learned gentleman’s word,
especially in a matter of science; but in st concern of this
kind, :1 member of Parliament ought not to be so easily
satisfied. I could wish, that we might see by the capitula-
iion, by the treaty of peace, and by the proclamation, that
they were left in possession of the right” of recovery. I ap~
(1) Sir George Szwile represented the county of York in five parliaments,
and distingnisliezl himself by his opposition to the American war, his two
bills for a limitation of the claims oftlie Crown upon landed estates, and for
relieving Roman Catholics from the penal laws, and by his zealous support
of Mr. Pittis motion, in 1783, for at reform in the velareseintittion of the
people. Mr. Burke, in his speech to the electors of Bristol in 1780, de~
scribes Sir George “as a true genius; with an understanding vigorous,
acute, refined, distinguishing even to excess, and illuminated with a most
unbounded, peculiar, and original cast oi‘ imagination ”—“ during the
session, the first in and the last out of the House of Commons.” He died
in l’?8~li.

177-1.] 1“0It“1‘Hl<} eovmmmmrr on euusmc. 71 prehend directly the contrary. Iapprehend they are not now in possession of the right of tithe; and if so, we are giving them a. title to that right. Whether it is laying a tax, is another question. I wish to know whether, upon this ground, they are entitled to receive tithe? The Atto1’ne;2/-GenemZ.—With regard to the proclama- tion, I never imagined that a. proclamation so exceedingly loose and general could he pleaded as an authority. I stated, in the beginning, that it did not affect to relate to Canada; but I said, that the capitulation did reserve all their effects, moveable and immoveable. But even if it were otherwise, is it to he supposed that the tithe would accrue to the King? The tithe is collateral to the land, not sunk in it. To give the right to it, is giving to the secular body, as well as the regular clergy, all they were in possession of before. Itwas always my opinion an established fact, that the clergy were entitled to tithes, though they might not have sued for them. The question being put, that the Bill be read a second time, the House divided. The noes went forth. Tanmtns . { ; ;} Mr. Thomas Townshend, jun. . NOES { Mr. Charles James Fox . . . i 29 So it was resolved in the aflirmative. 4 4 to DEBATES on ‘rm: rim. 1May 31, Tuesday, M ay 31. Mr. Baker presented a petition to the I-louse from Thomas Penn, esq., on behalf of himself and of John Penn, esq., true and absolute proprietaries of the province of Pennsyl- vania, and the three lower counties of Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex, in Delawar, in America, setting forth :- “ That his late Majesty, King Charles the Second, by letters patent under the great seal, hearing date the 4th day of March, in the 33d year of his reign, was graciously pleased to grant unto William Penn, esq., (late father of the petitioner Thomas Penn, and grandfather of the petitioner John Penn), in fee, the said province of Pennyslvania, the extent and bounds whereof were expressed in the said letters patent; and taking notice of the bill ‘for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec, in North America ;’ and alleging that, from the best observations which have been made, and the most correct maps which have been laid clown of those parts, and from other evidence, it appears that the river Ohio intersects a vely large tract of the north-western, western, and south-western parts of the said province, as granted by the said letters patent, the limits or boundaries whereof in that part have not, as yet, been allowed and confirmed by the Crown; .and that, in order to have the limits and boundaries of the said province ascertained, the petitioners did, on the 27th day of March, 1773, present a petition to his Majesty in Council, praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to appoint such disinterested persons in those parts, as his Majesty should think proper to join with such persons as should be named by the petitioners, to mark out and ascertain the northern, western, and south-western boundaries of the said province; which petition has been referred, by his Majesty, to the consideration of the lords commissioners for trade and plantations, and is now under consideration of that board ; and that the petitioners conceive that the said bill will be injurious to them, if it should pass into a law, without containing some provision, that the same may not affect the petitioners’ 1774,] For rnn oovnnrxnmrr or cnnnnc. ’78 rights under the said letters patent: And therefore praying, that the description of the territories, islands, and countries, to be annexed to the said province of Quebec, may be so confined, as not to affect the petitioners’ said province; or that at provision may be made in the said bill, that the some shall not afieet the petitioners’ province, granted to them by the said letters patent; and that the petitioners may be at liberty to he heard by their eounsel, upon the matter of their petition.” Lord North. ~—I do not rise to oppose bringing up this petition. It was never intended that the bill should in- treneh upon other colonies. “Whenever any proposal is made to us, whatever can tend to secure Pennsylvania and the other proprietaries, shall meet with no opposition from me. The demand is so just and so reasonable, that, without hearing counsel, it ought to be complied with. Mr. Edmund Bmke. -~ I am glad to hear the noble lord say this. There are several other colonies anxious to petition; hut if, in the committee on the bill, satisfaction is given, there will be no need of bringing up their petitions. Mr. Baker. – It would he too much for me to say that the petitioners (lo not desire to be heard by counsel ; for no gentleman can answer for what may be done in the com- mittee. If, upon the report, nothing is done satisfactory to the petitioners, then I shall move, that they maybe heard by counsel. Their intention was to be heard by counsel in the committee; what they have to state is very short. Mr. Edmund Burlae-—’l‘he boundary line of the colony of New York does come within the line marked out by the bill ; and the proclamation has departed from the lirnitary line there, as well as in the other parts. All I wish upon the part of that colony is, that they should not suffer any injury by this irregularityfll Lord North. -—- I l19.\’€‘ no objection to their being heard by counsel; but it is better for the petitioners to he heard (‘) Mr. Burke was, at tlns time, member for Wendover. He was also agent for the colony of New York Ill this country. 74¢ man.-\’rns on run mu. [May 31, upon the report, if they should not have satisfaction in the committee. Mr. .Z?a7cea~.-—-I trust such alterations may be made in the committee, as may make it unnecessary to have them heard at all. The petition was ordered to lie upon the table, until the report be received from the committee of the whole House, to whom the bill is referred; and that the petitioners be then heard by their counsel, if they think fit. Mr. Mae7cw01’z5/t,(‘> in rising to present a petition fiom
the merchants of the city of London, trading to the province
of Quebec, said :–I should not rise at this late period of the
session, if I did not think the grounds of complaint are such
that blame might be imputed to me, if I refused, upon any
application, to apply to the candour and justice of this
House, in behalf’ of several injured men, when we are filling
up the blanks in the committee. This is one of the most
serious concerns that ever came into this House. I do not
inean now to go into the principle of the bill, whether we are
establishing a French or an English law. The petitioners
are gentlemen, whose property has been invested under the
faith of the proclamation; men who have risked their pro-
perty to st very large amount indeed, under an assurance,
that that property was guarded by the laws of England:
a Frenchman comes in, and takes themunder his protection.
Some individuals have thus risked some hundred thousand
pounds’ property. Different gentlemen have made six
diii’e1‘ent reports: three were made in Canada; three by
men who stand foremost in this House. I understand that,
in those gentlemen’s opinions, they could not agree in any
joint judgment, They have reported differently. How
cliflicult must it then be for the House, who are uninformed
upon the question, to regulate concerning it. If it were
possible, that this bill could proceed no further this session,
(1) Herbert Mackworth, esq., of Guoll Castle. He represented the
town of Czuriitfiu live parliaments. In 1776, he was created a hnronet, and
died in 1792.

1774] non THE GOVERNMENT on QUEBEC. 75
and he brought in the next, I should like it better. Four
plans have been given in with respect to the proceedings
upon this occasion. ‘
i The petition was then read, setting forth,
“ ’I‘hz\1: there is a clause in the said hill, by which his Majesty’s
royal proclamation, and the grants and commissions issued in
consequence thereof, will he revoked and made void; and that,
by another clause in the said hill, all matters of controversy rela-
tive to the property and civil rights of any of his Mujesty’s
subjects of the said province, are to be decided by the laws cf
Canada, uncl by the judges presiding in the courts of judicature
of that province, without the interposition of a jury ; and i’cprc-
senting to the House, that the system of govcnlmcnt and admi~
nistrution of justice in the said province of Quebec, which have
token Xslace in consequence of his Ma_jcsty’s said royal procla_
motion have been hitherto, as nearly as might he, according to
the laws of England, and such government and udministmtion of
justice have been pcrfcctly satisfactory to his Majesty’s subjects
residing in the said province of Canada 3 and the petitioners
conceive it will be highly injuiious to his Majesty’s said subjects,
and all other his Majesty’s subjects trading to the said _p1’ovince,
to have the laws of Canada substituted in the place of the laws of
England, and to have the trial by jury abclishezl 2 and therefore
praying, (in behalf of themselves and others interested in the
prosperity of the said province) that the said Bill may not puss
into 21 law, with the ztboveqncntioned clause remaining in it; and
that they may be heard by their counsel against the same.”
The petition was ordered-to he referred to the committee
on the said bill, and that the petitioners he hcurd, by them-
selves or counsel: after which, Francis Maseres, esq., late
attorney-general, Major-general Carleton, governor-general,
and VVilliam Hey, esq_., chief justice of the said province,
were ordered to attend the House on Thursclay.
Captain P/Lipps.(1>—Fro1n what hasjust passed, I think
(‘) The honourable Constantine John Phipps, cldest sonof Constantine;
first Lord 1\-Iulgravc, of New Ross, in the county of Wexford. He was a
captain in the royal navy ; in which station he made a voyage, in I773, to
discover the existence of it northeast passage into the South Seas, of which

’76 ~ DEBATES on THE mtn [May 31,
this will be a proper time to express my doubts, as to the
propriety of going into the committee upon this bill. I was
negligent in not attending the other day. When I came
down to~day, the first question I asked was for the evidence;
for I naturally supposed that evidence had come down from
the House of Lords. I supposed the House would have
moved for a conference with the Lords, to desire the evi-
dence and ground upon which they had passed this hill.
I expected the friends of this measure would have told
us, why 21 bill of this nature originated in the House of
Lords. I believe there cannot be a bill of more importance
than the one now before us. It is not very usual for such
hills to take their rise in the House of Lords. If it had
taken its rise in this House, I take it for granted, the
first sort of evidence we should have called for, would have
been in a previous committee. I should be glad to know
why a business of this importance should have lain so long
dormant, and why it was necessary to take it up at this time.
This is not :1 time to begin very important business. If we
had had a committee to inquire into the administration of
justice in Quebec, we should have had before us all the laws
and ordinances that have been passed by the government for
the last nine years. We should also know what the French
law, that is to be substituted for the lawof England, is.
That such a system of laws, such a system of property,
was to be protected by government, I never understood
was the idea of this country. I should have expected
proofs to have been brought to this House, that it was so.
When the hill mentions a hundred thousand persons, I
would ash, whether no inhabitants have gone from this
country under the faith of the proclamation? I look
upon that proclamation as acompact of the Crown with the
he publislied an account in the following year. He afterxvui-ds filled sucees~
sively the ofiices of first lord of the ndinimlty, joint-puymoster ofthe forces,
lord of trade and plimtntions, and commissioner of the India hoard. Hedied
in l”/92, without issue, and was succeeded in the Irish hm-ony by his brother
Henry, futlicr of the Marquis oi Normrmby.

1774.] roe rm: GOVERNMENT or QUEBEC. 77′
subjects 01″ that country; as an inducement to those who
should settle as merchants, to purchase land, and mix with
the inhabitants. I should have expected to hear that no
Englishmen had laid out their money in that way; or that
they would come to our bar, and tell us, that they found
themselves oppressed by living under the laws they had been
used to, and that they wished to he released from the
lmrthen, from the slavery, of the laws of England: for such
this bill holds them out to be. I should have expected that
the inerehants,who had probably given a. great extentof credit.
thought they would be safe in recovering their debts in the
country, under a system Of law not more known to them,
than the laws of England are to the Canadians; and they
must know little, if they do not know that the whole world
rings with the excellence of our laws.
I should have expected that evidence would have been
taken in the place where the hill originated, from all persons
who have filled high ollices there, or resided in the country;
but none such have given evidence in the other House. You
are now going into a committee, Without having such evi-
dence brought here. I should have expected some evidence,
that the fisheries of this country would have been injured
by the coast being put under the government of Newfound-
land. I should have expected that three or four persons
now in England, would have been culled to the bar to give
evidence, as to how far the -scdentzuy fishery upon the
coast, supposed to he in the hands of the Frenchmen–how
far that fishery ought to be so preferred, as to destroy the
fishery of this country. I should have been glad, if the mer~
chants of Poole and the merchants of the western counties
in England, had given evidence as to how far the taking
away that fishery from the government of Newfoundland,
was proper—-whether there should not he a fleet to watch the
French fishermen; who certainly will be favoured in prefer~
ence to our own. They will be instrumental in carrying on
smuggling, which will give the scale against the English
who come there: if” so, the French will carry on what trade

78 nnrmrns on THE BIIL [May 31,
they please there; and the governor will be debavred from
protecting the English fishery, because it is put under
another power. I should have expected some evidence
to have been brought to that point. I should have expected
some evidence would have been brought of the propriety of
establishing at small and fluctuating council, and of holding
out to the country, that it will never he proper to have an
assembly. I should have wished for evidence from the pr0~
prietors in the country, as to theirnot having anylegislative
power; for no such assembly docs exist, and that council
is to be appointed during the pleasure of the governor only
-—I should have wished for some proof of the propriety of
taking away all appeals in civil cases in that country. If it
should be said, there is not any intention to give an appeal,
I should wish to know, from evidence, whether the people
who are of that privy council are masters of the French
law: and indeed, as this act stands, I do not sec how they
van grant an appeal; for by one clause, all judicatures are
to judge according to the laws of Canada.
Sir, the effect of’ this bill must be to deter every English~
man from acquiring property in Canada; because he is to
hold it under French law. If there is :1. single Canadian
who says he wishes for it, it is because he does not under-
stand What he loses. This bill not only goes to the settled
parts; it takes in a great extent of country now unin-
habited. All these reasons would induce me strongly to
oppose this bill. and to throw it out. If the House should
not think proper to adopt this Lords’ bill, there are many
members able to modify the laws of this country, with
respect to Canada, and to give to those laws a juclicature
controllable by higher judicature. I do say, from knowing
the history of this country, that the peculiar excellence of
our lmv. has been its admitting partial exceptions in favour
of particular kinds of men, who have occasion to reside here;
as the Jews, for instance-—t0 give them a security without
breaking up our system entirely, and stating by act oi’ par»
liament, that the municipal la,WS of England are incompatible

1774.] FOR rm: eovmzmvmwr or QUEBEC. 79
with the welfare of any part of the subjects of this country.
Thinking, Sir, that some law upon a very different plan
from this might be framed, that would give satisfaction to
every part of Canada, I must be against carrying to the
committee a bill, incapable of being mended when it comes
Sir, there is another point-the reservation of all the dues
to the Roman Catholics. I am not to be blamed for my
ignorance of what those dues are, or what that tax is, which
I am going to impose. I would have some settlement made
for the church of England: if any provision, it should be
by tithe; but there are few instances in our colonies in
which the clergy are paid in that way. In Pennsylvania
every man pays his own clergyman. He pays to the con-
gregation to which he helongs. Witliout wishing to talce
from the Canadians their religion-without wishing to take
away the federal rights of that country——and without thinl<~
ing that the Canadian, because he professes the Roman
Catholic religion, would be unfit, under certain limitations,
to be of the legislature of that country, I think there
might be some limitations; but I would not have the
Roman Catholic religion established as the favourite religion
of the country.
In short, Sir, I see nothing in this hill but the language
of despotism. It is a subject too great for me. The
shortest way is to repeal every law made there, and to let
them he governed by the laws of Canada, though I do not
know what those laws are. The bill may materially ob~
struct the recovery of debts ; and, from the present situation
of this country and America, there are but too many
complaints already, without introducing them into other
colonies where they (lo not exist. If the House thinks it
becoming them to adopt this bill, I consider it highly
incumbent on them to pass it as at temporary bill–say for
three years–until some regulations can be formed. VVith~
out that, it is as pernicious 21 bill as ever passed this House,

80 DEBATES on THE BKLL [Mny31,
and I see no shadow of argument, that can be adduced, to
make it a perpetual measure.
The Speaker.–I have no question.
Mr. M ackw0rth.—I move, Sir, “ that there be laid before
this House copies of the reports made by Major General
Carleton, governor of the province of Quebec; by VVilliam
Hey, esq., chief justice; and by Francis Maseres, esq.,
late attorney-general of the said province, relative to the
state of that province.”
Lord North.——These reports will he a very long while
copying. I submit, as we are likely to have the assistance
of the persons themselves who made those reports, whether
We shall not be as well informed without them. The reports
are inferences of matters of fact which we may have brought
before us. Upon that ground, I shall oppose the motion;
because I am confident every information may he had in at
more authentic manner from the parties themselves, vivri
once. If these reports are produced, others must he callccl
for: there are others.
Colonel Barré.–I do not wish to stop this business.
The noble lord says, that these papers will be 21 long while
copying; that the principal persons concerned are some of
them here now ; and that others will be here on Thursday,
who will give you vied voce evidence; which is true, with
regard to general Carleton—-which is- true with regard to
Mr. Maseres–which is true with regard to Mr. Hey—-
and likewise with the King’s advocate. But, I (lo not
know how to come at the opinions of other gentlemen who
have submitted their opinions in writing. I wish to see
whether those gentlemen, in their legal capacities,–tlie
attorney and solicitor~general—have signed their names. I
do not want to know what they have to say here. This
may be obtained by calling for those two gentlemen. If
the noble lord resists, it will then be time enough to move;
and then I will call upon the attorney and soli eitor- general to
state their opinions, to which they have signed their names.

2774,] non 1’1-re oovmtnmmrr or QUEBEC. 81
I do not know what the House will think of this pro~
posal. To me it is perfectly satisthctory. I hope neither of
those learned gentlemen will depart from the opinions to
which they have signed their names. I shall not opinifitre
the matter. I shall he satisfied if I get the same opinions here,
not mixed up with any side–wind. I will take that informa-
tion in the way it is proposed. I will not endeavour to (le-
lay the business; hut denying us both methods of obtaining
evidence, is leaving ns in the dark, Perhaps it is better to
be left in the dark. I know of no way of defending
despotism. I do not like to see an English Parliament dis-
grace itself, by establishing despotism by an not of its own.
I do not want to see monsters introduced. I am certain the
noble lord, at the end of the business, will not carry through
this bill.
l\/I1’.Maclcworth.-I moved that the reports might be
produced, from a desire to get information; but, if this case
is not of suflicient importance to make that delay necessary,
I am under a very great mistake. Can there be :1 reason
given, why we, who are to judge upon it, should not have
the information necessary? Are we to take it, without
information, from the House of Lords? I have no hostile
intention against this bill ; but, if we are to he straiglmtened
in time, and are not to have copies of these reports, for
God’s sake let us not go through this hill. Mr. Maseres
has taken infinite pains to dmw out plans for the better
government of the country. He has formed different modes
of proceeding, for gentlemen who wish to have this infor~
motion. Are we alone, the Commons of England, to he
deprived of the information? I beg leave to assert,
that information given at the bar, is not equal to what
may be obtained from these reports. No member can
grudge the time necessary to make himself master of the
information upon which he is to give his vote. Already
the merchants have brought that country to wear an aspect
very di1’l”orent from what it did a few years ago. The ex~
ports have been great indeed. Can we go and demolish the
4; ,

82 DEBATES on THE mu, [May S1,
laws of England, without strong and cogent reasons being
alleged for our so doing? If so, I shall believe I am not
sitting in a British House of Commons. The gentlemen
opposite think they have adopted the best plan. I have
the opinion of zt most able man, that they have adopted the
very worst. I do not venture to say that this is the case;
but I will venture to say, that we are in a very unfit state
to come to a vote at present. Gentlemen do not seem to be
conscious of the vast magnitude of this measure, giving, as
it rloes, to Frenchmen a rein to go to any extent they
please; if you give them an indulgence, they will wish for
more, and be induced, in case of a. future attack, to give a
preference to the government of France, rather than adhere
to the interest of England. Every delay is justified, by
which you can get information. It clues appear to me
that information, mlvd vocé, is far inferior to a report, drawn
up coolly and oflicially. It is the best sort of brief that can
be brought to the House; for we are all counsellers here.
Therefore, I hope the noble lord will assent to the motion;
for, without his assent, we shall not get it.
The Attomey-GeneraZ.—As far as I have been called
upon to give my opinion, I never have made, I never mean
to make, any kind of secret of that opinion; but I ought,
in duty to the House, and out of regard to the honourable
gentleman who has made a very singular proposition, to
apprise the House, that whether my opinion is or is not to
be laid upon the table, it is flatly impossible it should come
in the way he proposes. If the House were to eztlliupon me
to state my opinion as at servant of his Majesty, the only
line of obedience would be to read that opinion. I could
not trust the slipping a single word of it; but gentlemen
know, it does not consist with the rules of Parliament to
demand any of his Majesty’s papers, otherwise than by ad-
dress; and it would be a breach of my humble duty to his
Majesty, if I, without regular and parliamentary commands,
were to state what I had written, in obedience to his Ma-
jesty’s commands. My opinions are stated upon paper. No

1774.] ron THE eovnnxirianr or onem:c_ 83
man has a right to take them out of the office, and read
them to the House. If the House think proper to he
informed, it must be in the way of address to his Majesty.
With respect to the propriety of such an address, I have
been very much astonished, that any gentlemen should
maintain, that an opinion given abstractedly from any act
of Parliament, but upon the autholity of the law as it then
stood, would be the sort of information which this House
could want, for the purpose of making a law with respect
to Canada. The only sort of information the House has
ever proceeded upon, on such an occasion, is this: that
people are told to lay before the House a competent know-
ledge of the fact. Does Parliament want to be advised by
persons who sit here? Certainly not. Do they want advice
how to proceed in 21 parliamentary course? Since I sat in
Parliament, I have many and many times heard questions
not only objected to, but flung by Without the slightest
debate, only because their object was, not to obtain informa-
tion upon facts, but the opinion of the witness what ought
to be (lone. But, says the honourable gentleman, shall we
therefore proceed in the dark to make a law of such import~
ancc and extent as this? I confine myself to the words
importance and extent, applying no harder epithets. So far
from being a law of tyranny, if liberty were about to be
forced upon the Canadians by the hand of power, by the
hand of compulsion, I should hold that which bears the
specious name of liberty, to he a harder act of tyranny and
power, than any we could invent. It would be taking away
their laws at one stroke, and giving them others. The
honourable gentleman says, “ But we want information con-
cerning facts only.” Those facts you would require to have
proved; and unless it could be stated to the House that
they were facts, real facts, not opinions upon facts, I be-
lieve it is exceedingly unparliamentary to‘ resort to that
kind of assistance for forming that kind of ‘opinion. I am
clearly of opinion, that the papers moved for or alluded
” G Q

84 DEBATES on ‘1‘l~Il’l BXLL [May 31,
to, are not of a description to induce the House to postpone
the bil.l. to another session.
Colonel Barre’.-Tlie learned gentleman says, you are to
examine the evidence upon facts, but not to take that evi-
dcnce’s opinion. VVhy, Sir, suppose a great legal question
to be agitated in this House; suppose, what I helieve is
pretty true, that many gentlemen in this House are much
influenced by the power of the King’s servants learned in the
law; suppose those learned gentlemen had given an opinion
directly contrary to the bill which is sent to us from the
Lords; suppose that no man, either in that House of
Parliament or this, would own he was the father of it; sup-
pose this to be the case in any one proposition you please-—
is it not reasonable for gentlemen on one side of the House
to he told by the other, that the King’s servants have given
such opinions? Is it not reasonable, on the other hand, to
see what are their opinions ?—If those opinions happen to be
in the teeth of what is recommended to us from the other
House, what ought our conduct to he then? Would you
not naturally entertain a strong suspicion of the impropriety
of the hill, and in that case reject it? Perhaps I may be
wrong: they may have given an opinion in favour of it;
hut the world without doors say, they have not given an
opinion in favour of it. I must justify myself I wish for
information; but l. find I am to be debarred from it.
The Attorne-_z/-General.—It has been taken for granted, that
the King’s law servants have given an opinion concerning a
bill to he brought into I’arlimnent. [Many members called
out no! no! no !] No opinion they could give as lawyers
could possibly relate to the bill to be brought into the
House. If’ they gave any opinion about any bill which was
to he brought into the House, it was not an opinion given
as lawyers, but merely an opinion of whet was fit to be done
upon such and such occasions.
Colonel Bm’ré.—-‘.[‘l1e settlement of Canada has been under
consideration some years. It is natural to wish to give to

177-1] ron run oovnimiinm‘ or ounlmc. 85
this people as much liberty as possible, without oppressing
them with that liberty. Perhaps the Kings servants have
given an opinion, that more liberty might be given them.
Mr. Edmund Burlce.–I shall say very little upon the
subject, and I should wish to act still less, because I do
not wish to speak or to act upon what I do not know. l do
not remember that I at any time came here with so littie
information given me, to decide upon a question of this
degree of magnitude, since I had the honour of sitting in
Parliament. That my honourable and learned friend is
ready to come to 21. decision is very natural. He Walks in
the light; but if he stood as I do, without any particle of
oflicial infonnation, he would wish to be supplied with every
degree of parliamentary information-—-parliznnentary in the
form, absolutely necessary in the substance. I think that
infolwnation should be moved for agreeably to the sense of
the learned gentleman, by address to his Majesty, and that
the request should be put in the most respectful manner
to the Crown.
The circumstance of the parliamentary form, then, being
settled, I now conic to the substance. The learned gen-
tleman observes, that it is ‘a tyranny to place over a whole
people 21 law they do not understand. But, Sir, is it not
less a tyranny to place a law over them which they do not
understand, than to impose upon them a law which we do
not understand ourselves? Does this House know what
that law and custom is which they are going to impose upon
their fellow subjects? I do not condemn oithcr the present
law, or that which is proposed in its place. I will not
approve the one or the other; much less attempt to impose
it either upon Frenchmen or Englishmen, until I know
more of the nature of those laws than I do at present. The
custonmry law of Canada may he a. defect grown up from
the time of barbarism, and corrected by despotism; as in
many parts of France, in many parts of Germany, and in
many other parts of the world. Can we say, what is the
customary law of Paris, which is going to be made law by

86 nnnnrns on rm: mm [May 31,
this bi]l—whieh is going to be made law in Canada? Do
we know how to modify it by the practice and admission of
the civil law, which has been admitted into almost all the
provinces of France? For observe, that it is not the custom
of Paris, which has been mitigated by ordinances and miti-
gated by the civil law, which is proposed to be established ;
but the custom of Paris, unmitigated, unqualified, is new
proposed to he established for ever, as the law of the pro-
vince of Canada. I should be glad to read the clause, to
see if I am right in that expression; for I could wish to be
correct. In page 3, it says, that “ all his Majesty’s Canadian
subjects shall hold and enjoy their property and possessions,
&c.; and that in all matters of controversy relative to pro
perty and civil rights, resort shell he had to the laws of
Canada.” I see I was rather mistaken, and am willing to
correct myself. It is not the custom of Paris that is to he
established in that extent, but the custom of Canada, of
which we know little or nothing: But there is something
worse in the wording of this clause; for it is to be esta~
blished, it is said, “in as large, ample, and beneficial manner,
as if the said proclamation, commissions, ordinances, and
other acts and instruments had not been made.” The word-
ing of this clause supposes, that the acts and ordinances,
and law of England, had not been beneficial to the Cane,-
dians; that the law of Canada is by the English government
approved; and the law of England stands condemned, as
not being beneficial. Now, I should be glad to ascertain
two facts; first, whether the British government is odious
to the Canadians; and next, what are the excellences of
that government to which we are reverting; what beneficial
effects it has produced; and whether the people of Canada
have flourished more under the French government, than
under the English government? These are matters of
fact necessary to he known, to enable us to judge of these
laws. I shall never be induced to consider government
in the abstract. The government under which the people
have flourished most, that is the best government. I should

1774.] Folt THE GOVERNMENT on ounnnc. 87
desire to see the present state of the country compared with
its state for the twelve or fourteen years preceding the
troubles that gave rise to the present measure. Perhaps the
people have enjoyed great benefits. If they have, I would in-
quire, whether this proposed change must not produce great
inconveniences? Until I have this light of facts, it will be
impossible for me to give an honest vote, with :1 view to a
change of the government of Canada. If you introduce
laws that have lain dormant for twelve or fourteen years,
it is as much an innovation, as if you had made the consti-
tution new. I have no objection to make the constitution
new, provided the necessity of so doing is set in st clear and
satisfactory manner before me. I think Parliament can
proceed upon no principles but two-—reason and authority.
Reason we have none. The next question is, what is our
authority? I believe the opinions of the learned gentlemen
near me, will, must, and ought to have their due degree of
weight with the House. They seldom give their authorities,
without, at the same time, giving their reasons. It may he
said, \ve have the gentlemen here, and therefore have no
need for their written opinions. I should very readily agree
to this, if gentlemen will tell me that these written opinions
may not have been given with a greater or less degree of
latitude in the council-if gentlemen will tell me that I
cannot, for the sake of the public good, have those facts
brought before us, which those learned gentlemen made
use of to justify their own opinions. The reasons of those
great law authorities, combined with the authority of those
facts, must have great weight with me.
I have hitherto avoided oiiering a single word upon the
general policy of this bill. It is said, the general provisions
of the bill are to be considered in the committee, and the
general argument on bringing up the report. I guard
myself from this admission, upon this single question-—ought
not such a ground of iliforination to be first given, as will
induce you to reject the law of England, and assume the law
of Cunaclu?—tl1at is, to reject the law which you do know,
and the beneficial eilects of which you have experienced, in

88 DEBATES on THE mm. [lllay 31,
order to impose another law upon the Canadians which you
do not know, but the ill effects of which you have felt? Are
you to proceed, in a manner so wild and at random, in con-
demning the British laws nnhearcl, and establishing the
French law in Canada? I may venture to say, “ condemn-
ing” the law of England; because its condemnation is vir-
tually tirade, the moment it is proved not to be beneficial to
the people. I believe I am not so attached to words, as to
put my o\vn opinion in competition with that proof; but as
yet I have no evidence that the people do not like our law.
I do not know this to be the case. The presumption is, that
the law under which they have long lived, is the law ‘most
agreeable to them. I will go upon presumption, when I
have no other ground to judge upon. The law may have
been more agreeable to them from their ignorance. They
did not know of any better; and the moment they know
some other system more beneficial, they may wish to adopt
it. Until I know that the people of Canada condemn the
British law, I will not impose another, which their own
enlightened udgment would have rejected. Has any peti-
tion appeared before the House, to tell us the law was a
burthen to them? Is either the fonn of trial, or the laws
by which they are tried, disagreeable? Vllhat evidence
have we of all this? As at friend to the people of Canada, I
ask these questions. The conquest of them should not make
them less dear to me: I would even treat them with a
milder hand. The treaty, too, has demanded it: but
until lknow that the English laws are not beneiicial—-
are not good for all men in all cases; until I know this,»-
until the people of Canada complain of them-—I will not
presume that they are opposed to them, At present, there
is an English complaint against the establishing of French
laws. I should be glad to hear a French complaint against
the establishing of English lows; and whenever that comes,
I shall be‘ ready to give it a fair hearing. But at present,
the bill stands upon no complaint. There can be no mischief
in postponing it; but there may he much mischief, if you
give the people French despotic government, and Canadian

1774,] non ‘rim GOVERNMENT or o,u.nnE0. 89
law, by act of parliament. By a delay of a year, they
would be kept out of the advantage of having Canadian
law universally established, which Canadian law univer-
sally establishes a despotism; and there is nothing left to
complain of but the despotism established by necessity.
At present, they bear that grievance; but a grievance
by necessity, and a grievance established by law, are
two very di(i’erent things. Supposing the bill to he
delayed for a whole year, the extent of the evil on our
side will be, that we shall have more information; and as
for the Canadians, they will remain a little longer in the
same situation in which they are at present. If you were
prepared to give them a free constitution, I should be in
haste to go on; but necessity-—“ necessity, the tyrant’s
plea’?-—is urged for proceeding iminediately.
Let us have evidence, then, of that necessity. I stand
for the necessity of information; without which–with~
out great, cogent, luminous information-—I, for one,
will never give my vote for establishing the French
law in that country. I should he sorry to see his
Nlajesty a despotic governor. And am I sure that this
despotism is not meant to leacl to universal despotism?
When that country cannot be governed as a free coun-
try, I question whether this can. No free country can
keep another country in slavery. The price they pay for it
will he their own servitude. The constitution proposed is
one which men never will, and never ought to bear. When we
are sowing the seeds of despotism in Canada, let us bear in
mind, that it is a growth which may afterwards extend to
other countries. By being made perpetual, it is evident that
this constitution is meant to be both an i1’isl1‘ument of
tyranny to the Canadians, and an example to others of what
they have to expect ; at some time or other it will come home
to England. When it is proved that the laws of England
could not govern Canada, it will he plain that some stronger
power than the laws of England is necessary to govern this
country. I shall give my first vote upon this bill, against

90 namrns on run 1su.t [May 31,
the despotic government there; whether it is to be esta-
blished for any length of time, or to he established at all by
Parliament. When you cannot make a free government,
you ought to leave a country to be governed by the ibrce of
necessity. Government, and a free government, are two dif-
ferent things; but with regard to those laws which are in
use at present, I cannot form an opinion–I know nothing
of the custom of Canada. I should be glad to receive
proper inforrnationt When I have received proper infor1na~
tion, I will then endeavour to speak to the merits of the
hill as far as I can: at present, T cannot form any opinion.
I wish to have it unclerstoocl, that what I have now said
relates solely to the question of information.
The rS’olivz’to1’~Ge1ze1-al.-— The honourable gentleman
began, with great propriety, by arguing as to the necessity
of information with regard to facts, before you come to form
any opinion; but, in his conclusion, not quite consistently
I thought, he argued as to the formation of a most decisive
opinion gainst the bill, without any of the information
that he required. But, Sir, if this is not a stage when the
argument upon the hill is to be taken up, it is not a
period of the hill in which that information could have been
already given to the House; but it is a period in which
gentlemen may state what information they expect, and may
call for that information before the consideration of the
bill goes further. Now, I perfectly agree, that it is fit the
House should be informed in matters of fact, before they
proceed to take any conclusive step with respect to those
matters. But What are the matters upon which the
honourable gentleman wishes to receive information? He
wishes to know what is the actual state of Canada——whe,
ther the inhabitants are satisfied with their condition, or
are clissatisfied—he wishes to know the ground of their dis-
satisfaction, if any dissatisfaction he exp1’essed——he wishes
to know the customs and laws by which they were governed
before they fell under the dominion of England. All these
particulars it is necessary the House should receive infornlas

1774.] FOR rm: eovnunmzur or ournuse. 91
tion upon; and all that information, in the best and most
competent manner in which it can he given, is proposed to be
submitted to the House. But from whom are you to ask of
the state and temper of the people of Canada, except those
who have passed some time in the country? From their
situation and character, they ought to give the fairest relation.
For that purpose you will have brought before you a gen-
tleman of high character–of very great humanity–much
respected in his civil capacity-—and who has shewn himself,
as l believe all the world admits, to he equally eminent in
his military capacity. That gentleman will give the House
full information of every thing during the time he resided
in that country. Mr. Hey, the chief justice of Canada,
who is well qualified in every respect for a witness, is like-
wise to attend; with another gentleman, Mr. Maseres, who
has filled the oflice of attorney-general. All these gentle-
men, and others, will attend to give the House the very
information which my honourable friend says is necessary,
before you can form a. right judgment of the system proper
to be adopted in the establishment of the bill.
But besides this information which may be then ob-
tained, certain speculations will he submitted to your
consideration, which, at certain periods, were entertained
by certain persons with regard to this law-system of Canada.
I shall be at all times very happy, that any speculations
which I may have formed should he known; but I can-
not conceive what possible etlect those speculations could
have upon the deliberations of the House, as to whether
this hill will be a proper bill or not. How it can be judged
of by private speculations, I can form no idea; but if these
can be no test of the measure, will they lay no ground of pre-
judice in the mind of any person? We ought to entertain
no prej udiee for or against the measure. Its merits or de—
merits must be tried upon fact. The speculation-the system
-—the theory-of any particular individual, would have, and
ought to have, no weight whatever over the deliberations of
this House. The best of those speculations, and, l am

992 DEBATES on run nun [May 31,
sure, the most respectable of them, are in print; but I shall
pay no more to regard them, than I do to Mr. Locke’s laws
of Carolina. Certainly, they are pretty amusement-—g‘0od
general reading; but, as applied to the particular questions
necessary to be attended to in the discussion of this bill,
they never can come into competition with evidence taken
at the bar of this House.
My honourable friend has mentioned another thing that
is material; narnely,—-what the sentiments of the Cana-
dians have been-—whetl1er they have expressed satisfaction,
or dissatisfaction, with the present government of the coun-
try. Those gentlemen who are about to attend can inform
us on these, and many other nice questions.‘ In order that all
such matters may be brought before the House, I up/pre~
hend it is only necessary that we should proceed to the
C0l’l]Yl’1lflC€G. The first thing will be to hear those who have
petitioned against the general ground of the hill: they will
possibly have evidence to produce. We shall then call on
other persons who are capable of giving the House the
information they require Then we shall come, not to com-
pare systems we are ignorant of, but those we are acquainted
with, because we know the ground we are proceeding upon,
If we like them, we shall adopt them; if we do not like
them, we shall reject them. I think we cannot be taxed
with precipitation, or with being in a hurry to give the
Canadians a government. The term freed0m—the term
l2’I2erty– are relative terms. Absolute liberty exists no
where. A government that will make the people happy, is
the best government for them. I do not think, in the ab-
stract or theory, the highest degree of liberty ought to be
granted to zv. country, situated as Canada is—not the highest
degree of political liberty. I still less think it is fit to leave
the government of that country to 21 train of events, with
reference to which they are to be eternally modelling and
disposing of themselves.
Mr. Gascoyne.-—A question has been asked-what
grievances have been felt by the Canadians? I was not in

1774.] FOB, THE GOVERNMENT or Q.u1-mun. 93
your eye, Sir, or I should have told the House that there have
been great grievances in that country. For some little time
after the proclamation, there was nothing to complain of’;
hut, afterwards, ordinances were published, in consequence
of which, no Canadians could have justice. Their estates
were even taken away from them. I believe they. have
suffered much by those proceedings ;—-they mentioned them
long ago; and the board of trade reported on those griev-
ances in 1769, in which reports reference is made to some
that were drawn up in 1”/65. I will instance one com-
plaint–that against jurors. They, at one stroke, out
them ofi’ from the benefit of the constitution, and all civil
society. They had no advoeates—no proctors-n0 lawyers.
Mr. Edmund Burke rose to explain.-——It is supposed by
my learned friend, that I have approvcti of the government
exercised in Canada for fourteen years. I am very far from
approving of it ; but I do not wish to disapprove of it without
having evidence before me. I should not be so foolish as
to bring forward such a condemnation of government, with-
out abundant evidence to justify me in so doing. I think
the honourable gentleman has very clearly shown you two
things: one, that grievances arose from ilbunrlerstanding
hasty ordinances; the other,that they were issued by the des-
potic council n0\v established. l’Vhat is the cure proposed for
this grievance? to establish a legislature, with power to issue
more of such ordinances. The honourable gentleman, in
speaking of the presentment of a grand jury in Canada, said,
it was rt circumstance of horror—of’i1n”:tmy ; that on English
grand jury making a presentment, was :1 thing they did not
understand. If, however, men have abused that most ari-
mirable institution, taking advantage of the ignorance of
others, this ought to be areason for correcting the institution,
and not for throwing away one oi’ those things which we have
found most beneficial. If, after all, there is no way of cor-
recting existing abuses by an infusion of English liberty, the
people of Canada must remain under 2. despotism; but this
must be allowed only upon the last necessity.

9/1~ nnnnrns on THE nn,r. [May 31,
Mr. Pultrme_1/.-—Tl1ough the House may indulge the
two learned gentlemen from reasons of delicacy, in not pro-
ducing their reports, those of the governor and council may
at least be produced. .
Mr. Maclaworth.——I have no objection. Let the order
Mr. Gasc0yne.<1l-Mr. M:1seres”s report is printed; the
others would make 2. large quarto. They must work day
and night. It is not possible to copy them in the time.
The question being put, “ That the report of General Carleton
be laid upon the table,” the House divided. The yeas went
I Mr.Th.omz1s Townshend,
YLAS Mr. Mackworth . . . .
NGES { (3‘ée;)Drg;_Osl2o1″ne . . .
m »k
U1 0:
So it passed in the negative.
Mix Dempster.-—-I rise, Sir, to give my thanks to the
gentlemen opposite, for allowing us any information upon
this subject at all; but it does strike me, that there are
some words in the proclamation, by which the honour of
parliament is pledged to give a constitution to that country.
This being the case, I would submit to the House, whether
We can proceed to the further consideration of the subject, with-
out knowing whether it is essential to give that constitution or
not. His Majesty must have called upon the great law officers
for their opinions, and we should know what those opinions
are. I do not know how it is possible to forin a judgment
upon the hill without having them. The learned gentlemen
looked upon these as mere reveries. I think they are the
best opinions We can have; and I think it is the more incum-
bent upon the House to call for infornmtion, because we have
reason to believe the subject was not discussed so fully in the
other House as it should have been. I have understood, that
(‘) Bomber Gaseoyne, esq. He was at this time one of the lords of
trade and plantations.

the Canadian merchants gave notice to the noble lord, who
brought in the bill, of their desire to he heard. They
were assured they were to have notice, when the bill was
brought in. They intimated they would he glad to wait
upon that noble person, to state their objections to it. A
great deal of time elapsed, and, when they did state them,
they were told it was too late. In the first place, we are to
give a. constitution to Canada; in the next place, that
country, not long ago, belonged to an enemy. The inha-
bitants are not supposed to have much affection for this
country. I think every sort of information on the subject
ought to be given, Observe the way in which this business
has been transacted. The administration have taken eleven
years to consider of the subject: they have had it referred
to the board of trade, and to the law officersr abroad and at
home, and now the matter is brought before Parliament;
and the strongest reason, if you mayjudge from the late
division-—-the only reason –why we are not to have the
necessary light, is the time it would take to copy the
reports. How far that is a suiilcient reason, I leave
the House to consider. These people ought to have all
the indulgence, with regard to the laws of England, that
we can give them. I move, Sir, that there be laid hcfore
the House, copies of the reports of his Ma_jesty’s advocate-
general, attorney general, and solicitor-general, relating to
the province of Quebec.
Mr. MacIcworth.—»The opinions of the law ofiicers ought
to have weight, and have had weight elsewhere.
The House divided. The yeus went forth.
The Lord Folkestone . . .
YEAS { Mr.Byng . . . . . } 45
{tr ~ ~ ~ }
So it passed in the negative.

96 I)EBA'[‘ES’ on run 1;I1′.L. [May 3’1;
The order of the clay being then rezid, and the House
having resolved itself into an committee on the bill, Mr.
Mansfield, counsel for the merchants of the city oif London,
petitioners against the hill, was called in, and addressed the
committee to the following efFect :——— ‘
Mr. Mansfield (‘) began by acquainting the Committee, that
the merchants had such connections in the country, that
they wish to point out to the committee the objections
they had to one or two of the clauses in the bill; that they
(lid not petition against the hill in general; that they did not
do this from any wish to oppose a bill that might be approved
of by the legislature, but because they thought their own private
property was concerned, and that they were likely to he suiferers,
if the provisions in the bill should prevail.
That the petition states, that the King’s commission is foun<l
inapplicable to the present state of the courts, and recites the
particular provisions of the hill that all suits should he decided
hy the judge there; that this was at once to overturn the English
law, and to substitute in its place the law of Canada, and at once
to exclude entirely the interposition of a jury.
That they object to one of the most essential clauses of the
bill, which establishes not for a time, but for over, the legislative
council: that this as a temporary provision they could not pos-
sibly objeet to; but that it was as yet without example : that a
temporary provision of that sort had been-in no colony; and that
the Canadians were to be marked out by the most odious of all
distinctions—heeause when pushed as far as it will go, it makes
them slaves, whereas the nhahitonts of all the other colonies are
freemen. That it was for the wisdom of Parliament to consi-
der, whether such as yet uncxaniplecl mode of legislature
take its rise in the Parliament of Great Britain.
That his Majesty’s proclamation in the fullest and amplest
terms, gave all re_aso_n to expect that no law but the law of
(‘) Aftenvards Sir James Mansfiel<l, knt. In I”/76, he was returned to
parliament for the Ul!i\’€l’$iL); of Cmnbvidge; in 1780, appointed solicitor-
general; in 1799, chief-justice of Chester; and in 1804‘, chiefljustice of the
court of common pleas. IIe (lied in 1821, in his eighty-eighth year. ‘

1774] non THE oovnnmmnw or momma. 97
England: that in consequence of the optional jury, by which
either of the contending parties might have a jury intervene (but
if not, the snit was to be decided by the judge), many causes have
been tried by juries: that this view was not only the opinion of
the British subjects, but of the Canadians themselves: that he
was warranted to say, that after ten years’ experience, no com-
plaint had been made of it; that the more you inquired into the
temper of the Canadians, the more you would find them satisfied
with it, and desirous to have continued among them this very
mode of trial.
‘l”ho.t he was satisfied it would appear, that the general state
of the province was more flourishing than in the time of France,
both as to trade and agriculture: that this was the strongest proof
flint there was no necessity for overturning that system of
law, under which individuals were happy, and the province in
general fiomishhig. That he had nothing to prove before the
committee, as to the complaint alleged; that he could only say,
upon the best information, that nothing had been done that
deserved the name of injustice; that it was very easy for factions
men to raise distrust among a few; that it would be found con~
fined to very few persons indwd, and probably to have been pru-
moted by those who have different views from those who are to
decide upon this bill.
That the particular objections the merchants had to the clauses
of the bill, were the introduction of Canadian laws, and the exclu~
sion of juries: that everybody must know they were extremely
well-founded; that first, with regard to the Canadian laws, the
House had had a bill sent down to them from the Lords, at once
establishing in general this system of Canadian laws; that all
civil controversies were to be decided according to it: that the
respect and deference he had for the noble peers who had passed
this bill, made it impossible for him not to believe, but that they
were extremely well-informed of the Ganudizm 1flW$; H1111? if they
were to he asked, with regard to property, what contracts were
legal, what invalid, when neeessmy to enforce contracts, -what
satisfaction to be made in consequence of private wrong, what
the measure of damages, and a thousand other questions, he
takes it for granted, every one of those noble lords would give

98 nnnnrns ox THE BXLL [May 31,
very decisive answers ; but that, the committee were to examine
upon their own information.
That the law to be established was to be found in thirty
volumes; ten or twelvein quarto, the rest in folio 1 that the British
subjects thought that they had a right to what they ask, not only
wafer as they themselves were concerned, but for the benefit of all
the subjects that were in Canada: that it was fit, justice should he
administered by persons known and approved here, and worthy of
the royal confidence ; but how were such persons to be acquainted
with the Canadian law? Either judges must hc taken from
Canada, totally unacquainted with the administration of justice
here, or judges must he sent to decide in those courts according to
Canadilm law, who are totally strangers to it; and those who,
at the sainc time, are to administer justice, must first prepare
themselves by a short study of those thirty volumes. That
these were considered by the persons for whom he appeared
before the committee, strong objections to the introduction of
that law; that as for as they haxl been able to get any light upon
it, it was not preferable to the law of England, but, in
many respects, was not to be compared with it. That the oppo_
sition to the introduction of this French law did not at all exclude
any provisions that may be thought necessary; such as relate
to the descent of real property, its devolution, &cl, if, consi-
dering the state of Canada, it might he fit to break in, in that
respect, upon the English law. That in a. commercial country,
ie was fit that that law should prevail, which was best adopted
to commerce, whether it was to he found in the Canadian or
in the English code.
That the hjll itself bore testimony to the merit of trial by jury;
that the Czmadians themselves are willing to trust their lives and
limbs to this mode of trial; but that it is supposed, in civil cases,
not to be approved by them. That as to its inapplicability to the
present state of that province, it has been found applicable to
every state of society ; that it had its rise in rude and barbarous
times; that it had been continued by cultivation and refinement;
that any man who disapproved it, ought not to be heard in this
place, or any where else; that it was the wisest and completest
mode of deciding that ever entered the head of man ; that there

1774] For: ‘rn’1c eovsnirixerzr “cl? iivniziic. 0:,» “Q9
was nothing in the air oi; climate of Canada that could be adversi;
to it: that if there lmdiappeared before this I-louse a hundred
thousand COI1’lpla.lJliZS$fviZl16y ougl1t:,not‘to°beiE§tened”to§ “‘l‘hot
whether all the blessings which Englishmen suppose they derive
from it, should be given up to humour a whole people, might be
a question, but that there was no objection made to such mode
of trial; that it was a trial, as far as it could possibly be, by
the equals of the parties litigating, and by men who were under
the various exceptions and regulations provided by law, to
prevent interested persons from serving upon juries: that no
man of the least degree of common sense, when the novelty of
the object no longer struck him, could possibly be dissatisfied
with such at mode of decision; that it secures to them fairness;
that it secures to them impartiality; that it secures to them that
which is of great importance. judgment. That the jury can
never be tempted to do the parties injustice, because they
\vill, in their turn,have them for judges: that there does not
exist a humzui creature, who, after a short experience of this
mode of trial, could disapprove of it. That, considering it in 11
political view, as ll defence of liberty, it was material that civil us
well as criminal causes should be decided by juries: that one of
the great checks to urhitrary power was this, that every undue
exertion of it to the inquiry of on individual, might be brought
to the tribunal of at jury. That it was in this view :1 guard to
public liberty.
That it was not enough that Canada should be governed by
the legislative council without the lIlf6l’pOSii;l0l1 of afrec assembly,
if they were not to be enslaved: that it was necessary in at public
view, that every Canadian subject should have this satisfaction,
that if may were found trampling upon private rights, they might
he brought before a jury, and by that jury be obliged to make satis-
f;1¢tiQ;1_ ‘1‘]1;¢ when the legislature is established, and that great
security of liberty taken away, 9. free assembly, 01105611 85 the
House of Commons is, it will be the more necessary that this less
obvious security of liberty should remain; for if this be taken
away too, the consequence will be, that persons injured by the
jury will have very little reason to hope for redress. They will
have none to apply to but judges holding ofiicc at the pleasure of
the governor, and certainly at the pleasure of the Crown.
n 2

100 * iiunnfns e‘s’~ THE BILL [June 2,
‘~°Mr. Mansfield having concluded; Mr. Edward Walls
and“ Mr. Samuel Morin were called “in, and examined.
‘l‘h€*); sp”0‘l duced into banad§Z’ ancllstatefi, that the English residents
highly approved of the trial by jury, and were of opinion,
that an annihilation of that right would be very injurious
to the colony.
Thursday/, June 724
Mr. BaI1;m’,<‘> before the House went into the committee
upon the bill, said, he wished just to observe, that he was
surprised to see such an inattention to, and such a general
ignorance of’, maps. The country which Mr. Penn claimed
under his charter, though fully recited in the commis-
Siun, could not he fully comprehended without having at
map. He would have honourable gentlemen not only
consider the words, but apply themselves to the hest maps;
for, if the hill was fully examined, there were, he was sure,
parts in the first enacting clause, that could not he suffered
to stand.
The House then resolved itself into :1 committee upon the
hill, when Mr. Maekworth moved, that General Carleton
should he called in. The General was accordingly called
in, and examined as follows :
or CA1~1AnA.(’)
VVi]l you give the committee an account of the commerce and
(‘) William Baker, esq , at this time member for Plympton, and after-
wards representative for I-Iertfordshire in five paTli€!Il’l€lilEI< He had
married Juliana, (laughter of Thomas Penn, esq., of Stoke Pogies.
(2) In 1758, General Carleton accompanied General Amherst to Ame-
riczi, where he distinguished himself at the siege of Quebec, In 1772,
he was appointedigovenwr of Cmnida; in 1’7’/6, nominated u knight of the
hmh; in 1777, made lieutenant-general; in 1781, 81pp0inte(l to succeed Sir
Henry Clinton as commander-in-chief in America; in 1736, again appointed
governor of Quebec, Nova Seotia, and New Brunswick, and raised to the
peerage by the title of Lord Dorchester. He died in 1808.

1774.] ron TI-I13 GOVERNMENT or ouismzo. 101
government of Canada, when you first arrived in that country
as governor ?——I am not prepared to give an account of the
trade ; it would extend very fur, and require several papers which
Ihuve not here. _
I beg you to give an account of the state of the government at
that time.-In what respect P
I understood when you went over as governor, thatyou establish-
ed a form of government. In what manner was the civil govern-
ment carried on in Canada ?—’l‘he civil government consisted of
zr governor and council. They were -authorized to make laws and
1’eg”ulzttions in the province, under certain restrictions. Both the
questions are extremely wide; I do not know precisely what the
gent1eman’si have procured papers from the Custom»House of the imports and
exports. If I had lived in the country fifty years, I should not
have been able to give at precise account, without having the
papers in my hand.
What was the mode of proceeding in the courts of justice
when you arrived there ?-~’I‘hc justice of the province was dis-
tributed by two courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of
Common Pleas, and likewise by other courts which had power
more restrained and confined than the Court of Common
What was the form of trial in the Court of King’s Bench ?~I
hope the committee will not expectl should state that with accu-
racy. The chief justice should do it. I think the Supreme
Court or Court of King’s Bench, was according to the English
General C’umvay.– I do not mean to object to the question
of the honourable gentleman, but I submit to his consideration,
whether as we are to hear the chief justice, and the attorney-
general of Quebec, it is not more proper be put the question to
Mr. Mackworth.—-Were any objections made to that mode of
trial P-There are two sets of people in Canada: one, those who
call themselves the ancient subjects, the other the new subjects.
The first are very well satisfied with the form of justice adminis-
tered in the Court of King’s Bench ; the other, the newly” acquired
subjects, are extremely satisfied with the integrity of the court,

102 nunirrns ON ran 111121. [June 2,
but extremely dissatisfied with the mode of trial. Their dissatis~
faction arises, first from the great expense that the court draws
them into; and in the next place, from all the proceedings being
in a language they do not understand : they are likewise not satis.
ficcl with juries. They are extremely flattered and pleased that
there are to be juries; that they are to be admitted to be of the
number; but they think it very strange that the English residing
in Canada should prefer to have matters of law decided by
tailors and shoemskers, mixed up with respectable gentlemen in
trade and commerce ; that they should prefer their decision to that
of the judge.
I-lave they been dissatisfied with the judgments that have
passed in the Court of King’s Bench ?-—-I cannot say I ever heard
a complaint of the kind.
If juries were composed of the species of men such as they
approved of, would they disapprove of the mode of trial by jury?
-—The great object with the Canadians would be to procure jus-
tice; and to procure it at :1 reasonable and moderate expense:
these are the essential points. As to the mode of trial, whether
by jury or by the judge, they would prefer the latter from custom»
habit, and education. I am not authorized to speak for the Cane»
dians, to assert that they absolutely pray Zlgilillfiii juries. They
certainly are attached to their own customs and manners. I am
willing to give as much information as is in my power, but the
chief justice is much better qualified than I am.
If the expense was moderate, and the jury composed of proper
mon, Wolllll they Object to that mode of trial on uccount of think»
ing they should not have justice done them in the trial P-—I can.
not say that the Czuizuiians would wish to adopt it : on the con-
trnry, I have heard them make objections to it. How far those
objections will carry Weight, I know not.
Is not the trial by jury in the Court of Common Pleas optional?
-41 understand so.
Do you know that the Canadians oi‘ late, in the trials in that
court, have chosen the trial by jury to decide their causes P–In
general, I understand not.
Can you give any authentic account of the number of Protes-
tunt subjects now in the province of Quebec P–I had the return
of the province last April of the number of Protestants in the

1774.] roe run oovnrmmnrw or ousimc. 103
year 1770. By that return, I believe, every body who calls him-
self a Protestant is included. By that account they are under
four hundred men, about three hundred and sixty, besides women
and children, in the whole colony of Canada. I am afraid their
numbers are diminished since.
Do you think the diminution of the number of British subjects
is an advantage or disadvantage to the province?–’l‘hnt is a
political question. 1 am afraid their circumstances have been so
reduced, as to compel them to quit the province; lspeak from
humanity. I do not moan to give any political opinion upon the
In general, are these three hundred and sixty persons composed
of men of substance and property in the province ?—-‘I’he1‘e are
some who have purchased lands—~ofiicers, or reduced oflicers ; some
very respectable merchants; there are other inferior oflicers in
trade, and a good many disbanded soldiers. In general, they are
composed of people of small property.
VVhat do you think may be the number of the new subjects of
Canada ?–About one hundred and fifty thousand souls; all
Roman Catholics.
In the conversation you have had with the Canadians in gene-
ral, are they not very earnest for the restitution of the ancient
Canadian laws ?—-They were very much so, when I was in the
province; and by the accounts I have received sincel came to
England, they still continue very earnest indeed, and anxious
about it.
Have they expressed lately any apprehension on seeing plans
of government sent over, that those plans should take place, or
any satisfaction or desire that they should ?~Tliey have expressed
great uneasiness at the apprehension, and more warmth than is
usual for that people. They seem determinerl to form associations
and compacts to resist the English law, if they should be com-
pelled to do it, as far as they could do so with decency, and
their duty to the govemrncnt would permit.
Have the clergy in Canada since the peace enjoyed and received
the tithes and parochial dues P–They have received the tithes
and parochial dues as formerly; there may be some who have
not, but very few; as few as those gentlemen who receive their
rents; they are as well paid as the rents.

10% nnnyrns on THE nxm. [June 2,
Mr. C’/larles Fo.z’.-—Did they receive the tithes and dues only
from the ltoman Catholics, or from the Protestants likewise ?—I
really do not know; there are so few Protestants that cultivate
the land.
Was there an idea that the Protestant landholders were exempt
from paying tithe P-I have heard some of the clergy say, that in
the uncertain state of things, they would not ask the Protestzmts
to pay unless they chose it; as there were opinions spread among
them, that it was not dgreeable to the English law to try the right,
they would have to encounter the great expencc of the law. I
think it induced them to act with great moderation and discre-1
tion in the nlatter; hoping in £1 short time, that the laws would
be ascertained, that they might know what ought to be paid and
what not.
Did. those few British subjects inhabit the towns of Quebec and
Montreal ?—— Chiefly ; there are very ‘few in the country, so few,
that they are scarcely to be seen in tralvelling through it, as there
are but three hundred and sixty in a district of three hundred
miles long, and very wide. ‘
Lord Nort7t.~—Is not the cultivation of the lands entirely in the
hands of the Canatliaus P-Almo‘st entirely.
VVhat part of the trade is in the hands of the Canadians ?-—l
have heard about two~thi1‘ds. ~
Is not the trade much increased ?-——I understand the trade is
increased very much.
Do you attribute that increase to the trial by jury, or intro-
ducing s’o much of ‘the English law as has been introduced P-
No; they have no dependence upon that at all.
Can you assign anyprobable reason to what it is to be ami-
buted ?—’I‘J.1e colony of Quebec was in its state of infancy ; it is
so still, in some measwe. They have been now fourteen years
quiet. Tl1ecount1~y has peopled vex-yfast; besides the natural
increase of population, there have been at great many Acmlians,
who had come into the province; people taken from America
and Nova Scotiu, that were scattered in the province during the
course of the war. As the people multiply, they not as 21 sort of
farmers ; they take possession of the lands behind their own, so
that they go on cultivzlting the country very fast.
D0 you not think the old inhabitant in Canada is receiving

1774.] ron Tl-IE GOVERNMENT or QUEBEC. 105
considerable advantage from the change of the disposition of
the inhabitants, from a military to a commercial life ?-No doubt
he is. Under the French government, the spirit of the govern-
ment was rnilitary, and conquest was the chief object; very large
detachments were sent up every year to the Ohio, and other ins
terior parts of the continent of North America. This -drew them
from their land, prevented their marriages, and great numbers of
them perished in those different services they were sent upon.
Since the conquest, they have enjoyed peace and tranquillity;
they have had more time and leisure to cultivate their land, and
have had more time to extend their settlements backwards; the
natural consequence of which is, that wheat is grown in great
abundance. I have been very well informed, that we have ex-
ported large quantities of wheat.
Colonel Barri.-—-I submit, whether it would not be better to go
through one particular part first, without going into any other.
Lord North.-—It is almost impossible. Ne man can know how.
many questions every particular member has to ask upon this
Colonel J3′(m~é.-I have only one question to ask upon that
point, reserving” myself to ask others ; it follows from the noble
lord’s question. If by any means that same warlike spirit was
introduced again, ‘would it not introduce the like disagreeable
and bad consequences ?—l take it, that a spirit of war in that, and,
in all countries, is very much against population and the cultiva-
tion of land.
VVliat measures in that country would put an end to this
spirit ?-Their being subdued by the people they meant to
Lord N orth.—~Has not the increase of the agriculture been the
principal cause of the increase of the commerce ?-It is so under-
Do you not understand, that the great capitals of our mer-
chants, their great knowledge, and their spirit in trade, have like~
wise contributed to the increase of it ?-I believe they may have
been of advantage.
Are the Canadian inhabitants desirous of having assemblies in
the province ?– Certainly not.
Have they not thought with horror of an assembly in the

106 DEBATE5 on arm: BILL [June 2,
country, if it should he composed of the old British inhabitants
now resident there ?–No doubt it would give them great offence.
Would they not greatly prefer a government by the governor
and legislative council to such an assembly P–No doubt they
Do you not think :1 free exportation of corn contributed to the
encouragement of population and agriculture, as much as any of
the foregoing causes ?—’1‘he population was the first effect; the
cultivation of the land was the consequence.
Was it necessary to have any land to be qualified to serve on a
jury in the country P-I believe there is very little nicety in that
matter; there is too great a scarcity of Protestants. I beg leave
to add, in the list of jurors I mentioned, there were a great num-
ber of disbanded soldiers that kept tippling houses.
Is that the only idea of the assembly, that you ever knew sug-
gested to the Canadians, and to which they returned their answer?
-—I put the question to several of the Canadians. They told
me assemblies had drawn upon the other colonies so much dis-
tress, had occasioned such riots and confusion, that they wished
never to have one of any kind whatever.
Did not the Canadians likewise think, that assemblies would
draw upon them expenses as well as distress P-—By distress I
meant the displeasure of this countiy. No, they never stated
Have you never heard, that they imagined they should be
obliged to pay the expenee of government as soon as they had
assemblies, but that until they had them they were not to pay
the expence ?-No, that was not the idea. of the Canadians; they
dislike it as not being conformable to their ancient customs.
Do you mean indiscriminately the whole law, civil and crimi-
nal ?-—-The civil law.
Do you think, if all their customs of descent and heritage were
preserved, that they would be dissatisfied with the introduction
of trial by jury ?—Witli regard to any portion of their law, one
custom separate from another, l believe they would be extremely
hurt to have any part of their customs taken from them, except
where the commercial interest of the country may require a rea»
sonable preference, and such commercial laws as can be especi-
ally mentioned to them. I believe they would make no objection

1774.] FOR run eovnnmmur or QUEBEC. 10’?
to any such commercial laws, if they may know what those laws
are. But laws in the bulk, which nobody can explain to them,
they think would be delivering them over 0. prey to every body
that goes there as an attorney or lawyer.
Was the dissatisfaction expressed by the Canadians at largo, or
by the corps of noblesse P-—~They were pretty unanimous in most
points; as unanimous as so large a body could be expected to be.
Are the noblessc better pleased with a jury in criminal causes?
–1 never heard objections made to the criminal law, except in
one instance. Very soon after I went into the province, there
were some Canaxlian gentlemen and some English gentlemen
arrested for a very great crime indeed. They were accused of a
very great crime indeed. ‘They were committed to guol until the
next trial. It was the unanimous sense of the province that they
were innocent, and they were found innocent at their trial. Upon
that occasion, I heard several of the Canadian noblesse complain
of the English law; but, upon my word, Irecolleet no complaint
of the criminal law but upon that occasion.
What was the nature of the complaint ?–They complained that,
upon the deposition of one man of very bad fame, gentlemen
should be committed to prison, and there remain a considerable
time before they could come upon their (trial. They said, that
under the former law, more than one information would have
been taken, and an inquiry made by the Kings attorney-general,
and that those gentlemen would not have been arrested if such
information had been taken, as their innocence by that means
would have appeared.
Has there been any other trial by jury for a capital offence P-~
I do not remember to have heard of any.
Have there been any considerable number of trials for ofiences
among the common people P–Very few, to my knowledge.
What number of these noblesse is there in this country 9-My
memory will not suffer me to tell.
Nearly P»-I suppose :1 hundred and fifty ; I speak at random.
What is the occupation of them; do any of them trade 2-—I
believe very few; they are not fond of trade. They have been
brought up in the troops; they (lo not apparently trade : perhaps
they may have connexions with some that do.
Do you know from the Canadians themselves, what sort of a<l~

108 DEBATES on Tun rum. [June 2,
ministration of justice prevailed under the French government,
whether pure or corrupt P–Very pure in general; I never heard
complaints of the administration of justice under the French
Was it so pure, that there was no room for favour from the
judge ?—-The intendant of the province was chief in matters of
What was his general character F-With regard to his chame-
ter as chief justice, I believe it was miexceptionalzle. It can never
be the interest of a sensible man to connive at, or suffer, iniquity
in courts of justice. The matters in dispute are very small he-
tween neighbour and neighbour, and he would only incense the
people for very little purpose. The French intendant had other
methods of making large sums of money, and enriching his favou-
rites, if he hadv. mind to do it.
Was the administration of justice, in the other branch, equally
pure P-—He was at the head of all justice. He had his delegates,
who presided in small matters in the other parts of the province.
There was an appeal from the others to the intendant.
Were the decisions of the court in the three districts always
just ?~l believe so ; I never heard any complaints from the people,
that the courts of justice were not properly administered. I have
heard of great fortunes made in another lH8Jl.l1€1’.
If their favourite laws and favourite customs were preserved to
them, would they not, in every other ease, take the law of Eng-
land ?—’l‘hey do not know what the law oi England is; they call
thenlayyp of Englaudw ’tl§_;no,g&_o_fMa,dmiil_ist£iug_justi_ce. They do
‘jot know the diflierenee between Cnnadiaar-la\vi1nd. English, in
the mode of admiiiistering it. The essential laws of England, in
deciding matters of property, they have not the least idea of. The
intelligent part of the Canadians think and hope, that their laws
and customs may he continued, because they know what they are.
Have the intelligent part of the Canadians any idea of the law
of hahens corpus ?—I believe not the least. I do not say there
are no gentlemen who have made it their particular study.
Are there any number of the professors of the law, capable of
instructing them in the law there P–There is a Mr. Taylor,
attorney-general; there is a. Mr. —-——, secretary. I would not
venture to say there is one lawyer in the whole province who

1774.] FOR THE eovnnxrrmrr or QUEBEC. 109
has been at the bar in England; I may be mistaken. I do not
know one that ever was at the bar as-is lawyer. [This occasioned
a great laugh] ~ ‘
Then I understand you do not imagine that any other person
hut those two are barristers P—Not to my knowledge.
In general, have not the British subjects in Canada and the old
subjects intercourse with one another ?~—’1‘hey have very little
Do the Canadians in general communicate their sentiments to
the British subjects at all, or to the ofifieers, &e. P-They arc very
decent people, and communicate their sentiments only to those
whom the King has appointed to receive them.
Has there becn, by the supreme council established, any sum-
mary trial for small matters in the diiferent parts of the province?
–Yes ; the justices of the pence formerly had authority to try
small causes.
Were any of the Canadian gentlemen among those justices P-
l\‘ot one.
Didtliere exist in the French government any summary mode
of proceeding in the country P-—Yes ; some of the seigneurs had a
right to hold courts of justice. They almost all had a right; but
few exercised that right.
Has that been taken away under the English government, or
more exercised ?—- Entirely taken away; besides that right,
which the seigncur of the original tenure has, there was what is
called the right of proceeding as delegates to c1ifi°crcnt parts of the
Arc those delegates resident inhabitants, who have a commis-
sion somcthing like justices of the peace in England ?~—’l‘hcy
were creditable people of good understanding. There was
scarcely such a thing as a lawyer admitted into the colony, under
the French government, except the King’s lawyers; I mean re-
gularly educated lawyers. There were atwrnies and notaries.
Do you conceive the people of the country to be at allinformed
of the French law they lived under F–They understand the
French law from education, as the people of England understand
the English law from education, from the customs and usages of
the place. –
Do they understand more than the general custom of descent

110 nnnnrns ox THE mm. [June 2,
and heritage, and the mode of conveying property in that country?
-—They understand in all respects whatever comes before them.
All the French law was not introduced into Canada. They are
acquainted with the laws of property generally, and the custom of
Canada; hut as to the other laws of Paris, they are not introduced:
they are as much unknown to them as the law of England.
Is there uny code of Canadian law published P–There are law
books, and seine that contain precisely the laws and customs of
Paris, from whence the Canadian laws are derived. There are,
besides these, a collection of the customs of Canada, as far as
they are able to procure them, which I understand is published.
Has there been any plan proposed since you have been governor,
or any in your predecessor’s time, to determine causes of small
value P–1 do not know that there is any plan. They have no sort
of intermeddling with the administration of justice, but in jurics.
Would not that have removed their objection to the English
government, and given general satisfaction in the country P–The
administration of justice by the seigneurs was rather at tux upon
them; there were very few that exercised it. Since I have been
there, they have applied to me to know whether they might not
exercise it; or to know, whether it was taken from them. I said, I
wished they would let the mutter lie dormant till something was
finally determined.
What is the wish of the people who would be subject to this
jurisdiction i Do they wish to he tried without expence, and
upon the spot ?-—-They were under some check under the French
government. They certainly were not delivered up to their
mercy; there was an immediate appeal to the Kingfs courts of
justice. They were under the check of the King’s courts of
justice, and the Kings attorney-general brought every thing up
Might not some alterations have made that very agree-
able, such as might have enabled them to bring small suits to
immediate issue P»-They are very much attached to their ancient
customs. They were so much dissatisfied with the people to
whom commissions of the peace were granted in diiiereut parts
of the province, that I was obliged to take away their power. It
never was much trusted into the hands of the French.
Were all the judges in all the courts of justice in Canada bred
to the law ?–No.

1774,] FOR run GOVERNMENT or cunnnc. 111
Were any more than the chief justice of the King’s Bench E-I
believe not one.
Were the Canadians made aware by those persons, that ajury
in civil actions have nothing to do with the law P–They have v.
very confused idea of the Englishlaw.
What was tho nature of those decent compacts and associa-
tions they were determined to enter into, to resist the laws of this
country ?~»—To hind themselves in all niorriage contracts, as strictly
as it was in their power to do, that all their possessions should go
according to the Canadian customs, and in general to adhere to
that as closely and firmly as possible.
Did the supreme legislative council ever make any laws to
secure property, according to the Canadian customs ?–There were
some ordinances made; but I never could learn that anything
was clear or certain in the law, nor did I understand clearly what
was the law and custom; nor does it seem to be a clear question
in the country. I have heard the same man argue for the Eng-
lish law in one cause, because it suited his cause, and I have heard
him argue for the French law in another cause. There is an
ordimmce for quieting the minds of the Canadian subjects,
directing the court of common pleas to decide agreeably to the
laws and customs of Canada, in adhering as much as possible to
the laws of England. There is also an appeal to the supreme
court of equity, which is directed by the common laws of England.
Would two-thirds be satisfied to have their suits, relative to
debts in the country, decided by the Canadian law P——I believe
Have they any regular method of conveying their sense at pre-
sent ?—-I understand they have conveyed it in petitions. When
I was in the province, seeing great heats and animosities upon
every occasion in various sorts of people, and that petitions of all
kinds greatly incited these nnimosities, I dissuaded them, us
much as it was in my power, from measures of that sort. Before
my arrival they had expressed their desire in a petition to the
King. They frequently repeated the Substance of that petition,
as their earnest desire and wish, and would have drawn up a fresh
one, had I not dissuaded them from so doing. My reason was,
that I wished them to wait till the King should think proper to
reply to their petition, During my residence, upon all occasions, all

U2 DEBATES on run BILL [June Z,
sorts of people expressed the same wish and desire as in the peti-
tion, which I understood to be the petition sent before my arrival.
I unrlcrstaud that since I have been in England, they have ex-
pressed the same wish and desire by fresh petitions, for fear the
former one should be forgot. I assured ‘diem that in due time proper
-attention would be paid to it and justice he done; and that in
‘the mean time, they ought to rest satisfied with the goodmrill
and intention of this country towards them. I saw a lettcr, or
paper, asking two Canadian gentlemen, in case I had not been
here, to act for them as their agent, to present this petition.
Are the Canadians aware that an assembly into which they
were admitted would be a legal and decent method of making the
sense of the inhabitants known, or have they been led to look
upon all representations of assemblies as factions, &c. P-~l believe
they have no idea of assemblies, but what they receive fiom tho
‘newspapers, and the accounts that come from the other pro-
Have, or have not, any pains been taken to explain to such
persons the excellence of such :1 constitution, and the advantges
that would arise from it, or have they been left to conjecture P-~
It is a diiiicult matter to instruct a whole people in lessons of
politics, and I have never attempted it.
At the time the apprehensions of the Canadians were signified
-to the otficers of govcnnnent, had there been no conference
among the principal people in Canada? Had there been no con-
ference with the governor, to hit upon the fonn of government
most agreeable to the people P-—They had frequently expressed
-their desire and prayer to have their ancient usages restored to
them ; and stated that the form of government which came near-
est their ancient usages would be most agreeable to them.
Did they state what those usages and customs were, to the
persons to whom they applied ?–They were in general words,
and are expressed in the petition. All conversations upon the
subject were to the same effect.
. Do you conceive it would he impracticable at this time, with~
out giving general lessons of politics to all the people, to explain
the advantages they would derive from the English government,
without the abolition of all their usages P–They have very often
told me, that during the military government, the English fre-

1774.] non run GOVERNMENT or cunimc. 113
qnently expressed to them the happiness, and great advantages
they would receive, by the introduction of the laws of the English
government, and by the protection of the civil laws of the coun~
try ; that they were to become a happy people by the change,
Several years after, when they had experienced what it was, and
found that they were debarred of what they looked upon as the
civil rights of subjects, and that they understood that, as Roman
Catholics, they could not enjoy places of profit, or trust, or ho.-
nour, they thought it was adding mockery and insult to severity;
and were astonished that people could hold such language to
Was it ever suggested to them, that the diificulty could be got
over, and that the Roman Catholics might he admitted to some
share in the government ?-—-l have often told them that I believed
it would be the case in time.
Did you ever hear of any of the principal Canadians expressing
a wish that, until there was an assembly established, the council
established by the King should he so modified, as to bear as near
a relation as possible to the moderate principles of the consti-
tution of this count1’y?—-I often heard them express at wish,
that Canadians should be admitted into 1:he’ council : I never
heard anything further.
How was the legislative council composed in the French
government? Had Canadians a share ?-—It was more a. council
of jimtice than of state, and more ‘a. council to receive appeals
than to make laws: they made certain small regulations. The
governor was chief of the council : the intendant was president,
and he collected the voices. There were a certain number of the
Canadian inhabitants that were of the council likewise.
As to the population of Canada, you said there were three hun-
dred miles of settled country from the island of Coudres to above
Montreal ?-I did not say that all that country was settled.
Some of the people reside at -—–—, which is very far up indeed.
The lower part cannot be cultivated, as I understand.
Does not the peopled part of the country extend for about
‘three hundred miles ?—-More. I believe above three hundred
“Fhat outposts are there ; how far do they extend, and how popu-

l14~ DEBATES oN_ THE BILL [June 3,
lous? VVhich of those settlements are under your government?
-—It would be a very diffioult matter to give a clear idea. There
are next to none below the island of Coudres. The lands cannot
be cultivated. It would require a survey, and notes upon it, to
give a proper answer.
I did not mean to trouble you to enter into a minute detail ; I
meant in the gross. I meant to convey my idea, that the counny
is exceedingly populous. Exclusive of the populous country, are
there any other settlements, land to what extent ?—When I said
three hundred miles, I understood from the island of -,
not from the island of Coudres. Upon the north side there are a
few; upon the south side a great many.
l wish to know, in general, the furthest west point of the set-
tled populous country ?——From the island of it is tole~
mbly populous; upon the north side of the river, it goes above
the settlement of the savages. I forget their
How for above Montreal ?—Not fifty miles.
Ase there any considerable settlements any where within your
government ?~—’l‘he inhabitants are chiefly along the sides of the
rivers, upon the small rivers that run into the great river; where
their communication by water is most convenient, and where the
land is cleared.
Are there any considerable bodies of people, to the amount of
a hundred, settled within five hundred miles above Montreal P-~
That is without my province. There is no part of the province
five hundred miles.
What is the defined limit ?-—lt is in the proclamation.
Did not the intendant, together with the superior council,
make several legislative regidations ?—-They did make some; par~
ticulsrly those which are adapted to the local constitution of the
province, and where the laws and customs of Paris could not be
applied, without at great zlcal of absurdity; the circumstances of
their situation being so very diiferent.
In some cases where the intendant thought it was for the ser-
vice of his master, did he not make some regulations without the
consent of the council, upon his own authority alone, in civil
matters P–I understand in many cases he did ; but I understand,

1774.] Fen THE GOVERNMENT OF utnnnc 1’15
in matters of importance, it was necessary that the I{ing‘s go-
vemor should sign as well as he.
Are you acquainted with one Le Brun ?—Yes; Iknow a greet
deal of him.
Do you think he is likely to be acquainted With, or to report
justly, the general sentiments of the Canadians P—’I‘hat you may
the better judge of the credit to be given to that gentlemaxfs re»
ports, it is necessary I should tell you he was transported for
being a hlaclcguard, and impressed into the French troops in
Canada. I-Ie was not trzmsported as “:1 vagahond, in such manner
as at justice of the peace would send one. When he belonged to
the French troops in Canada he robbed, or was accused of hav~
ing robbed, the artillery stores. He was committed to gaol,
from whence he made his escape during the troubles in Canada. I
did hear that when Mr. Amherst came down the river he joined
him, and was useful to him. That procured him the first favour
of general Gage, afterwards of general Murray. I am sure it
procured him my protection and favour. The report that he
had been useful to on English general was suflicient. I-lis
behaviour was so had upon every occasion, that I was obliged to
give him up. He afterwards was accused of very dirty offences
with young children, girls of nine or ten years old, and was fined
by the justices of the peace, I think, in twenty pounds. A peti-
tion wus brought mo, praying to have the fine taken oil‘, and that
he might he permitted to live in the province. At the request of
the justices of the peace, I granted his petition. I think he was
in gaol at the time.
General Carleton was ordered to withdraw.
Mr. James T0wnsImzd.—F0r what purpose is this gentleman’s
name introduced ?
Mr. T. Townslwnd, jun.-If it was from any question I asked,
the noble lord is very much mistaken. I wish to know whether
he is or is not mistaken, as to Mr. Le Brun.
Lord Nm’t7z.——l know he was the person who gave his evidence,
that it was in general the desire of the province that they should
have assemblies. Knowing that, I inquired if he was likely to
be acquainted with their interests.
Captain Pbz’pps.–In examining into what method the Cantu
1 2

116 om.-vrns on THE mu. [June 3,
dians had taken to suggest their inclinations, I think it fair to go
into an inquiry, whether those persons who gave their evidence
were likely to know. lthink it is right the committee should
know whether he was likely to be entrusted with the inclina-
tions of the Canadians.
Mr. T. Townslwnd, jun.–There is a paper upon your table,
signed by many names, in which sire these expressions: “ It is
the opinion the people have in that government,” [see the paper] :
Z shall he glad if the noble lord will confine himself not to Mr.
Le Brun, but go on, and ask general Carleton questions. .
Lord North.–Tliis is the strongest thing in the world. Did I
ever confine myself to Mr. Le Brun P As he had written to Eng-
land, did I’n<>t know that what he wrote had been laid before at
part of the administration? When we are inquiring into what
the Canadians desire, as to particular forms, is it not regular to
know them from somebody? I do not say he signed that peti-
tion; but I say, before I give credit to his opinion, I must know
whether it is to be credited.
Mr. James Towzzslwnrl.-~I interrupted the examination from a
principle of order. I think it extremely disorderly to (}\’l1T\lIl£\.llG
the character of this man before this assembly. Nothing has
appeared against Mr. Le Brun. When charges are going on, it
becomes every man in this assembly to take care men’s names are
not improperly introduced. Not knowing anything of Mr. Le
Brun, I say when he is brought to prove any fact, then is the time
to eriminate him, or to szty anything in his favour. I think it
become me to get up.
Lord Nurflz.-— My question was this, Do you know that Mr.
Le Brim was at person likely to he informed of the opinions
of the Cz1nadiz\ns, or whether his evidence is to be relied
upon ? The witness did not answer directly, No ; but said, “ In
order to explain,” &e., and left the committee to judge. I will
not ask any more questions about Mr. Le Brun, unless his name
is mentioned; but when a course of inquiry went in giving
marks of their favour, l thought it was necessary to know what
those mzwks Were.
Captain P/:i]J]Js.~—l will only state to the committee, as for as
anything dropped from me, that I never heard Mr, Le Brun’s
name before the noble lord asked the question.

1774.] FOR THE covurmnmvr or QUEBEC. 117
General Carleton was then called in again, and asked:
How long were you governor of Quebec, and resident? Are you
not governor new ?–I am governor now. I was in the province
as governor, or lieutenant-governor, commanding in the province,
about four years. _
Did you not, (lUl‘l.!lg the time of your being governor, endea-
vour to learn the manners, temper, and genius of the people over
whom you presided ?~—No doubt.
From the knowledge and experience you have of those people,
do you think they would choose to have the English law as a rule
to govern them, both in matters of property and matters of crime ;
or in either, and which of them P»-The Canadians are very anxious
to have Canadian law to decide in matters of property. I be~
lieve they are pretty in<iifl”‘erent in regard to criminal law. Is that your judgment, formed from your knowledge and c>:pe~
rlence of them ?–It is.
Do you not imagine that the aversion they have expressed to
the English law is because they think it is likely to interrupt the
course of descent and inheritance, and to load. them with incapa-
citics as Roman Catholics F»-The purtielity and attachment which
they have to the laws and customs they possess is well known ;
and they apprehend that laws unknown to them may introduce
something terrible to them; they know not what.
Is there not a great difierence between the criminal laws of the
two countries P-—The criminal law they -have experienced is, in
fact, not so extremely difi’erent. The mode of prosecution, the
mode of deciding by the law, is very different; but the trial of
great crimes, in nearly all civilized countries, is almost entirely
the same.
Are there not more punishments in the law of England than in
the law of Canada ?-I believe there are : I cannot pronounce.
Was their dislike to the English law uniform from the begin.
ning ?—From the time they first experienced it, they very soon
found at great difference in the expense, which was very grievous
and oppressive to thorn; not from any defect in the characters of
the gentlemen; but the wealth of the country, compared to this,
is extremely small. Fees of all sorts, though not unreasonable
in this country, were CO.\’lSl\1Cl’Cd extremely heavy in that.

118 nmmrns on THE mu [June 3,
Did they not complain, that the proceedings were held in a
language they did not understand; and that no Canadian advo-
cates were permitted to plead in the courts P-—That was a great
complaint indeed, till it was remedied.
When that was remedied, did they then express as great dislike
as they clid before i—The expense continued pretty much the
same; the satisfaction was greater, having then lawyers that
could plead in the language they knew. I believe there has been
very little of that in the supreme court.
Have you seen an act passed in the other House relative to
Canada ?-I have.
Do you think that bill gives the freest form of government to
Canada it is susceptible of P-I should think it the best form ad.
visahlc to give in the present state of the colony.
During the time the English law was executed, had they any
such thing as regular gaol deliveries P-pl understand the chief
justice is to attend. It is 8. question much more applicable to
Were not people apprehended by the power of the intendent
and attorney-general, and detained without any kind of assistance
from any other place P-—l never heard any complaint of the kind.
Do you not know there was some ofiicer that had that power?
—-l do not know he had the power, but he may have acted from
his own cupricc or fancy.
Where was that power vested P-—’I‘he power was in the in-
tcndent, and likewise in the attorney-genera].
Was 1-my person ever prosecuted ?—-1 really do not know that
any one was,
Did tho mode of trial upon court-maxtials for military offences,
during the French government, give any ofifence ?—No.
Were they not tried by some council of oflicers of the corps?
-I should imagine they were tried by the corps of military men,
Had they any objection to that mode of trial 2-l never heard
they had.
Were the nohlesse not very fond of rnilitary rank and distinc-
tion before the conquest P–They were almost all military men,
and of course fond of rank and distinction.
Do they enjoy such gratifications now?–I do not know that

1774.] non THE oovnnnnnnur on ounnno. 119
any of the Canadians in Canada enjoy any gratifieations from the
court of France.
Do they enjoy any under the English government P—None.
Would it not be flattering to them to enjoy some rank?-—
Would it be more pleasing to have a share in the government?
If his Majesty did not choose to appoint any particular persons
in the place to 11 share of government, would they not be glad of
having other lawful and honourable means of providing for them~
selves P»-No doubt.
Do not the gentlemen of Canada form some opinion relative to
the welfare and prospefity of their own country P Is not that a
matter of rliscussion among them ?–It has been a matter agitated
very much; but they seem to confine their ideas chiefly to the
restoration of their laws and customs, and wish that all distinction
should be taken away which separates them from the English
subjects. By that I understand the admission into places and
ofiices of trust and honour, equally with the English.
Wou1(l they be glad to be in such a situation as to make this
idea of theirs prevalent P–No doubt.
Have they such objections to the form of an assembly, us to
wish to make their ideas prevalent in such assembly?-—’l‘hey
do not wish for assemblies ; but if assemblies must he, no
doubt they would wish them to be a. free representation of the
people. If that should be the case, they would compose n great
part of that assembly.
Would they have an objection to at seat in such an assembly,
in which they might have on opportunity of delivering their opi-
nions ?~—They never had an assembly, or anything like an assem-
bly, nor have they the least desire to have one; but if there
should be one they wish to have a share in it.
Have they any particular objection to arbitration i-—Very fur
from on objection to it. In =1 great measure they have come into
it, wishing to keep clear of the courts of justice.
Could they, therefore, have any objection to have causes de-
cided by gentlemen of the country P-—They would wish very
much to have their causes decided by gentlemen bred up in the
country; acquainted with their laws, usages, and language.

‘1f?>0 lvnnmns on rue mm [June
They would give the preference to judges; but l do not know
whether they would make any violent opposition to juries, if this
country should think them advantageous. They confined their
petition mostly to general points. I do not know how for they
would make juries an essential point.
Many members calling out, Withdraw!
Mr. M zwkworflz said :–I think it is a little hard the committee
will not give me leave to ask a few questions, as the general
attended at my request.
Mr. Balrer.—-If general Carleton is too tired, he may refiresh
Sir Charles I/V/titwortlr, chainnan, asked him, if he would choose
to retire? The general said, he would rather retire for a little while.
Lord Nart7t.—Befoi’e we go into another motion, I submit,
whether it is necessary the clerk should set down the whole
of the questions and answers, or the substance of them. ‘
Sir George Yongn.–‘l‘l\e answers must be taken down.
Mr. Cavendis/i.~I apprehend it will be proper to take down
the evidence correctly, or not at all. It is to the c1erk’s minutes
alone that gentlemen can refer, so as to debate orderly upon the
General Carlcton’s retiring occasioned some little embarrass-
ment about the mode of proceeding. Some gentlemen were for
going on with the evidence, before the general was examined
again. Lord North said, it was better to go on now. Upon
which Mr. Williitm Burke said, I will take his advice, first, be’
cause it is his advice, next, because I am not likely to do other
wise. Many members calling out Order! order l he Said, let
any gentleman get up and say, wherel am out of order. I sup-
pose you do not choose to put the question. I meant no affront
to any man. ‘
Sir Clmrles l’V/Lii1U07‘Z]b.——WllGfl a question is put to the chair,
I apprehend that question must be disposed of. Gentlemen may
debate the question, and give their reasons for giving it a ncga~
tive ; but my duty is to put, without favour or ziifection, cvory
question that is put to me.
Mr. VT/illiam Burke.–I humbly conceive no question can be
put. That gentleman must be called in again. l say it is dis-
orderly, that any question should be put. v

1774.] non rue GOVIGRNMENT or ounnec. 121
Sir C’/uzrles Wlzihvorz‘/’z.—-‘I‘liere must he a question put, until
general Carleton is moved for to come again. The question has
been moved that Mr. Maseres be called in. I have put that
Sir George l’on‘r;a_-_I understood that general Carleton was per~
mitted to retire in order to refresh himself. I submit to the House,
whetl_\er there is_a.ny objection to Mr. Maseres being called in. I
will say this, that when he is celled in and examined, he will he
fatigued, the committee also will be fatigued. They will not go
through his evirlcnoe ; so you will have a little bit of general
Car-leton’s evidence, and a little bit of Mr. Maseres. It will he
hotter to go through one examination: otherwise, I do not think
we shall at all get forwzud.
Col. Ban‘é.-—We are spending our time to no purpose. We are
wishing to have full informationi We have had a great deal
already; and we are to have a great deal more. General Carle-
ton’s evidence is not yet completed. It would be idle to say you
would limit him in point of 1-est. The next question is, whether
Mr. Maseres be called in. In the mean time, something has
fallen from gentlemen which shows that we are, in this business,
very much in the dark. The gentleman at your bar can only tell
you what a few Canadians have told him. There is a gentleman
now in this House, a nativeof the uountry, who has not enough of
the English language to express himself readily. His examinin-
tion will be short; and it will be easy to explain it. I do not
know him by sight. lthink the evidence of a native you cannot
deny. If this bill is to pass into a law, let us make it its com-
plete as \ve can. ‘
Mr. (7ornwaZl.-We are now in the course of hearing certain
witnesses, and gentlemen want to have o preference ; they want
to hear one witness before another. I do not know enough of the
subject to decide; but this I know, that the course of examina~
tion is such, that the gentleman may he kept three or four hours,
and yet the whole of the information he can give the committee
may be given in ten minutes. We are inquiring for information.
We may differ about the degree of information that may or may
not he satisfactory to all. I wish to stop none; but I wish not
to lose time. I have the honour to belong to the profession, and
lwill say, that nothing is mole dillioult than to conduct the exa-

122 nnnnrns on THE BILL |_J“”93:
mination of a witness, so as to convey clear evidence to the pan
ties. Here eight or ten gentlemen have been carrying the wit-
ness over the same ground.
Colonel Barré.——The honourable gentlemarfs observations upon
the examination of evidence have undoubtedly much truth and
propriety in them ; but every body has not the same difliculty as
himself. \Ve wish to have our own questions put and answered.
The noble lord canvassed the character of a certain M. Le Bum,
who pretended he knew the opinion of the Canadians. The
noble lord endeavoured to invalidate such an evidence. Now,
if it was worth while to do that, it surely is worth while to
examine M. Lotbiniere.
Lord Narth.-—I am acquainted with him. He is a gentleman
of good parts and of good understanding; but I do not see any
reason why he should take ylaco of the motion.
Lord John Crwemlish.—-I am heartily tired of the attendance.
lwish to go on ; hut it is a doubt, whether the calling Mr. Ma~
sores will shorten our examination. General Carleton has been
here three hours, and is to attend again. Many members who
have not been here before may ask questions toamorrow. I wish
to have general Carleton completely discharged. We have reason
to think there is some difference of opinion between those gen-
tlemen as to the state of the colony. Now, if Mr. Maseres be
examined, general Carleton will be to he examined to answer his
Statements ; and thus we shall get into a controversial exami-
nation. “
The Solicit0r-General.-—’When general Carleton went away
from the bar, I understood it was his wish completely to retire.
I apprehend no controversial examination is likely to take place.
If any gentleman hadvrnoved for M. Lothiniere, I would not have
0PpOS&Cl it. Nothing can be so idle as to debate for nearly an
hour which of the witnesses shall he examined. The questions
I shall put will be extremely few; but I will not answer for it,
that his examination will be short.
Mr. Cavenliis/z.—l beg leave to differ from the learned gentle-
man as to general Carleton’s wish. I judge from the generals
own words. You, sir, asked. him, if he would choose to retire for
alittlc while. Of course, I apprehend he could not suppose he
was to retire completely.

1774,] non THE GOVERNMENT 01> cwmsnc. 1%
Mr.Howa1-d.-I wish to ask general Carleton whether he is
sufiiciently refreshed.
Mr. Covenhy/.—No question was put upon his retiring. Seve-
ral witnesses have been five hours at the bar.
Mr. Rice.–He is the most valuable witness I ever heard in my
life. The general stood at that bar some hours, and now no
gentleman is o bit the wiser. If he is called in again, he will not
take up half an hour.
Sir Charles Whitwarth.-—-—W’hen switness retires, it never is by
question. Members call out, Withdraw! and he is brought in
again by question.
Mr. Covmztry.-~I move that Mr. Masercs be called in.
M1″. Museres was accordingly called in; upon which, Mr.
William Burke immediately desired he might withdraw.
Mr. Baker.–It is what I wished to clo; but I apprehend. the
honourable gentleman has done it in a disorderly manner. For
a witness to witlidraw before any question has been put to him,
is contrary to order.
Many members called out, No! no i no! General Carleton
being called in, stated, that it would be inconvenient for him to
give alonger attendance now. He was told he might attend on
another day.
EXADIINATION or Fnzmcls Mnsnnzs, Eso,., mvrn A’r’ron>:rry-
GENERAL on Qo1anno.(‘)
Mr. Maseres was then called in, and acquainted the committee,
that he went to Canada in 1766, and resided there three years.
He was then asked,
What were the sentiments of the Canadian inhabitants, upon
the supposition that the laws of England would be of no more
authority among them, by reason of the proclamation ?—A great
many were very uneasy upon the apprehension of a sudden
change of the lows respecting family descent; such as dowel”, and
the like.
Wlrat sentiments do they entertain of the form of judicoture P»-
(‘) Mr. Maseres obtained the appointment of nttorney~gcncrfll of Quebec
in 1766; from which situation he wns, in August 1773, raised to the dignity
of eursitor baron of the exchoquer. He died in 18%, at the advanced age
oi ninety-three.

1241 nnnnrns on THE sun lluue 3,
Iheard great complaints against the administration of justice.
I endeavoured to sift them to the bottom. I think the result was
the expense principally ; partly the delay according to the mode
of English adpiinistration. The expense did not consist principally
in the fees of attorneys, but the provost-marshal’s fees, which were
thought intolerable. At the same time, I doubt much whether
the provost-marshal did exact unreasonable fees ; because, the
two that acted there have assured me, they did not make fifty
pounds a~year of their place. Whether they said true, I cannot
tell. I have heard of the extravagance of the fees, and also of
the great burthens of attorneys and advocates; but those fees arc
not now greater, hut rather less.
D0 you thinklthc peop1e__have a strong attachment to our laws
and customs P-I believe that the great body of the Canadians,
with the exception, perhaps, of an hundredth part of the Whole,
would he very well satisfied with the establishment of those laws.
Were the people of Canada very apprehensive on account of the
supposed danger to religion ?–I never heard them express much
apprehension with respect to any danger to their religion; but
they have at times expressed dissatisfaction at the disqualifica-
tion and civil inconvenience attending the exercise of their
religion; not any that the performance of mass would ever he
What do you understand to be the sentiments of the Canadians
with regard to the form of government they would wish to live
under ?—I have not heard many of the Canadians enter fully into
the subject. I believe their opinion is that of our poet,
“ Whate‘er is best administcr‘d is best.“
They have no predilection at present in favour of a legislative
council, or in favour of an assembly: I speak of the generality of
the people. There are a few persons who have thought more
upon the subject than the rest: I believe they would incline
to an assembly.
\Nhat sort of an assembly do you suppose they would like : an
assembly of which they might have a part, or one which consists
of his Majesty’s own subjects ?—l have heard some of them say,
they would rather have an assembly consisting equally of Protest-
zmts and Catholics, or at least of such Catholics as would take the

1774.] ran rm: oovmmnnnr or ounnnc. 125
oath of ahjuration of the pope’s power, but not the declaration
against transubstantiation,-than he governed by the legslative
council. I have heard so; but in general those who express a
wish for an assembly, wish for one without the exclusion of any
Catholics on account of the oath :—I mean the oath as it now
stands; I mean that which is commonly called the oath of supre-
macy. I do not know any instance of a Canadian taking that
oath; but they have been under no temptation to do it. Hitherto
they have had no assembly. As to being 21. part of the council,
it would have been necessary to take thc declaration against
trzmsubstantiation, as well as tho oath of supremacy; therefore
the distinction has not been tendered to them.
Do you think the Canadians are desirous of serving upon juries
in civil causes P–I believe they would like to have the option of
doing so continued to them. The ordinance that directed that
court, directed the jury to be optional; and I know that many
of the people do actually choose to have a jury, when their causes
come to be decided there ; which I look upon to be more conclusive
than any testimony of opinions may be.
Would they perform the oflice of jurymen P-They sometimes
complahied of that as a. hurthen.
Were not the forms of proceeding according to the French law,
in matters of contract and recovery of debts, exceedingly diiferent
from those which prevail under our law P–l believe they were.
The mode of execution is different. ’I’hey_ had not the law of
imprisonment in execution for a common debt: but it was intro-
duced by the special description, by that original ordinance that
set out the courts of justice. Since that time they have made
very frequent use of it; full as much as the British subjects, or
more so.
Do they in civil causes look upon the difference as a. haxclshipi
-~I do not know that they do. I recollect a circumstance in the
execution of at process in civil causes, in which the Canadians did
complain of the English law, until it was corrected: that‘ was,
there was too great haste made in selling their landed propeny in
a hurrying secret manner, and at a small price, for less than it
was worth, in order to pay their debts. That has been corrected
by on ordinance of March 1770 ; and care has been token to cor-
rect the p1‘0BcS$ of imprisonment, which made them liable to ind»

126 nrznnrras ON Tun mu. [June 3,
prisonmeut for debt even for the snem of twelvepcuoe currency, in
that part ninepence currency, by substituting the sum of forty
shillings. The ordinance provides that an estate shall not be
sold but after a proper time, and not at all for u debt less than
twelve pounds. .
Would not the Canadians think themselves happy without the
restoration of their laws and customs, and if none of their for-ms
of government were reta.ined?—-I think they would not be
happy without the restoration of some of their family customs, as
tenures of land, the mode of conveying, marriages, descent, and
dower, and the rule in cases of persons dying intestate.
Do not the Canadians at present esteem it a burthen to be
drawn from their homes to serve upon juries P–I have heard
complaints of the kind.
Are you not of opinion that, in order to make a trial by jury
more beneficial, it would be right for a certain allowance to be
made to persons called to serve on juries ?-~I think it would.
A small one would be sufficient : five shillings amen would make
them wish to be called upon juries. I think that allowance should
be paid by the party that requested the jury.
In any and in what deg-nee might it be expedient to establish
the civil jurisdiction of England, in preference to that of the French,
for trials of civil property P–I received an answer from an able
Canadian, M. Cugnet, to whom I have no reason to be partial,
as he has written very spiritedly against my plan,~—that the
conquest was in itself a misfortune; and’that they must bear
with a great deal, he was sensible, in consequence of it; that the
criminal law must be that of the conqueror, that is, le Zoi rlu prince;
but that they must submit to it. He has further said, as to civil
matters, that in point of justice, his Majesty ought to keep up all
the ancient and civil laws of the Canadians; but even there he
admits, that the form of administering justice must in the great
courts be changed.
Would it he convenient, and for the interest of them as well as
of us, that tho trial by jury should be established ?—~l think so;
more especially if optional, as it takes away all pretence of
Is not the province of Canada, by the superior spirit and great
capitals of the English merchants, very much improved P-Very

1774.] FOR run covnimirnrvr or QUEBEC. 12’?
Hove not those merchants, who have so improved the province,
engaged in those concerns and embarked their property there
under the sanction of the English government P-Undoubtedly.
Do you think/file property so embarked would he equally secure,
if the common law of England with respect to civil trials was en-
tirely abolished ?—I rather think not equally secure. ~ Certainly,
they would not l;l‘L|l£l{£ZB£1:’\_.l1_¥‘>§§E}_i}I€.
What proportion of the trade of the province is in the hands of
the English merchants P-I can only tell from information I have
received here in England : I um told it is seven-eigllths. The
increase of the trade is an undoubted certainty. I am inclined to
think it is entirely owing to the industry of the English merchants.
Did not the intendant make regulations ?—-1 have seen the
commission of the intendant. I think there is a power given him
singly, in certain cases,_ to make some regulations-not of the
highest magnitude, hut under some limitations, I cannot very
well tell whet.
Did not the intendant regulate the price of the corn of the
country, when it exceeded the consumption of every family; fixing
his own price upon a certain quantity P–I do not remember
hearing that circumstance from any Canadian.
Do you think the English merchant would continue to embark
his propertyin that country, if he had not the sanction of English
law P-I believe it would be it great discouragement to him.
Would the Canadians admit a part of the English law, rather
than lose those benefits they find from the introduction of English
merchants arnong them ?—I am persuaded they would. I 9.pp)”(2-
hend, if the option was that the English merchants should cease
to trade there, or that they should submit to have that part of the
law, trial by jury, they would undoubtedly choose the latter.
Arc not justices of the peace appointed to decide causes P-
Upon the first establishment of the civil government, general
Murray endeavoured to soften the change of conquest to the con-
quered people. The method of administering justice was as
follows : he first established a supreme court of judicaturc, called
the king’s bench, in which the chicf justice of the province singly
was to preside, and which was directed to determine all matters
criminal and civil according to the laws of England, taking him-
self to be hound to give those directions in consequence of the

1%8 nnnzvrns on ‘rm: mu. [June 3,
King’s proclamation. He also instituted, by the same ordinance,
a court of common pleas, in which he directed the judge to deter-
mine all matters according to equity, having regard nevertheless
to the laws of England, as far as the circumstances of the province
would permit; and he gave an appeal from that court to the
court of lcing’s bench, which was directed to follow the laws of
England strictly. He also instituted justices of the peace, and
gave to each a power to determine ‘civil matters, in a summary
way, under five pounds of the currency of that province, about
four pounds English.
\Vus not the tyrannical behaviour of those magistrates, in their
department as judges, the cause of complaint among the Cana-
dians ?—-Some did behave tyrannically, and their conduct gave
rise to great complaints; others made use of their power so dis-
creetly as to be a great blessing to the people. Of these, two
were Frenchmen, Canadians, old subjects of old France before the
conquest, both Protestants.
Were any of those men suspended from their ofiices P-None.
The governor, instead of suspending them, made an ordinance,
in March 1770, whereby he took away the civil jurisdiction of
all justices of the peace. It was governor Carletorfs ordinance.
From what cause was it taken away ?-I do not know. It was
a less odious way, perhaps, of disqualifying. It was a little while
after I left the province.
I wish to know in general whether, if the English law was esta-
blished in Canada,—-the civil law–a. few years’ experience would
not conciliate the Canadians in general to that form of judicature P
–1 am persuaded it would; and more especially if methods
were taken to remove some of their objections. How far it may
be expedient to take such measures the House will judge. One
of their objections is to juries, from the necessity of being
unanimous, which they sometimes ridicule, by calling it a method
of trial by strength of body and power to fast longest. I con-
ceive, therefore, that that trial would be more agreeable to them,
if the majority of the jury were permitted to decide the verdict;
but as it is, with all its inconveniences, l believe they would choose
to have it in the manner it is, because I see they frequently make
use of juries in causes of consequence.
lf that could be the case, would it not he a means of increas-

1774] 1-‘on run covmimmsxr or QUEBEC. 1529
ing their affection and attachment to the government of this
country 3-In my opinion it would.
\/Vould it not more speedily alienate their aitection from both
the laws and the government of France ?–I should think it would
have that effect.
If that should be the case, would it not greatly promote the in-
terest of the country and improve it ?~—l should think it would.
From your knowledge of the French laws, should you wish to
see the property of English subjects decided by those laws, in pre-
ference to the Canadian P-My opinion is otherwise; but I am not
able to balance the merit of the two codes of laws : I do not know
enough of either of them. ,
If the French law should be established, do yo’u apprehend
there are judges suiiicient in number, and of sufiicient abilities, to
administer justice properly to the English subjects ?-—l doubt it ;
and besides, while I was there, the Canadians were much better
satisfied with the integrity and abilities of the English lawyers in
latter times than of their own ; so as to employ the English law~
yers in the court of common pleas in many causes, in preference
to their own Canadian lawyers, who have always been permitted,
from the origin of the civil government, to practice in court.
ln your judgment, would not the good object proposed by the
re-establishing of the French laws and customs, be as well or
better answered by retaining a system of English laws, with such
alterations as it may be necessary to introduce ?-—~I think that the
best method of giving satisfaction.
Are not those parts in which you conceive an alteration to be
necessary, in order to gratify the prejudices of the Canadians,
principally confined to the tenure of land, the mode of succession,
and the descent of property ?-Yes; adding to it, conveying their
lands, selling, marriages, tenures, &c. Ibelieve I might add, they
would be pleased with the continuation of the law relative to in-
testate effects. It might be easily cured of its defects by the
power of making wills : it differs little from ours.
Arc you possessed of knowledge enough of the French laws
intended to be introduced by this bill to give judgment by
them ?—I should not like to undertake the task. The ditficulty
may be measured by M‘ Cugnet’s endeavouring to prove that
the French law is a matter of easy attainment. He tells us, in

130 nrznnrns on rnn mu. ” [June 2,
the manuscript] have seen, it may be learned by the perusal of
only thirty volumes in folio and quarto,
I beg‘ to know your judgment upon the propriety of re~estah-
lishing the Catholic religion in Canada,and restoring to the clergy
their ancient rights and dues, without a similar establishment
for Protestants P–It is a very doubtful thing; and, unaccompa-
niecl with restraints upon the hishop’s great power, may he of
dangerous consequence. It is certainly not necessary to the satis~
faction of the Canadians; because the option of paying tithe, or
letting it alone, can never he disagreeable to them.
Do you understand that the Canadian subjects have at this time
this option ?~—They certainly have, and sometimes make use of it.
They never presume to sue for tithe, either in the court of king’s
benoh or common pleas, linowing‘ there is no possibility of suc-
ceeding. The ground of that opinion of theirs and of mine is,
the strong words of general Amherst’s answer to the demands on
the port of the French general, for the continuation of the obliga-
tion of the people to pay their tithes and other dues : “ Granted,
as to the fi-ee exercise of their religion; but as to the obligation
of paying tithes, that will depend upon the king’s pleasure.”
That has been universally understood, till now, to have been a
positive dispensing with the obligation. It has often happened
that they have not paid tithe; much oftoner that they did, from
their regard to their religion.
Do you consider this bill to he a granting and confirming of
this tithe ?-—’l‘he words of the bill are declaratory; the word
“ enacted ” is not there. In my opinion, the right does exist at
present. How far words declaring that to be law, which till this
time is clearly understood not to he law, will operate as enacting
words, I do not pretend to say.
Did you ever hear in Canada that the claim to tithe extended
to Roman Catholic landholders, and not to Protestant land-
holders P–Every body paid tithe indiscriminately. $inee that
every body has been understood to he exempted from tithes in—
Can you help us to 0. ground of distinction, upon which we
might he induced to believe, that the right is a necessary one with
regard to Catholic subjects, and not so with regard to Protestant
subjects P–I cannot conceive any,

1774-.] FOR rm: covnimnx-:1 From your experience ofthe inclinations and expectations of the
Canadians during your time, do you conceive their expectations
went the length of imagining they should have this re-establish.
mont of the Catholic religion made effective, relative to what is
meant to be given them by this bill P-I believe they have been
flattered with hopes of that kind, and Ihave reason to think pro-
mises of endeavouring to procure it have been made to them.
How far they thought they would be successful, I cannot tell. l
Woiild they have been induced to believe such would be the
result, if no such promises had been made to them ?—l am of
opinion with sir Jeffery Amherst, that so far from it, if the
priests had been permitted to remain in the possession of their
livings, and their places had been supplied by Protestants, the
Canadians would have been satisfied. They would have been
satisfied, if that had been pursued from the beginning; but I do
not mean to say, that so small zz degree‘ of indulgence, with
respect to their religion, would be expedient now.
In your judgment, would not a less degree of indulgence than
what is given by this bill content them B–I believe the hopes
of the upper class of the people have been raised high. The
nthers would he satisfied with less. Of one hundred and fifty,
one hundred and forty-eight would be satisfied with little more
than the security of their property, and those family laws I men-
tioncd before. Very few that take the lead among them, make
a complaint against the English government. Of the set of people
who call themselves nohlesse, amounting to not more than one
hundred and fifty out of one hundred and fifty thousand–eight
or ten, perhaps twelve, are noblesse according to the French
ideas. Of which class there were fifty thousand families in France ;
I mean of the hereditary noblesse: but there are others, who
associate themselves with these, and consider themselves upon
the smne footing–people who have held civil offices, noblesse
for lifo, disbanded oflicers who had held commissions in the
militia, or among regular troops-—th<>se people are most apt to
complain. They fear the change of government the most : they
even are, in some degree, envious of the success and prosperity
of inferior people. ~ . I *,
Do you not belicye, that the most extravagant of the,‘ Canadian
noblesse would think themselves perfectly well off, if the two.
2: 2 I

182 ngimwns on THE mu, [June 2,
religions were sent into the country pari passu ?-1 believe no
interruption to the peace of the country would happen. I believe
more persons would he pleased than displeased.
ln your judgment, is the legislative council, which is to be
appointed, and removeahle at the pleasure of the governor, and
to consist of twenty-three, a right sort of legislature for the pro-
vince of Canada, either now, or ever ?-I apprehend not now:
certainly, not for ever.
Have you the same‘ objection to a legislative council ap~
pointed, and to be removed, by the King ?-—-Not nearly so strong
as against a legislative council removeable by tho governor.
There is ewondciful difference ; the former would not make the
counsellors contemptiblc in the eyes of the people : they would
suppose the couusellorswould not he wuntonly removed. Wliereas,
it they were removeable by the governor, they would be consi-
dered as tho mere tools and creatures of the governor, flllil I10
reverence would be paid to their acts and ordinances. How for
they might meet with obedience, I will not say.
Would that alteration, substituting the crown in the place of
the governor, but leaving the council of twenty-three, form it
legislature fit to bc given to the province of Canada. ?~—-I am in<
clined to believe that they keep in view on assembly, notwith-
standing the ill conduct of certain assemblies in North Arncrice.
But if it be thought that the Popish religion is so great an 0bjcc~
tiou to the constitution of an assembly, partly because it is don-I
gerous to trust Catholics with much power’; if it be thought, on
the other hand, unjust to exclude them entirely; I have thought
a legislative council for a. few years, consisting of a certain defi-
nite number of Roman Catholics, with a largo quorum consisting
of Protestants only, might be a tolerable substitute for an assem-
bly for seven years. My reason for saying Protestants only is,
because l conceive, if the Popish religion is notu. bar to admission
into this council, it ought not to be a bar to admission into
the assembly. For that occasion, recourse should be had to an
assembly ; which would he very agreeable to the Canadians, if
Catholics were admitted into it.
Are the provisions introduced by the proclamation such as
deserve to he culled inapplicable to the state of the province ?—I
think not, in the general extent. They require correction, and

1774.] FOR THE GOVERNMENT or Qunime. 183
iv. few alterations. VVith respect to the laws, l beg leave to state
u distinction. The laws that I have mentioned, I can divide into
three parts ; laws of tenure, laws of conveyancing, laws which I
shall call a devolution of property. I conceive the laws of tenure,
by which I mean the laws relating to the mutual and reciprocal
ties of landlord and tenant, all subsist, notwithstanding the pro-
elamation, and do not need a revocation of it to revive thein.
These laws of tenure contain the laws that oblige the tenants to
pay their quit rent and corn rent and their mutation fines, to
their landlord, to grind their corn at his mill, and give him his
meal-toll. If these laws were to be altered, it would be taking
away the property of the soigneur; which cannot be done, be-
cause it is granted by the eapitulation. In the next class, l place
the laws of conveyancing, which, though not affecting the very
property of the people, because a man may be made to alter the
mode of conveying his property, without absolute violation of
property, is yet a necessary branch of the law for the convenience
of enjoying property. Those laws l consider as havinglbeen
changed. precipitately, and that they ought to be restored. in
the third class, I place the laws of devolution‘; ineiming by that
the laws of inheritance and dower, and the right of the husband
upon the death of the wife: the distribution also of the intes-
tate’s effects. Those laws may be changed by the legislature,
without a breach of the eapitulation. ‘
To effect the alteration which you conceive to be required,
would it be necessary to revoke or correct this proclamation P-
Only to correct it, most undoubtedly. ‘
ln your judgment, would not atotal repeal of this proclamation
be found abreaeh of public faith ?~—lt appears to me kl strong
one. I believe it would be felt so,
Among those civil rights under the laws of England which this
bill is to abolish, do you not understand the laws of /uzbeas
corpus to be a part?»-I understand they arc. If not, there
should he a proviso, that the laws of imbeas corpus shall
Upon the most diligent inspection,‘ do you apprehend anything
similar will be found among the laws of Franee?~—l do not
recollect any thing similar in any abstract I have perused.
D0 you not apprehend that a [em-e ale cachet is among the laws

134* DEBATES on run mu. [.lnne, 2,
of France P-—l believe there is no written law for that. I believe
no Zetlre dc can/iez‘ ever operates without being signed by the
King of France himself. I believe the practice is, to give a.
number of blank lettrcs (le cac/wt to the several governors, who
fill them up with the name of those persons upon whom they are
disposed to exercise them. I believe lettres rle cache! signed
by others, by an intendant, for instance, would be illegal hy
the laws of France.
Woiild it not be illegal to issue letlres ole cachet from this
country to be executed in that ?—I presume it would.
By analogy from the present practice ofi France, will not this
warrant zv. lath-4» do L'(l(.‘]l0t to be executed there, if any minister
thinks it necessary ?–I think it would.
‘Would it he lawful, if this hill should pass, for the King of
Great Britain, or any body else, to issue lettres tie caclzet to take
up any subject in Canada, or in any part of his dorninions ?—~I do
not think it would be lawful to be done by any subject residing in
Canada, or, at least, I think it would he very doubtful; andl
freely think, if it were done, though not lawful, there would be
no remedy against it in the province of Quebec for the persons
who suifered by it, the /mbcas corpus being taken away.
Did you ever hear that the extent of country, which is to be
given by this bill, was heretofore a part of the province of
Canada ?– I am ignorant of the bounds of what was anciently
called Canada. I have heard that Canada is joined to Louisiana.
Where one begins and the other ends I cannot tell.
Do you know any good that can result from this extent of
ilimits ?-—I think the extent rather pernicious. I think it is need-
lessly establishing the Popish religion, where there is no necessity
for so doing. I should think it better to put the added territory
into the province of New York, than into any other. I have
heard judges say, that the best way would be to erect two
distinct provinces, one hounded by this point, the other by
the Ohio. General Amherst has z\ map, that shows it to he a
just diidsion.
Do you think it would lie a great crime in the British ministry
to advise at Mitre rle cachet ?—-l meant, there would be no remedy
against it in Canada, if it were issued. How far it would he a
matter of impeachment I do not know.

1’774_] TOR arms eov1:1u~uu1mT 01* QUEBEC. 135.
Do you think it at all probable that any lettre dc cachet would
be issued P-~4No ; I think it would not. I have a better opinion
of all ministers.
Is there no remedy for false imprisonment in Canada P-‘
There is against other subjects; not against the intcndemt or
-i’epresentat’ive of the King. lopprehend there is a remedy against
at private person.
Who is to execute the Zcttre cle cachet?-I suppose the go-
vernor would direct somebody to execute it, according bothe laws
of France. The order of the governor would be the warrant. I
suppose no action would lie aguinst him for execution, by the
French luw.
Do you think, according to the constitution of Canada, as it
will he by this bill, there will not be any remedy against such
person executing this lettre dc cachet .9-—I think not.
In what language are the English proceedings entered in the
courts of justice 9-In the court of King’s bench, all in English}
but they now and then employ, in certain causes, a couple of
English lawyers. They were at liberty to plead in French or
English; aswas it presumed the judge understood both languages,
lremember pleading a cause to the Canadian jury. l was em.
ployed in that court at Montreal.
Docs not the authority to issue Zettres de caclwt in France
arise from the King of Frzmce being the sole legislator of
France 7-I cannot tell. I suppose he claims the sole legislative
power. .
Then the authority of any writing derives its force from the
legislative authority ?-—Yes.
Does any part of this bill, which gives to the Canadians their
laws, customs and usages, give to the King in this country the
sole legislative authority any where?–It gives the King very
nearly the sole legislative authority. It gives him the power of
naming the delegates by whom he will exercise it.
Does that legal authority given to the King extend his power,
so as to absorb the power of the other two branches of the legis-r
laturc ?-—No. He has no power independent of the two Houses
of Parliament.
Nothing by the laws of France but the King’s signing” constitutes
a Zettre de cachet P No rmler of the inte1;ulant,—no order of the

136 DEBATES on THE mm. [June 2,
governor of the province is a sufiieient justificetion for the impri-
sonment of A subject ?—l believe not.
Can any authority, not belonging to the person who delegates
it, be exercised ?——I cannot pretend to decide. If the governor is
sent out with a number of lettrcs de cachet, the parties against
whom they are exercised would be without a remedy. I think a
proviso against that contingency would be convenient.
In what part of the hill is the authority given to the King to
act as complete and uncontrolled sovereign P-— It states the
authority, though it does not give it: and, the thing being done,
it is 11 lamentable thing to be without aremedy against it.
Can it be legally d0ne?—-I am unable to answer what the
powers of the King of France are, and how fer they can be trans-
ferred by analogy by this bill. If 21 man, to be imprisoned in this
manner, is to come before a. judge removeable at pleasure, with-
out a jury, the counsel for the Crown might argue probably, that
the civil rights of the man were just the sznne as those of the
Canadians before the conquest. It would be inquired, how the
Canadians, imprisoned by the intcndant, under lettrcs de cat-/wt.
got at remedy. To Which, I presume, the answer would be, that
such Canadians have no remedy. Therefore, the C%l.I\€idli).!lS, at
this time, must be without a remedy.
I should be glad to know whether, in any part of the clominions
of England, where there is no lzabeus corpus, you do not appre-
hend the some thing might be done-—in Jersey, for instance.
The Irish have English laws and lzabeas corpus. [No l no l]
I. apprehend they have by common law luzbeas corpus .9 that they
can provide a re(lress?–I think the Irish have been happier
than they are. It is :1 pity they have not a lmbeas corpus.
Do you understand that the King has signified his pleasure
that the people shall not pay tithe ?–No.
Do you think no signification annihilates the right ?— It
suspends it until the King’s pleasure is declared. Every body
thinks he has at right to withhold it.
Did you ever consider the King of France, by granting letfres
dc cachet, acted legislatively P-—I never entered deeply into the
reason of it.
Is the idea. of a Zettre de vuvhet being 9. legislative act, new to
you ?–I heard of it for the first time two or three hours ago.

17711.] FOR T1-in cov)s1mMn.\”r or onmsnc. 15%”!
Do you conceive there is any authority to check the royal
authority in any act of government that bears the King’s signa-
ture ?–I believe riot. I have understood the law is looked on as
the sovereign power given before-hand, not the instantaneous act
of volition.
Have you not always considered the King of Franceas being dc
facto as uncontrollable in the executive part of his government as
in the legislative ? —His whole power seems to be so in effect.
Assemblies of the state are quite out of use. I presume many of
the powers he daily executes could have had no foundation three
hundred years ago; but I am ignorant of the history of France.
Do you not conceive the King’s executive power is fully suffi-
cient to issue Zettres do cachet, independently of his legislative
power P–’I’hese are distinctions in words. He does it every day.
No remedy is to be had against it. This is the tragical part of
the story.
Have you not heard it as an opinion started, that legislation was
necessary to make vulid the edicts of the King of France P-—Not
only started, but agreed to by the defenders of the King of
l*‘rance’s power.
Are the bulk of the people of Canada, in their religion, devout
or negligent ?——In general devout and sincere; yet with many
How do you reconcile that opinion with thinking that, upon
the death of the present priests, they would have been content if
Protestants were received in their room ?–It was from a conver-
sation I had with a native. It is an opinion.
Is it your opinion or not, that this would have satisfied them?
—-I really believe, if it had been clone at first, it might have
created some immediate inconvenience, but that would have worn
out along time ago. They are a submissive, quiet people. Ibelieve,
in many places, if a Protestant minister had been put in upon the
vacancy of a priest, a vcry little pains taken by the Protestant
minister would have brought over many to the Protestant religion.
It is a. mere conjecture; no such experiment has been tried.
Woiild not some extraordinary indulgence alter thorn very
much ?–I cannot sayl have seen any thing of it.
Do you know of any persons who wished to change their re-
ligion, and were afraid to own it P – I had rather be excused

138 DEB.-\’.l‘ES on rm: mm. [June 2,
answering questions relative to particular persons. l apprehend,
in general, that if encouragement had been held out to those who
were disposed to become Protestants, there would have been a
great number of converts. I believe our sending a bishop there has
tended very much to check it: it has operated (so Canadian gen-
tlemen express it) as a centre of union. It has made the priests
necessarily more strict in the discharge of their duty than they
were before, or would have been without it. Had this not been
done, it is my opinion the priests themselves would gradually have
forsaken first one doctrine, then another, of their own religion.
Upon this encouragement given to Protestantism, was there not
an extraordinary zeal manifested in sermons against all doctrines
of heresy ?-~I have heard so.
What do you understand to he the nature of the administra-
tion of justice in the time of the French? was it pure or cor-
rupt ?—I can describe the courts of justice to the committee: as
to the execution, I have not sufficient information. l have been
told that the judges were not extremely popular. I have heard
of one gentleman who is now alive, and who had been judge
at the Three Rivers (he does not live there any longer), that
his manner was too haughty.
Do you remember the constitution of the French council?—
They were in all fifteen, including three great oificers of state:
the military governor, the intendant, the minister of fina.nce—
with the bishop, if he chose to attend. The other twelve consisted
of the most respectable persons. There were three judicatures; one
at Quebec, one at Montreal, the other at the Three Rivers. These
twelve were a court of justice, and likewise a. court of legislature
in some degree. The French make at distinction between law
and the regulations of police. They will not allow the superior
council to be legislative; but in the abstract of the French laws
printed, there are regulations which we should cell laws. ‘They
call them laws of the police. l cannot draw the line; Inever
could; I never could get them to do it to my satisfaction. These
judicatures were likewise courts of appeal. Great tenderness was
used._ Though the three had a complete power of judicature,
yet no man was ever put to death without the coufimiation of
the sentence by the superior council; such was the regard had
to the life of it criminal. ”

1774.] rou rum oovum’i\11<:>11‘ or QUEBEC. 189
Did this superior court receive any appeals, make any ffigfllil“
tions, or do any other kind of public business, without the
quorum; and this to consist of the majority of these twelve ?-—l
think there were seven in criminal, and five in civil matters.
Does not custom confirm his Majesty in that revenue he had
before the capitulation ?—-—’I‘hat will depend upon the extent of
the words “ civil rights.” The words civil rights may be con-
strued to mean rights between King and subject, or between sub-
ject and subject. If the latter, it does not include the dues: if
the former, it does. The expression is ambiguous. It must be
meant between King and subject, as well as between subject and
subject. There is no determination of the King’s civil right, but
under this clause.
Do you think these people now annexed to the province of
Quebec, will be liable to the payment of such dues as the King
had before in the province of Canada ?-~l suppose so.
What would be the situation of the merchants’ property in
that country under the French law. How is a debt determined?
–Determined by the court without a jury.
If there was any appeal from that decision, where would it
go?»-According to this bill, there is no provision made about
appeals. I suppose it is intended there should be an appeal to
the King in council. I do not know.
Wliat appeal was there under the French government?-~
Under the French government there lay an appeal from the
superior to the King of Frances council of state.
In what language do you conceive, by the present bill, the
pleadings will be ?—l suppose in either; as nothing is said about
it———under the words, “civil rights,”—in the French language,
Do you mean to say, that the pleading of the advocates was
in either language; or that bringing matters into issue was in
either language F–In both cases.
According to the French law, if I understand it right, which
is precisely the civil law, there must be complaint and answer,
and difl”‘erent pleadings in writing P-There must.
Do you think by the bill that that mode of pleading will be in
the French, or the English language P—-I should rather incline
to think it would be in the French.

1-l¢0 Dl£BA’I‘1<;S on T1-IE BILL [June 2,
_ D0 you not think it necessary and fit, that it should he speci-
fied in the hill in which language ?–I think it ought to be spe1
eified in the hill, for the benefit of the parties, to be in either. It
would be a moderate indulgence for 11 few years after the Engv
lish language should be introduced. It is in the breast of the
parties to choose. ~
Suppose one party says, I choose to have it in English, and
another says, I choose to have it in French; who is to deteiw
rnine’?–I-Iithcrto, it has been the custom,l believe, that to the
English declaration, a Ecenoh plea may he made.
How do you think, under the bill, the criminal proceedings
would he carried on, in English, or in French ?—l presume in the
English language: I think this also had better be expressed in
the bill.
In the case of a man tried upon a criminal process, is it not of
as much consequence, that he should he tried in the language he
understands, as in the civil process P-No inconvenience has
prison. There are interpreteijs. ~
When they were mixed, did any inconvenience n1’isc?—=
None of sufiicieut i.mpo1’ta.nce to make it expedient to drop
the practice. It is certain, that six Canadians and six English
have often been inclined ‘co divide equally, and. less inclined to
agree in their verdict. The national incougruity increased from
the coming of the bishop, and made them more shy than they
were before. That has created a. kind of distance. They do
pretty well, upon the whole. .
Do you think that an indefinite council of Canadians, that could
be extended or contracted, would he thought a proper means of
presewing their lihe1’ty?—-I cannot say how it would strike
me. In tithe, they pay a t\vcnty~sixth: it was so settled in
1663—-the thirteenth sheaf to the Crown. They complained to
the intendant. At that time it was thought too hard a pressure;
upon which the superior council made a tempo1’a1’y or provisional
regulation, that they should pay only the half; but in that case,
that they should‘ thrash it out for the priest. This was afterwards
confirmed by the edict in 1672. It has stood at that rate ever
since; notwithstanding the endeavours of the priests to bring it
up to the original thirteenth. _
Supposing the former law of caxrying on the pleadings by wri-

1774.] ron T141; covnnnmnnr or Q.U1£BEC. Ml
tings established, do you conceive law charges would be cheaper
than in trial by jury ?-~l do not say they Would. As to the expense
of the law, it is the consequence of the increase of expense of every
other article. Canadians have been admitted upon a jury from the
very beginning of the colony, and to practice as proctors and
advocates. The some persons practice now, who practiced then;
but every thing was cheaper then. Justice was, perhaps, too
cheap for the good of the people, if possible.
What is the proportion of the trade carried on by the English
and Canadians ?–My information is only from people there, to
which l give full credit. I have been out of the province more
than four years. I cannot say any thing from my own know-
ledge; perhaps, seven-cighths may be the trade of Great Britain
-~the export trade,
Was the old government Well calculated to protect the persons
and property of the lower classes of people P-l believe great par-
tiulity was exercised in favour of the lower. The upper are the
principal part of the discontented.
Docs your information lead you to know, that the intendant
had the opportunity, or made use of the opportunity, of enriching
himself and favourites in a considerable degree ?—-I have heard
stories of that kind.
Y/Vhat redress had the lower class ?—~A complaint to old France.
I know of no other.
VVhen you resided there, were there any reduced half-pay
ofiicers of the army or navy ? —-There were some who purchased
lands. No grants were ma/cle : they all imagined the English
law was to prevail.
Do you know of any complaint against the conduct of the
bishop, for exercising an authority violent, cruel, and unjust,
against those who did not conform to his way of thinking ?_
No. lnover heard of any such thing. I have heard complaints
made by it roan against his turning him out of his living.
Mr. Maseres then withdrew.
Mr. Mackworth said, he did not mean, upon his own part,
to call any other evidence now; but he should wish to ask
general Carleton a few questions.
The House resumed.

142 DEBATES on THE rut [June 3,
Friday, Jmze 3.
The order of the day being read for going again into the
committee upon the bill, the House resolved itself into the
said committee. As soon as the Chairman had taken the
chair, General Carleton was called in and further examined.
Have you adverted to that part of the bill describing the
boundaries which the province of Quebec is to have for the
future P-Yes.
What idea have you of carrying‘ government, or the administra-
tion ofiuskioe; asfar as the Qhio ?—I have not considered that
part sufiiciently to say I have formed my particular plan. I
thought I should have had ClD16_S\lfilCl0l’lC to think of that matter
before I left this country. I think, in general, it would he an ad-
vantage, if the officers of justice advanced forward into the
interior part of the country. I do not understand that the
country as for as the Ohio was ever under the govemmcnt of
Quebec, according to the present limits of the province.
Can you inform the committee whether Détroit and Michigan
are under the government?–Detroit is not under the govern-
ment; Michigan is under it. There was very little inconvenience
in governing them; for this reason, there were very few Euro-
peans settled there. There were 21 great many posts, where ofiicers
of discretion were sent to regulate the trade, and manage the
government, by presents and great civilities. I do not know the
settlement of Détroit very accurately. It has been established for
some time. The intendaut had delegates up there; but there was
very little business. The greatest concern was the management
of the savages.
Do you apprehend, if there lmd been a very considerable num-
ber of European settlers, they would have been more difiicult to
govern ?-—It would, of course, have required at greater numher of
ofiicers, and an establishment, and a great expense; otherwise I
do not apprehend great difficulties.

17744] FOR THE r:ovr<:n1~numI’r or 0.UEBEC- 14:3
Do you apprehend the principal difi-iculty would have arisen
from the great number of officers, and not the distant situation?
——If they were as orderly as I found the Canadians, and as I was
told they always were, I should think there would be no
Do you apprehend it is very likely that other settlers, besides
more Canadians, would go to this place, upon proper encourage»
ment ?-—With proper encouragement, no doubt they would.
Do you apprehend the obedience of those other settlers would
have been less than what you expect from the (Janadians P-
That depends upon such a variety of circumstances, that, unless
one knows them precisely, it is diflieult to judge upon the matter.
They are a lawless people, that have not been accustomed to
Do you apprehend that, under the form of government intended
to he established by this hill, those additional European settlers,
who are supposed likely to come to this place, would be as
easily governed as the Canadian settlers were, under the old
French government, or under the Canadian law with our govern-
ment P-—l cannot tell. I did not understand that government had
any plan of settling this place.
Do you apprehend the throwing so large a tract of country, as
between the Ohio and Lake Erie, into the governmentof Canada,
is absolutely necessary for the security of the province of Canada?
–I do not apprehend the absolute security of the province depends
upon that.
Would that tract of country be easily managed by the legisla-
tive council and governor resident in Quebec ?—-l can tell, from
information, that it was very easily governed when under the
French government.
Was the country so described considered as part of the province
of Louisiana, and not part of the province of Canada i‘——I always
understood it was reckoned, under the French government, as part
of the province of Canada. The posts were sent from thence, and
relieved from thence. I speak to the best of my memory.
Do you know to what part of the French territories in America
those troops retired which evacuated Fort du Quesne, upon the
capture of that place P–I really do not know.

PM nnn.-rrns on THE mm [June 3,
What inconvenience arises, in your opinion, from the limits
given to Canada in the proclamation P-—l had frequent complaints
from the Canadians, that the province out ofi’ in that manner, and
contracted, deprived them of the greatest part of their property.
which was promised to be protected. The English, as wcll as
the Canadians, complained that their property went up to the
upper coulitry, and that, if the persons entrusted with this property
did not, of their own accord, act honestly, they had no means of
procuring justice.
What do you mean by that property? Was it the property of
lands granted them by the King of France; or what P–Lands
granted them by the King of France, and the profits of the land.
Was any part of this land cultivated and inhabited by Cana< (liens?-I never examined that matter thoroughly. Whether their demands were just or not just, it was without my reach. I know, from very good information so far, that there were, upon the Labrador coast, certain posts established, where they carried on the sedentary fishery and trade with the Indians. I believe very little is cultivated upon that side; nor do I think the country capable of much cultivation. Is there any land upon the south side of the boundary left out of the proclamation, that was cultivated and inhabited by the Canadians? I mczm upon the south-west side ?—I rather think therc was no great cultivation; but I heard them say, they had been driven away by the war. I saw a few fields, that had bccn cultivated, up the St.Lawrence river; butvery few. Can you give any account of the number of people at tho posts, or elsewhere, that were shut out by the proclamation ?—Foui-teen or fifteen hundred. I speak at hazard. Do you look upon the Illinois as part of Old Canada ?~—I believe so. New Orleans was under the government of Quebec ; but where the precise district ends, I really do not know. If these posts of Detroit and Illinois were now put under the gel vernment of Canada, and 11 line drawn there, would not all that difficulty be rcmovecl?-~Providcd they did not trade beyond the line. How far do you take the Illinois, which is the bounds of Canada by this bill, to be from Quebec 9-I do not know. 1774.] iron THE oovenunmvr or QUEBEC. 145 If zi thousand miles, how is justice to he executed there P»-It was executed by the delegates of the intendant, or commander, I understand, of Quebec. ‘ What purpose will it answer to extend this colony to the river Ohio P–One good purpose; that the courts of justice can extend so far, that there may not be an asylum for all the vagabonzls to take shelter there. Might not that he put under some nearer province, and justice, of course, better administered ?–I never considered the subject. These are matters that require a great deal of consideration. In the present shape given to Canada, will not the Indians have reason to think that his Mojesty’s government takes its rise from the cession of Canada by France F-—l believe there are a great many tribes of Indians who think that neither we. nor France, or any European power, have any title to the country; nor do they acknowledge themselves to he their subjects. Do not those limits run into a part of the Indian country, which they say does not belong to the French or English ?–The Indians look upon all their own ground as free. They look upon them as their own hunting grounds. Do not these limits give them a greater advantage than they had before in carrying on the Indian trade, in preference to any other colonies 3-I do not know but it may ; but I do not see the extent of it. Did you never hear of any plan for selling the south and south~ west parts of the colonies to prevent the land from becoming derelict, and becoming at retreat for vagabonds?~—Only from public talk. Is there any inconvenience in putting that government under the Oommzultlebin-chief for the time being ?—I never considered the question. Docs not this bound almost all the considerable colonies on the continent——-New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and very near the boundary of North Carolina ?-—-Every gentleman can satisfy himself by casting his eye over the map. I have it not so strong in my memory. D0 you understand that by the extent of limits, any exclusive privilege is given of trading to Canada from the other colonies? —-I understand not. 1. 146 nnnn-rns on TH!’-1 mu. [June 3, Are you not of opinion, that when those posts at Detroit and Illinois are put under civil government, other provinces will trade into the country with greater safety than they do at present P —No doubt they will trade most where justice may be had now. Do you think that sedentary fishery can he carried on with X1(iV2L\’ii11lg’Q under the present situation of the Labrador coast annexed to Newfoundland ?—~’1‘he fishery cannot he carried on according to the system of the fishery in Newfoundland, which I understand requires that the fishermen should go away at autumn, and return the next spring‘. The great sedentary fishery of the Labrador coast is chiefly carried on in December or January, long before they can possibly come upon the coast, or go away. Besides that, there are many arrangements mode. People go to great expense in establishing the courts. A great part of the preparations are uxiapted to the particular spot. Is not the Labrador fishery the principal fishery ?—I always understood it was. Is it not necessary, that the coast should he kept distinct and apart P-—If not preserved apart, and great care is taken to suffer no disturbance of any kind, the seals would take fright, and go away from the nets prepared to take them in. The sea-cow fishery would be disturbed in the same way. Have you ever heard of regulations concerning the Indian trade, transmitted to the Indian governor by the board of trade, in the year 1766 P-»-I may have seen it, to he sure; but I cannot say I remember it precisely. ls it necessary for carrying on the Indian trade, that the trade should he within the jurisdiction of some eivil government?-It seems to me necessary, at least very convenient, that there should be some power, to keep order and administer justice. Do you think their limits should likewise he extended, to com- prehend it ?—-It would contribute very much to good order, if the eo\11’ts of law, or some power, had authority to control, to take up rioters and disorderly people, through the whole extent of the colony; and that there should be no spot or asylum with» out the reach of law and justice. Is there not new a law to take them up and send them to he tried within the limits of the nearest government P–Not forfraud, I believe ; there is for high crimes and misdemcanours. 1774.] FOR THE eovnni~uunx’r or QUEIIEC. M“! Do you think all the advantages would he had with regard to the frauds ?- It would he one advantage. Do you know any great advantage with respect to adminis- tering justice ?—Sinall riots–there is no law to send them to the next colony for small riots. From what authority have you asserted, that the government of Louisiana was under the governor-general of Canada; and whet period (lid you mean to speak to ?——The authority is from the reports of all the Canadians in Canada. I speak of the latter time. D0 you recollect any one man of knowledge in the country P- Yes, M. St. L—— ; and I speak precisely. I have often heard him giV8 an account of judges sent down from the government of Canada, a good deal below the forks of the Ohio. From what authority did you state the number of inhabitants? -From more than a general guess; from accounts and informa- tion I took in 1759, compared with the return in 1769 and 1770. How did the comparison enable you to judge P–The rcturn I had was the increase of births compared with the deaths. My reason for asking the question is, because there is :1 paper of general Murray, that makes it amount to seventy-five thousand souls. This, I think, was in the year 1766 ?~I know nothing of that. Wliat I said was from the request and desire of the parish priest. Under the French government, every seigneur was obliged to give his account to the governor. Three hundred and sixty were returned to serve upon juries. \Vas there any limitation of property in the qualification .>—By
the return I saw, :1 good number of disbanded soldiers, who had
no other livelihood but selling rum. l‘do not know there are
any more besides them resident. They have diminished since the
Are the Canadians so well acquainted with the principles of
English government, as to be competent judges, what would be
the best kind of government for their own happiness ?—»—I mn
pretty sure not. There are very few politicians among‘ them.
They take it merely from education.
Did you evcr hear of a petition from the inhabitants, desiring
they might he permitted to meet in bodies ?—-Not in my time.
r, 2

148 1>1″.n.vr1:s on run mu. [June 3,
I do not recollect. If they are upon record, they are easily pro-
Was the information respecting the seal fishery from your own
knowledge ?-from the best information I could pick up. That
system of fishery which compelled the people to remove from
Newfoundland, could not he applicable to the sedentary fishery.
In your opinion, will it be most for the interest of this country
to establish 21. form of civil government in Canada, by the intro-
duction of the laws to exclude the civil government of England,
rather than admit a part at least of the system of the laws of
England P-That is a great question. This House is a much
better judge.
If the civil law of France is established, must a eivil officer
like the intendant he again established ?-I do not see the neces-
sity of it.
If such an ofiicer is established, will it not be strictly conform-
able to law ?-I am not a judge.
Did not this intendant regulate the price of all grain by his
own will and pleasure P-l hclieve it was inclispensibly necessary
the governor should sign the order with him.
Did it not check the improvement of the country to a grcat
degree ?~—They were in a state of War at that time. They did
cultivate the ground as much as they could; but far short of
that they do now. I understand that, for the manufactures of this
country, the Canadians’ order was two-thirds; the other third was
English. I do not pretend to speak accurately.
Do you know of any wheat being eXp0i”t6(l by Canadian mer-
chants?-You may get English merchants that will tell you
much better. I rather think the Canadians sell it at their own
During the French government, Where was the fur trade of the
Illinois conveyed to F–1 cannot tell.
Which is the natural channel of hringing home that trade-P
Does it comes down the Mississippi, or through the river St.
Lawrence ?-~’l‘he difiiculty of getting up the Mississippi is very
great. I am inclined to think a great part went down the greet
lakes. I speak with doubt.
Do you understand the fur trade about the Illinois was sup-

1774.] Fort rum <;ov1-mzmlznr or Qumme. 149
plied equally with goods from Canada P-I am not able to inform
\Vere you acquainted with the fur trade during the time the
French were in possession of that country-?-I am -not aecurate
enough to give the House full satisfaction.
Have you not understood, that it was constantly brought to the
King’s warehouses, and that there a certain price was paid down
for these furs?-I believe it was; I cannot speak certainly
Do you not apprehend that there were many regulations during
the time of the French respecting the fur trade, which made a
part of the Canadian law respecting that trade ?—-I believe not.
There are two petitions on the table from Canadian subjects ;
one in 1773, represents to the King their grievances of the Eng-
lish law introduced among them. Do you know the description
of the men who signed it. The nohlesse, or a mixture of differ-
ent classes?-—-Chicfiy of the noblesse, and most creditable persons
in trade.
Was there any export of corn during the French government?
-I believe it was not forbid. I believe it never happened to be
the ease.
Did not the prices of grain fluctuate more by not having an
exportation ?–At that time there was a great scarcity. \Vlxen
that was the case, the price was naturally very high. A great
scarcity happened the first year I went there; since that evely
year mended. They have got too great abundance. A great
quantity was exported last year, and the year before.
VVhat is the <lii¥ez’enee of prices P-—I cannot remember. It
might be known in the eountry.
Have you heard what general means the intendant had of
enriching himself and his fav0urites?—-I do ever I never heard
any complaint of it. When they did speak of it they seemed
extremely well satisfied with it.
Wfll you state the outlines entrusted with the intendmit ?–S0
far I can say—the matter alluded to was between the intendant
and the King; not between the intendant and the people. The
great sources of wealth were from the King.
How were the taxes levied under the lheneh government ?-By
the King’s edict of old France.
Did you never hear any complaints of the delegates of the

150 DEBATES on THE mu, [June 3,
intcl1(l€mtP——I cannot say I have. There might have been
Are there any regular clergy in Canada; convents, nunnerics?
–There are.
Do the clergy in Canada. employ themselves much in instruct-
ing the congregations under their can-e?-I suppose so.
Are they reckoned an enlightened body of men P-—~There are of
all sorts.
The witness withdrew. ‘
Mr. Baker.-—In consequence of what has fallen from an
honourable gentleman, as to a diflierence of opinion that has
sulxsisted between general Carleton and general Murray
concerning the number of inhabitants, it is necessary ge-
neral Murray should be ordered to attend.
This order could not be made in the committee.
Governor :,Oh7’LStO7Z€.”—-If the honourable gentleman wants
it for that purpose, the papers may be produced.
Mr. Balaei-.—There were a thousaml things that passed
yesterday, that make it necessary he should attend.
Mr. Hey was then called in.
Exnzuxmxrxon on WILLIAM HEY, EsQ., Cnmr Jusrxcn or
How long did you reside at Quebec as chief justice?-Six
years ; from the beginning of September 1766 to 1773.
Have you found the Canadian inhabitants dissatisfied with the
introduction of the English law, and exclusion of their own laws
and customs? Do they generally approve of the trial by jury in
criminal causes ?—-I think they (lo.
Are they not equally capable of deciding in eivil as in Cl’lHllIJ6.l
causes ?~I do not think the Canadians are in general called upon
juries, so often as other inliahitants of Oamtda.
Do you conceive they are less capable of distinguishing in
causes of property, or lI1i\nSl8.\1gll.t€!‘ P-It is nicer to detennine
(L) ’In the new Parliament, which me: in November 177/L, Mr. Hey
was rcmrned for Sandwich; but he vacated his seut in P776, on being
appointed U, commissioner of the customs; an oflice which he continued to
hold till his death, in 1797.

177l.] non “run GOVEltN)l1sIN’l‘ or QUEBEC. 151
questions cf property, which depend upon cases of law. than
criminal causes which depend upon fact. I always found them
extremely attentive to my directions ; if I may say so.
Were they not willing to receive the like assistance in civil
causes F-I think they were, in general, aveiy attentive and obe-
dient people.
Are not the laws of Canada. respecting lands, (lower. and gift
by will, allowed by the court and juries at Canada, respecting
the Canadian subjects only, to be just as they were when they
were in the possession of the French ?—~l believe the court of
King’s bench did admit the Canadian laws and customs iridisori~
minately, in general. The ordinance directed them to do it.
Then you bclieve the Canadians would he content to have the
laws continued to them upon this subject?—-I believe they would.
They have made objections to juries. The higher part of the
Canadians object to the institution itself, as humiliating and de-
grading. They have no idea. of submitting their eoncluct to 11 set
of men, their inferiors ; and the lower order look upon it (as in
truth it is) a. burthen to them.
I apprehend the customs of Canada are as much considered by
the juries cf Canada, as the particular customs are here by the
judge and jury P-~I believe, in the court of King’s bench, they
ore. I have thought‘ myself obliged, in my (mpucity of chief
justice, in every ease of appeal, to determine by the same rule;
because it seemed to me a. gross absurdity, that I should sit to dc_
termine the merits of a cause, governed by one kind of law,
which they had determined under the provisions of another.
Is there any method so likely to reconcile the Canadians, in
general, to our government, as the introduction of the English
laws, by the intervention of a jury P–There are two questions,
rather. I believe they have great objections to the introduction
of English laws. With regard to trial by jury, they certainly do
not understand the benefits resulting from it as we do ; but I do
apprehend, under certain modifications, it would not he dis-
agreeable to them, both in civil and criminal causes. I think
the trial by jury would not be disagreeable to them, if they were
allowed compensation for their time and trouble; and I think,-
further, if that ummimity which our low insists upon, was not
to be insisted upon there, and that the jury were to be com-

I52 DEBATES ON THE 1111.1. [June 3,
posed of an unequal niimher (suppose thirteen or fifteen) and that
the majority of tw0~thir(ls were to determine the question, l <10
not, in iny own mind, think there would be much objection in the
main body of the Canadians.
Do you mean this regulation to he in criminal as well as civil
causes ?~—No. All in criminal causes.
Have you ever umlerstood that the French suitors had ever
been accustomed to make p1‘csents?—-I have nevcr hoard of any
instance. I have found 2|. great alaciity among tho Canadians to
canvass for the vote of a judge. That is still remaining in the
Have you hoard any general complaint of juries deciding par-
tially in causes of property, or by any improper influence ?-~I
cannot recollect any particular instance. Suitors have com-
plained. I never heard any general complaint with regard to
decisions. I have heard some with regard to their conduct in not
clecicling matters.
Why did they hesitate ?—Perhups it might he from difiiciiltics
arising from the question itself; perhaps it might be prejudice as
to the party, as between one another; but they certainly have
depzuted without giving verdicts; and, I am ashamed to say, I
did not punish them for it.
Then the Cunacliaus do not think, under the proclamation, this
country is un.-
tion, would they not take the other ?—The clergy would not.
Perhaps some of the other inhabitants would. The clerg might
admit the King’s supremacy with regard to temporals. I
speak only my own opinion. There is no such thing as public
chapels. Debts have‘ been sued for goods supplied to the
Have the Canadians thought the decision fair ?–I never heard
any particular objection to them. Ibelieve the import and ex-
port have increased.
What proportion is carried on by the English subjects residing
there ?–The English subjects import more than the Canadians;
but when imported, the Canadians take it up from them to the
Have the profits of the possessions of the Canadians been
increased since the conquest ?-They certainly grow more corn,
are more populous, and likewise cultivate their land better.
If this land had been now sold, no doubt it would have sold for
more. The body of the people are not at all dissatisfied with the
conquest. To be sure the higher part are.
Have juries been considered as judges of law as well as
fact P–They have talccn it upon themselves to judge of law as
well as fact. They have laid it down as u certain principle, that
they will never give a special verdict upon any occasion.
Have you not paid attention to the Canadian law ?-—I certainly
have, whenever causes came up to the court of King’s bench.
Very fcw causes ever originated in my own court.
Do you understand that, by this bill, all the law in eivil causes
is to be repealed, and the law of Canada take place entirely E’-I
understand it so.
Wlrat remedy is substituted in the place of the habcas corpus ?
>–I know of none. There is no long oppression; they sit every
week. ‘
Under the present constitution of the English criminal law
and the French civil law, could at person, not imprisoned for s crime
by the operations of law, have relief by the gaol delivery under
this present bill ?—My duty is to inquire into all prisoners, and
to know for what they were confined. If I did not find at law for
it, l should be tempted to make one myself.

1774.] For -rm: GOVERN1\lEN‘l‘ or ouunrte. 155
Would the French civil law give any reparation to the party
for such confinement?—I should apprehend it would, upon the
common principle of justice.
Is thereany positive law in the Czmadian code, that authorizes
that idea, or is it what your humanity would make you infer P–
l apprehend, under every system of laws, there must he naturally
a redress for an injury of that kind. What the particular mode
of it is under the Canadian law, I cannot tell.
Do you mean, that any chief justice, or judge, would be en-
titled to assess any particular sum of money to compensate ?–
Undoubtedly, the court must sit and determine the quantity. I
cannot speak to it. Inever studied the law of Canwda as a system.
I huve endeavoured, in all eases of information, to collect the law.
I apprehend the aggrieved party must bring an action; and that,
according‘ to the evidence of the debt, the court would allow it
him. I believe, where the matter has been doubtful, and has
depended upon an intricate account, the court has er qflicio
awarded it to arbitrators to settle it. I mean under the old
Canadian system,
Under the Canadian law, do you know of any power of impri-
sonment for debt ?-—-In particular cases there was a power; but,
in general, they did not use the arrest for debt. For debts of u.
large nature, such as bills of exchange, I believe they did allow it;
hut, in general, not.
Do you conceive the recovery of the property of the English
merchants, though in Canada, would be more or less easy, under
this bill, than it was before ?—’I‘hat will depend, in a great
measure, upon the establishment of the courts for the administra-
tion of justice. If they were well supplied with proper powers»-
persons of discernment and integrity invested with proper powers
–I should apprehend that property might be more easily rc~
Wliat do you miderstand, under the present form of the bill,
would be the mode of administering justice in that country P
Vllho would stand in the place of the Canadian intendaut?-—-I
apprehend that would depend upon the execution of the authority
which is given to the Crown, by virtue of that clause, which
enables the King to appoint courts of justice.
D0 you apprehend the mutter of courts of justice to be left at

156 DEBATES on rim rim. [June-3,
large F-i do. I apprehend my present commission will be at an
Vifhat kind of a commission can he given under the Canadian
law P—-I see no necessity for altering the commissions.
Will the establislirnent absolutely and unlimitedly of Cane»
dian civil law, tend to encourage or discourage British subjects
from purchasing li\Il(l in that country P-~I believe the British sub-
jects would have no objection to the restitution of a part of the
Canadian laws ; hut I think the restitution of the whole would
very much disincline them to settle among” the Canadians.
Do you think it would be impracticable, or even very difiicult,
to draw such :1 line of admission of Canadian lows, us would give
satisfaction both to the new and old subjects P–I myself have
been unfortunate enough to differ with general Carleton in that
respect. His Majesty was pleased to order the governor, the
attorney~gencral, and myself, to make our report upon the state
of the province, and particiilorly with regard to grievances which
the Canzrdians either felt, or thought they felt, under the o.dmiu~
istrution of justice, as it was then administered; together with
the remedies that we thought most proper to be applied to those
grievances. The Canadians conceived that the introcluction of
the English laws, and the exclusion of their own, at least their
doubt and uncertainty how for that matter went, was their grcut~
est grievance; and the remedy proposed to he applied was the
restoration of their cum laws and customs in tato. I own,
myself, I thought that went too far. l thought that such :1 mix-
ture might be made, as would he ag1’eeahle’both to the Cano-
dians and British subjects, at least the reasonable part of both,
and answer every purpose of state policy here at home. My idea
\va.s, that at country conquered from France, and retained by the
treaty at the end of the war was, if possible, to be made a British
province. I was, and still am, very sensible, that must be at
work of time and difiiculty; hut, however, l thought it an object
worth attending to. The first thing that suggested itself to me
under that icleu was, that the laws of this country should be eon-
siclered as the leading system of judicature in a province that
was to become British. I was willing, however, to allow largo
exceptions in favour of the prejudices, the very natural and
reasonable prejudices, of the Canadians. I was willing to allow

1774.] FOR run GOVERNMENT or mrnnnc. 157
them the whole law with respect to their tenures, with respect to
the alienation, descent, and mode of conveying or incrnnbering
their real property, to the rights of dower and marriage, and the
disposition of their personal estate in case of intestacy. This I
thought was a very large field for them: quieting and secu-
ring their possessions according to their own notions of property,
and not breaking in upon or disturbing their former settlements.
The rest of the law, as the law respecting contracts, debts, dis-
putes of a commercial nature, the law of evidence, and many
other matters of that kind, I thought might safely stand upon
English bottom. These, with the whole crirninal law of England,
with the trial by jury, the presentments by the grand inquest,
together with the establishment, or at least, toleration of their
religion, with some reformation in the proceedings of the courts
of justice, to exclude our modes of pleading, which the legal
pleaders of the province are very unequal to, and to introduce a
more compendious and simple method of process, more conform-
able to what they had been used to under their own government,
would, I had hoped, have made up a system that should not rea~
sonably have been objected to by either British or Canadians. I
am of opinion, that at the time I stated that as the ground of my
difference from general Carlctorfs report, it would have been
satisfactory to the Canadians. I am in doubt now whether it
will; but I still think it ought.
Why do you think it would not now be satisfactory to the
Canadians P—I apprehend they have risen in their demands of
late, and hope to be gratified to the utmost extent of their
Upon what are these very extensive opinions founded?-~l
know of no particular ground for the extent of them. It appears
to he a natural progressive state from the condition they were in,
to that in which they now stand. They were terrified, and in a
state almost of distraction. They neither expected to retain
their religion or their laws, and looked upon themselves as a
ruined and abandoned people; but when they saw attention
wisely and humanely paid to their situation, they were willing to
improve their condition, as far as their ideas carried them, to the
absolute restitution of their whole laws and customs. But I
know of no particular encouragement given them to ask any thing.

l58 nicimzrns 01¢ THE mu, – [June 3,
It was, I have no doubt, promised them, that their ease should
be fully and fairly represented, and that they might rely upon
his Majesty’s bounty and goodness for their relief.
Do you suppose they included in that general wish for the res-
titution of their laws and customs, a wish for the restitution of
the French criminal law P—-I do not apprehend they did. They
seem perfectly satisfied with the English criminal law. I cannot
conceive them so stupid as to wish for the French law. I speak
of the great body of the people. There may be a. few persons of
a very peculiar nature, that may Wish for it. V
Do not those persons you so properly describe as looking upon
their situation with respect to their property and with regard to
juries, desire the restitution of their criminal laws ?–I have no
doubt they do=-‘ These are the noblessei
Does not the objection of the higher people to the trial by
jury, in civil causes, in a great measure arise from their being
deprived of that influence they used to have from their power
over the judges P-I cannot say it does. I never heard any com-
plaints of their exercising any undue influence over the judges,
Do you conceive that their readiness to have back the French
lows did not arise from the expectation of success? Have you not
hea_rd that the more powerful were the most successful than the
lower people P—I never have heard any thing particular one way
or the other: but one would be apt to imagine that such an
influence might prevail. I am inclined to think, in general, that
their courts of justice were pure, and justice -fairly administered.
There was a great control of the S\1PBl’lO1‘ council over every
judge’s determination. As that council was composed of men of
the first rank and character in the province, I cannot suppose
they were under any undue influence, or that they would suffer
Would not the lower and middle Canadians be flattered and
pleased by the power given by a jury, in proportion as the higher
were mortified ?~—I am inclined to think not. They would
enrlure ix, that is all : and, under the alterations I have men-
tioned bcfore, it would he less disagreeable to them; but I fear
it would take a long time to convince them of the use or advan-
tage of it.

177i] rm: run GOVEILNMENT or oumuzc. 159
Was an appeal to the superior council attended with no diffi-
culty or expense P-—No difiiculty, and very little expense.
Where will the right of hearing appeals be lodged under this
law ?–I apprehend that will depend upon the constitution of the
courts; as they will, and must be new modelled under that law.
Do you think the former law of appeals will be inapplicable to
the government of that country under its new law, without n
special provision being made ?——The’re will he no court to appeal
to. The present courts will be abolished; the present judges
will be abolished. The authority that constitutes these courts
may, I presume, constitute the mode of proceeding iu them, and
how and where to appeal from them. But this act only directs,
in my apprcheilsion, that the rules of law to be observed in these
courts should be those of Canada, with regard to civil property.
Can you suggest any body sufliciently qualified in the laws of
Canada, to receive the appeal and do justice upon that uppcal ?-—
I have no particular person in my eye to mention.
Do you understand the appeal would be according to the spirit
of the French law ?—’l‘he ultimate appeal would always rest upon
the King and council; but the stages it would go through must
depend upon the constitution of the courts.
Do you conceive there would be no inconvenience misc to per-
sons from having‘ their property tried upon an appeal under such
lows ?—l cannot give an opinion upon the competency of the
privy council.
Not with regard to the abilities of the privy councili But do you
conceive that the education of a man for a privy councillor in this
country, will enable him to judge of the extent of these Canadian
laws. ls the Canadian system of laws a short system, or is it
contained in many books ?~It is much lees complicated than tbc
English, and contained in u much less number of books. The
text of the Canadian law is contained in at very few articles; but
the commentaries may he very voluminous.
Are there not many ports of the Canadian law immaterial to this
point, but which might be attended with ccnsi<lc1’ableinconve~
nience to the English subjects residing there ?»-I must confess I
zun not able to answer that question. The Canadian lows were
extrztctcd~—those that were thought necessary and applicable to
every purpose of securing their property-~by at set of gentle-

160 nnnnrns on rim mu. [June 3,
men in Canada; who, I believe, were very unequal to the work.
The compilation is published, Mid has been printed = it is
generally thought to be a faithful one.
In adopting that compilation, and establishing trial by jury in
civil causes, might not such trial be obtained without any hm»
thcnsome expense to the inhabitants P-—-I do apprehend it might,
if the courts of justice would regulate the fees.
Would it not he difficult, in some cases, for the courts to
regulate the expenses P-—I should think not, in material matters;
hut in the fees of counsel, for example, no court can, or perhaps
ought, to interfere.
Do you conceive that, at present, the Canadizms are much
attached to France, and would wish to he under that government
ag”< do not apprehend that the body of them would. No
doubt the nohlesse and the military have been great suflicrers,
from the loss of their employments and commissions; and it is
natural enough to suppose that they would incline to their old
employmeuts, under their own government. But I should hope
that they, if proper inrlulgence were paid to them, might be made
to withdraw from every idea of returning to their old govern-
ment, and become good British subjects.
Do you conceive the Canadians would have any great objection
to a provincial assembly, into which Roman Catholics would he
admitted, under certain restrictions, such as taking the oaths ?-I
believe they have no idea of advantage from it. They look upon
the house of assembly as a house of riot, calculated for nothing
but to disturb the government, and obstruct public servants.
D0 they understand that there is a resemblance between the
house of assembly and the House of Commons in this country?
–They do not tuidcrstand the principles of either.
Have there not been conferences in that country, relative to
the form of government, and arrangement of laws, that may best
suit them P-~I know of no particular conferences in that country
relative to a form of government and arrangement of laws.
Hes it never been agitated with them, what would make them
happy ?-—I know of no conference among them upon that suhject.
Their ideas are a perfect submission to the Crown, and to any
authority the Crown chooses to erect. They have a high confi-
dence in his Majesty. If he chooses to call a house of assembly,

1774.] FOR rue oovnnmn-;ur or eunisee. 161
I have no doubt they will compose it; but they would not know
what to do when they came there, nor have they any idea. of the
advaiitagcs of such 2111 assembly.
They never, then, have been made to understand, by any of the
King’s sewzmts, that it would be of advantage to them? No
pains have been taken to tell them that, by means of so assembly,
they would have a. power of internal regulation; but they have
been taught to put the simplest confidence in the Grown ?-—-They
require no instruction ; it is their nzmtuml habit. I have har-
rangued the juries upon the advantages of the British consti-
tution ; but, wliether it wrls my fault in not delivering my ideas
upon the subject clearly, or that they were not interpreted to
them in the French lmiguage, I do not believe any Canadian
took notice of what I said. I mean, my ideas with regard to trial
by jury and the criminal law of England. Inover mentioned
any advantage of an assembly.
Have you ever understood that there was an absolute dislike to
assemblies among the Canadians, or only Z1. dislike in part ?»~—
They do not understand them; and what they do not understand,
they Cannot be said to dislike.
VVe1-e they ever informed that assemblies could be managed so
as to be extremely obsequious to government ?-—They do not at
all understand the method of melting themselves so. To the
English meroliants, who are desirous of establishing the English
laws, it would, of course, be an encouragementi
The witness withdrew.
EXAMINATION on M. Lo’rnm1i;iuz.(*)
M. Lotbiniere was then examined by Mr. Thomas Townshennl,
jun. The questions were rend to him in English, and then in
Frencli. He infozmed the committee, that he was a native of
Canada, and of the corps of noblesse; that he has read the
bill, and has paid attention to that part which contains the
institution of the legislative council, and that he would state his
opinion upon that institution.
Sir Thomas 1*’ranlrZanaZ.–Parley. un peu plus haut, s’i1 vous
(‘) Mr. Maseres describes M. Lotbiniere us being u very sensible and ve-
Ilecting man, and :1 great ])l’0p\i0li0l‘ of lend in Canada .

162 DEBATES on THE nru, [June 3,
That he has been informed, that such an institution would
be proposed; that he is, in his own opinion, much against it;
that the natural inclinations of the Canadians would be to be
governed by a legislature like that in this country, provided they
were allowed to be u part of it themselves. That if they had not
expressed any desire for e legislative assembly, it was from having
been informed, that, in that assembly, they would not be ullowcd
as Roman Catholics, to sit. ‘That he has apprehended one thing
may have deterred them : they may have been persuaded, that in
case they had an assembly, they would have to pcy the expenses
of the government; and in its actual situation, the province is not
rich enough. That he does not speak positively of their present
thoughts, but that this was their opinion when he was there.
That this mixed assembly would please them, provided they had
not been under the idea, that the expense would fall upon them~
selves. That he understands the persons who are possessors
of land ere, in every country, thought the proper persons to
compose an assembly, and the project he had seen was upon this
idea; and that it was upon this idea that he was for an assembly.
Tluit he is of opinion, that an assembly is calculated for that
country; nor should he object, if trading persons, or if an inferior
order, were admitted into such assembly. That in the plan of
assembly he refers to, there seems to be no distinction between
those persons who llitd their noblessc, and those who held the
other sort of lend. He thinks, if there was an equal balance
of power, the noblesse could not reasonably oppose it.
Did you ever hour any material objections to the establishment
of at legislative council E’–I never heard it particularly debated,
nor any objections.
Do you think the Otmadinns are not desirous of a more free
government, than u governor with :1 council, the members of
which are appointed, removed, and suspended by him ?–They
would certainly desire a freer government.
Would the people approve of the legislative council, if composed
of persons interested in the province P–If there were some of the
noblesse admitted into the council, the best etleet would result
from it.
Under the present plan, do you not think such :1 council it des-
potism ?-I consider it in no other light. I believe they would

wish to choose their own council, and not leave it in the hands
of the Crown. ~
Do you not think the English laws the best for the Canadians
in general P-I make no doubt but your laws are wise and good,
and make you a happy people, but my countrymen prefer their
old laws and customs. ‘
The witness withdrew, and Dr. Marriott was called in.
EXAMINATION on Dn. MAR1u01″1’,(l) Tun KnvG’s ADVOCA‘1‘IL~
Mr. Zllackworth.–I desire to know what, in your opinion,
would be the best establishment of laws in the province of
Quebec ?—lt is difiicult to say, upon any subject in this world,
what is best for any men or set of men on speculation; that
which succeeds best in public and private life is best; and there-
fore I cannot tell what will be bcst for the Canadians.
Do you think that the Canadians would choose the system of
English law, or the French law ?—~I do not know a single
Canadian. I never was in Canada‘
Do you think that the commerce of this country and of the
province would be hurt by o revival of the French laws, in cases
of property P»-I cannot tell. ‘
Do you know anything of the state of Canada P—~What I
know is from such papers as have been laid before me, by order
of the King” in council, and by information of other persons.
Captain Plzipps.-D0 you understand the French law ?—l find
it very diificult to understand any law.
Do‘ you know the power of the French King under the consti-
tution of the French laws P—I do not well understand the con-
stitution of France. I never was in France. It is a very hard
thing for a foreigner to obtain an adequate idea of the constitu-
tion of another country. The constitution of one’s own requires
a great deal of close application and study. I wish I understood
it better; and that many other people would study it more, and
imderstand it better than I fear they do.
(‘) This eminentcivilinn was appointed the King’s advocate-general in 176%
and judge of the admiralty court in 1778. T-Ic twice represented the borough
of Sudbury in parlimneut, and died in I803. The answers, in tl\o above
exxamination, are understood to have been revised by himself.
M Q –

16/1< nnnrurns ON TUE BILL [June 3,
Do you understand the constitution of Ireland ?–No; I never
was in Ireland.
Mr. De1npste2~.—Do you think it expedient to give the province
of Quebec any part of the French constitution P-—The question is
upon the word ‘ expedient.’
I mean, will it he wise and prudent P-~By the wordls ‘expedient,
wise, and prudent,’ I understand the question to mean, whether
it will be politically wise and prudent Expediency is ministerial
language. It is n word of state: state expediency. It means
that high policy, that great arconuin, the sublime of government,
extended nhnost beyond the rcztch of human wisdom. Few can
pry into this sort of knowledge: fewer can comprehend it. I
am sure I do not.
By tho nature of your office, and greatly informed as you are
from your connections with government and your own reading,
you must know much concerning the nctual state of the province
of Quebec. I desire you will answer, what sort of government
you would give to it?-‘I‘he giving lows to mankind is the
perfection of all knowledge, human and diviner It is not the
work of days, of months, of years, but of ages. For rne to
answer the question, what sort of government I would give to
the province, I must be the vninest of men.
From such papers and informations as have been laid before
you for your consideration, I desire to know, in general, what is
your idea of acivil establishment for the province of Quebec? what
is the proper-est to be given it by the legislature of this country ?-—
It depends upon a most extensive knowledge, infinite indeed, of the
relations of men and things, times and circumstances; the posi-
tions of both countries; the manners and genius of the people ;
the wants of the province; the vicws of the mother country; the
conduct of the neighbouring colonies; the state of the nation
vis 47 vis, or respecting them and the designs of the rest of
Europe. These relations cliange every moment: this vast p0li~
tical prospect is for ever doubtful and floating; it contains too
many objects for my short vision and poor comprehension. My
answer therefore to the question, What is the properest esta-
blishment for the province of Quebec, to ho‘ given by the leg-is.
lature of this country is-—-I cannot tell.
Mr. T/Villimn liurke.-‘1‘liero is an nhsnrllity in this answer.

1774.] FOR ‘rim eovnmmunr on The gentleman spoke of an infinite knowledge of men and things.
times and circumstances, and yet he says, he cannot tell.
I-Iouse.–Read the minutes.
The Clerk reed the minutes; as Mr. Burke had represented
Dr. Mm-riot2.——They were not my words–“ it depends upon a
most extensive knowledge,” 8&0. &c., that is, the question depends
-—the words ‘it depends’ were left out.—-Repeats as above.
Mr. Baker. –1 would ask you if you have ever read anything
of the laws of France? I believe you have read :1 great deal ?–
X have read a. little of the French law.
Do you understand it ?—Not the style of it, nor its forms, very
VVhut do you mean by the style of it F–There is in every
civilized country, in which a system of civil laws is established,
at law-language-—as there are in every art and science words and
phrases peculiar to them, only understood by the persons who
practise those arts and sciences. I correct myself ; not always
understood perfectly even by them, for they frequently dispute
about their forec and meaning. The law, therefore, calls these
arts crafts and mysteries. The French have a serious word for
the style of law; they call it ‘ jargon ;’ we ludicrously call it
‘jergon.’ It is a cant word.
Did you ever see any system of the French law in Canada. ?——
K have read a collection of Ihonch laws, which contains, by way
of abstract, the laws and usages of that province, founded on the
laws of the Prevore of Paris; and it also contains several onion-
nances of police and arréts of the French King.
Do you understand them?-—S<>Ine part of them: the law-
language is dii-ficult.
ls there not, in that collection, something concerning the jus
retractrlt‘ ?–I suppose the gentleman who puts the question means
the retrait Zignuger. It is the right which the lord of a fief or
manor, and first original possessor of at grant from the Crown, has
to receive some indeinnifieations from those persons who are
culled the arfler tenants, who hold under him. There is such a
title as retrait Zignager.
If the Ihench eivil laws were revived, or suffered to remain in
Canada, would it not be a discouragement to the old British sub»

‘H56 V 1>nnn’1‘ns ox THE BILL [June 3,
jects to go and trade there, and make purchases of lands ?-—If old
British subjects were to go thither, the French eivil law remaining
in force, or being revived, tl\cy would go thither at their option
and of their own free-will, as they now go to Jersey or Guernsey,
where the French laws prevail. Or, for another instance, if you
please; if any person on speculation thought of going to buy an
estate in Scotland, if he found that he did not like the Scotch law
and inhabitants, he might do a better thing, keep his money in
his pocket and stay at home ; =1 thing much wanted in this country.
Mr. Dempster.-On What terms do you think, in the state of
things in Canada, an English merchant going to settle there
would hold any lands which he should purchase ?–011 the same
terms as the Canadians held them who convey the lands; or if
the new settler takes them by grant from the Crown, he will then
tulcc them on the same terms as any other grantee would do;
that is to say, on such terms as the grantee shall please. All is
voluntary on the part of the purchaser or grantee: he may take
the lands, or he may leave them.
Have you given no opinion on the subject of Canada P-I have.
In what capacity, ancl to whom ?–As his M_ajesty’s advocate-
general, to his Majesty in council. I drew up a plan of a code of
Will you be pleased to give the House some account of the
p1an?—I had the honour of his Majesty’s commands in council,
together with my brethren in oifice, the attorney and solicitor-
general, to consider a great number of papcrsyreferred to us, and
to call for such persons as could give me information upon the sub-
ject; and also to prepare a plan of civfl and criminal law for that
province. It was referred separately to‘ us three, as lacing the law
ofiicers of the Crown. I drew up my plan accordingly.
\Vhat was the plan ?-1 drew up my plan in the following
method: after stating the principles of legislation, and repre-
senting what appeared to me to have heen the late condition, and
now to be, and likely to be hereafter, the state of the colony, I
formed my plan under four heads: the courts of juclicaxure; the
common law of the province; the revenue; the religion.
(‘) Dr. Mari-i0tt‘s work was printed early in 17%, and was entitled,
“ Plzm of a Code of Laws for the Province of Quebec, reported by the

1774-l FOR THE oovenumnnr or QUEBEC. 167
To whom did you deliver that plan ?—~To his Majesty in council,
As, doubtless, it was very extensive in point of knowledge and
information, the House would he glad to know its contents ?—I
stand here as his Majesty’s servant : my colleagues next to me in
ofiice, who have given their opinions as well as myself to his
Mafiesty, are within the bar. When an advocate or counsellor
gives his opinion, it is the property of his client. His Majesty
is in possession of my opinion. If this House does me the high
honour of being desirous to know my sentiments, such as they
are-(and they are very free ones), the House will then address his
Majesty to lay my opinion before the House. If the House will
not agree to that adclress, my sentiments must remain deposited
with his Majesty, in his great wisdom, where they now most
happily rest.
VVhen somebody moved to have all the papers laid before the
House, the motion was overruled, on the ground that we might
have complete information at the bmx l fear we shall not have it
where we wish it, and were bidden to expect it.
What is the sum and conclusion of that opinion 2–In a question
so extensive, and which involved every possible consideration of
policy, and very little of law, I drew up my opinion, with all that
modesty and difiidenee which became me. The danger of po-
sitiveness in speculative opinions is obvious to any man of
a. right mind. The more l viewed the subject on every side,
the more difficulties occurred to me. I weighed all facts and
reasonings in a true balance, without bias to any man or any party,
but found it hard, after the whole result of my enquiries, to fix
decidedly what the system of law ought to he for a people so re-
mote from home, and of whose manners and wants we know so
little. My method of proceeding was this—-I collected all fziets as
represented to me, and as for as other persons, who well knew the
colony by having been in it, were agreed in their reports made to
the King’s government. l then brought all the facts and probable
reasonings together in one general point of view, for the assistance
of iny two colleagues in oifiee, that they might form an easier
decision, I drew, indeed, my own conclusions ; but they
were not positive, but open to better reasonings. lthereforo,
through the Whole, adopted the style and manner of that which
Cicero calls the deliberativurn genus dicendi. I submitted eveiy

168 DEBATES on THE mtr. [June 3,
thing to his Majesty’s wisdom in council, aided by the opinions and
arguments of much higher authority than any which I could
Can you recollect any parts of the opinion which you gave P–
I answered before, that doubtless if this House will address his
Majesty, they will have the whole of it before them‘ I have no
objection, I am sure, for my part; but my memory will not serve
me to repeat so extensive B. work.
Does it agree in substance, or part, with the bill now depend-
ing before this House P—l know nothing of such a bill officially.
A printed paper, with a title of a hill relative to the government
of Quebec, was put into my hands only two days ago, by a friend
accidentally. Not having the honour to be a member of this
House, I cannot, according” to the rules of it, take Ilotiee of any-
thing proposed within its walls. If the House were pleased to
refer the bill to me, I should desire to take it home, to read it
with great care and deliberation : and if I were within the bar,
as I am now without, I would give my opinion upon the bill in
my place as freely, and with as much courage, as any man upon
this ground.
You own that you have had much information: lwish you
would tell us what ?–The same as the House has already heard
just now, and from some of the same persons.
Mr. Cll7J0lLdiS]L.- If we cannot have the whole of your opi.nio_n,
will you give us some of the very learned quotations in your
hook ?-— So many compliments would naturally draw a positive
answer from any person capable of feeling the flattery and giving
an answer; but I do not know what the honourable gentleman
thinks of me. It is not a little memory or a little time will serve
to repeat all the quotations of civil and common law, and all the
French and Latin extracts which l have used. I have used a
great many in dressing ‘out my own thoughts. Quotations are
commonly among authors but the mere ornaments, the fringe
and trappings of a hook. They only show that the man who
uses them has read a great deal ; hut they do not prove how
much he has thought, and whether well or ill; and they show
ho has thought like other people who have thought and wrote
before him. If I could possibly recollect and repeat this mass of
the opinions and inforinations of other men, I must be very

1774.] F011 TIIE GOVERNMENT or oumnne. 159
tedious, and zrppenr very pedantic to the House. I question
much whether a walking library would be tolerable in these walls.
1 cannot remember the quotations.
Mr. W‘ Bra-Jcc.-—Will you tell us how long you were com-
posing your plan–it must have required great labour and study
—-and how many pages it contained ?–About three hundred puges
closely written.
Wliat was the time it took up to compose it P – I cannot ex-
actly tell.
Was it several months P -— Ten or twelve months, at different
intervals, to compose it ; but if lam to speak to all the time that
I was thinking‘ upon the subject, the time was near two years. I
took it up, laid it in my desk; took it up, and laid it in my desk
again, that it might ripen in my mind. I sow my difiiculties of
coming to a decision increased. I dreaded being hasty or posi-
tive, andl thought no trouble too much on such n public subject,
which appeared too zxiuch for the life of any man, and most certainly
for any one man’s understanding.
I desire to know, what was the name of the thing which you
took up and laid down so often, and which you delivered in at
last to his Majesty ? -—I think, Mr. Chairman, I remember the
face of that gentleinan who asks me the question, “ what is that
thing which l took up and laid clown so often, and delivered in
to his Majesty?” I answer, when that gentleinzm was himself
in ofiico, he very well ‘knew what sort of things are the opinions
of crown lawyers.
Cries of withdraw I witlrdmivl
Mr. William Burlce.–The witness at the bar has behaved
without any respect to the House. It was enough for the
House to be insulted elsewhere. We are in an abject state.
I say so, and others think so. We are very ill-used. Tho
other House have used us ill. They shut us out, not for
fear we should l108.1’ what they did, but for fear we should
see they did nothing. In at noble lord <‘> I am glad to find
the origin of these ill-manners, and this gross contempt.
(‘) During the proceedings in the House of Lords on the three bills for
the government of America, the members of the House of Commons, on the
motion of Loid Murchmont, had been refused the usual admission behind
the throne.

1’70 DEB.-\’EES on rnn mm. [June 3,
They frame the bill there, delay it by keeping it in their
hands, then send it down to us; and now we are to hurry
through it without sufiieient information, and nobody will
own it. The doors are shut upon us; nobody will give us
information. The gentleman says, he does not know the
constitution of France—-he does not know the constitution
of Ireland»-he never was in Canada-——the King is his client
—-he will not tell you what advice he has given the King.
We have a right to he informed by him. The minister told
us we should he so; and now, truly, the witness will not
give an answer to any thing, what his real opinion is. By
the rules of this House, no witness at the l)8A‘ is to answer
any thing personally touching :1 member. It is :1 disrespect
to the House. The questions are to be put to the Chair by
a member, and the Chair, which represents the House, is
to put the questions to a witness. I-Ie is to return answers
to the Chair, that is, to the House. If an improper question
is put, the House may overrule it. I know the good nature
of the learned gentleman at the bar. He has taken {ire at
my expression ; I meant no incivility. He_would not tell us
what it was he had delivered: he, himself, therefore forced
me to call it “that thing which he delivered.” I had no
other way to express it. I am ready every where ‘to
demand or give satisfaction, where there is an affront oiiered
or received. I desire the gentleman may withdra.\v, and to
know the sense of the House, whether I put an improper
question, or the gentleman made an improper answer.
Dr. Marriott was ordered to withdraw.
Mr. Pullcneg/.—It is very irregular for a witness at the
bar to answer any thing personally relating to the member
who puts the question. It was always, in my opinion,
wrong, considering that gentleman’s situation, to call him to
he examined ; but we were refused the perusal of his
opinion, and the papers. The attorney and solicitor-general
here refused to tell us what were the opinions which were
given in by them. I have often observed much confusion
occasioned in the House, when at witness of wit and abilities

3774.] FOIL THE GOVERNMENT or oumnno. 1’71
is examined. It should be remembered by the one who
puts the question, and the other who gives the answer, that
the question is put by the House, and the answer is returned
to the House. An attention to this would preserve rec-ipro_
cal decorum.
Captain Phipps.-This examination is getting into a
train which appears to me to he very improper. Sir, when
men of great parts and much wit come to this bar, I cannot
help condemning that kind of applause which is given them,
for the exertion of that wit, though very unseasonahle. I am
sure the committee sees, by this time, that if we proceed
thus, the witness will have been called to the bar to very
little purpose. Besides, there is a conduct in witnesses not
at all consistent with the dignity of this House. I, there-
fore, hope that the witness at the bar, as well as any others
that may come hereafter, will recollect, that although the
House owes much to the situation of a witness, the witness
owes something to the dignity of the House.
Lord North.-—I rise to answer the honourable gentleman
who was so warm. He is angry that the judge-advocate
will not tell you what his opinion was. He gave a eom~
plete answer to his question. He said it was a deliberate
opinion. I admit that the answer of a witness should not
be personal to the member questioning, however rude or
absurd the question may appear to him; but the rank and
station of the gentleman at the bar ought to be considered.
The word “thing” is understood generally as a word of
contempt. Such a word might naturally strike him. He
is under the protection of the House, and no improper
question ought to he asked him.
Mr. Edmund Bm’ke.–I rise to apologize for my honour-
able kinsman next me. I am perfectly sure he did not mean
to oflend the learned gentleman at the bar. I know that gen-
tleman extremely well, his great abilities, learning, and
character. He has distinguished himself by his writings
and behaviour, and nobody hero or any where else can treat
him with contempt ; but we should have been very glad to

1’72 nnnnrns on THE mm. [June 3,
have had his information. I am sensible that he is in a very
trying situation. His information is withheld. It is a dis~
tress upon him, and an insult upon us, to refer us to him,
when it was known beforehand that it was not likely that
he should think himself at liberty to give us his opinion
vied coca, after what he has written was refused us by
others. it was, however, very natural for us to call for
him. VVQ had no other hope of obtaining any information
of great authority. All the world knows that the King’s
advocate-general, and the attorney and solicitongeneral,
from the nature of their high oflices, have the power of ob-
taining every sort of information. All is open to them in
every department of government. They can enter behind
the veil. The smwtmn sanctorum oi’ state must be fre-
quently and confidentially submitted to their view; but the
curtain is drawn upon us, and the door is shut. How, then,
I ask, are we to get information? Shall we have it from
the other Crown lawyers? The answer is, they stand upon
their own ground, and take and narrow it when and where
they please, as members within the bar; and the gentleman
who precedes in ofiice, but who stands without the bar,
necessarily suffers from a variety of torturing questions put
to him on speculative points, which, though very proper
to he asked, may be very embarrassing to the witness to
answer. But the question my honourable relation put was
a very proper question; the answer was very improper. I
{lo not, perhaps, blame him; but this l must say, that there
was not any want of civility to the gentleman at the bar
Never was a man less guilty of it than my honourable kins-
man. I never should have concurred in the motion to ex-
amine the learned gentleman, if the motion for the address
for papers in general hacl not been overruled. ‘
‘ Dr. Marriott was again called in.
C‘/mi7‘mzm..—You will please to address yourself to the Chair,
and receive the question from the Chair.
Mr. William J3ur/cc.-VVhat name am I to Qve to the paper
which you delivered to the King ?—A report.

1774.] FOR THE GOVE1tNMENT on oimnnc. 1″/3
Mr. Mackwort7i.—l wish you to give u short account of the
substance of that report, as concise as you please to make it I’-
I thought I had before given on account of the contents, as well
as of the plan. It is impossible to give a short account oi a long
In that report, do you approve of juries P Do you like thorn?
What do you think of them P——l should choose to he tried by
them, but I think of juries as I do of every thing else in this
world; every thing is imperfect. I have often considered the
diiferent modes of trial in rlifiercnt countries; the civil law courts,
the courts of common low, and chanccry ; their modes are all
defective in discovering truth. Juries are like most men and
things; they have their excellent qualities, and they h\>,vo their
bad ones.
Do you think it will be a hardship upon the Conacliuns not to
have juries? Not to have their lives and properties tried by it
jury out of their own neighhourhoorl? Woulnl it he their happi-
ness or unhappiness ?–If I were a Canadian I could tell what
\voulr1 make me happy: if I were to go to (Jan-adal could tell
the sumo. As an Englishman, I say that juries are a mode of
trial which I like; they are very favourable to the property of
the subject, and the natural liberties of mankind.
Mr. Dmpstcr.-—Do you think that the present bill is calcu-
lated to give as much freedom to Canada. as it is expedient to give?
-Expe<1ient to give them! I answered before to that question;
it involves :1. thousand others.
Mr. JL‘7Lki7’!SO7l.-—lJ0 you think that the Canadians will not
suffer greatly if the Imbees 6’07j3us law is not introduced among
them ?–1 desire the question may he repeated ; the merit of the
Izabeas corpus law is a great constitutional question. [Question
repeutcd.] —~’1‘he idea of the suifering is the iclca of the sufferer,
and not of 0. third person; I cannot answer for the feelings of the
Cannot you conceive the pain of another person P—~No person
has o true impression of the degree of pain or pleasure of another
being; there is no complete medium to ¢0.!1voythe sensations;
words will not do it. No person can tell what u man of prohity
and reflection, who wishes to judge without error, and to <10 his
public duty in an arduous question feels, when put upon the

1’74: nnnnrns on TIIE nrLL [June 3,
rack of opinion. No man in this place exactly knows how I feel,
in my particular and relative situation, by being so long kept at
this bar, and called upon to answer every sort of question that
can be imagined about all possible and probable things from such
a variety of persons. Witnesses, by all the law I know in the
wodrl, are called every where only to speak to facts; to opinions,
no where ; except in one court of religion in the world.
You have then, I find, some sort of idea of another mzm’s
suffering, although not an adequate and perfect one. Cannot
you tell the House, supposing I were to give the gentlenum who
sits below me a slap on the face, what he would suffer? [The
member who put the question being a slightly made man, and the
gentleman who sat beneath him a very stout man, and the latter
turnhig round quick to look at him, it occasioned a loud laughi]
I mean, what would a person struck suffer when there are visible
signs of a violent blow P suppose that the blood gushes out of the
nose ?—-The noses of some people bleed without pain. ‘l‘hat
gentleman might have a blow on the nose, and he might feel it.
Ishould not. I mean, he would feel it if he were sober; if he
were drunk he might not; he might take itall in good part; and,
as for the blood, swear it was all good claret.
A Member.-—Repeat the answer ?—If he were inebriated he
might not feel. Mr. Chairman, I hope my answers are not im-
proper. Idesire to be serious. I am earnest. The answer-,I
take it, by the law of all evidence, ought to be of the same colour
with the question, and pointed to it. _
C7uzz’rman.—Right, certainly.
Colonel Barre.-—I would not desire to distress the learned gen-
tleman at the bar. He is certainly under personal difficulties in
his situation of ofilce, and not being amember ; but I see he bears
his examination with much patience and good-humour. We were
all going to be very dull, and he has enlivened us. He has been
asked above a hunzlrocl questions, and has parrierl them all: not
one decisive answer have we got. I did not expect he would
have kept his ground so stoutly against numbers. I will now
beg leave to try him. I unclcztake, Sir, to ask him one very easy
question, which I think he may and will answer, What do you
think is the King of Prussizfs religion P–I have read some of his
works, if the writings are really his; although some people have

1774.] ron rm: eovnimunnr or eunnne. 175
doubted. the title, “ (Euvres du Philosophe de Sans Souei.” His
religion may be judged from them.
I desire to know, Sir, what you judge the King of Prussia’s re-
ligion to be P–Frorn them, I believe his Majesty has no formal
I am the only person who has got a direct answer from the
gentleman. If the province of Canada were to be ceded to his
Prussian Majesty, what religion would he introduce into it ?-——A
soldier’s religion.
¥Vhat is a sol<lier’s religion ?–If I were a soldier, Sir, Iwould
answer the words; my honour.
VVhat is a lawyer’s religion?-—I-lis honour, too; not to give up
his client. But I suppose the gentleman knows there are‘ two
orders of men in this country, the civilians, and the common
lawyers. I mn no common lawyer. The religion of which?
Of both ?~—'[‘he common lawyers must answer for themselves.
I can readily answer for the civilians: they are ecclesiastical
lawyers, and subscribe; they are of the religion of this country by
law established. ‘
Col. B¢Z7‘7‘5.-~I seo, Sir, there is no hitting the gentleman;
but I have read an opinion of some weight in o book here in my
hand: it is so laid down, that l think the gentleman cannot escape
answering it. With the leave’of the House I will read it: “ In
order to judge politically of the expediency of sulfering the Romish
religion to remain an established religion of the state in any part
of your Majcst’y’s dominions, the Romish religion, I mean its
doctrines, not its ceremonies, ought to he perfectly unclerstoocl.
The opinion of the royal author of the ‘ Mémoires do Bran-
clenburgh’ seems to be conclusive on this head to every sovereign
power, that the Protestant religion is the best both for the prince
and the people; because there is in it no middle power to intervene
and stand before the prince against the people, nor before the
people against the prince.” The House now sees why I put the
other question. Did you everreedthe ‘Mélnoires deBran<lenburgh?’
Is that which I have read the King of Prussia’s opinion? ls that
opinion in the ‘Mémoircs rle Brannlenburgh P’
I have read a book with that title ; hut whether this hook was
his writing, or whether, being his book, that was his opinion
(for many people write books who are not of opinion with their

176 DEBATIZS on THE 11n.L [June 3,
own books) I do not know. There is something like that opinion
in the book.
Colonel I3arI’é.—The hook, Sir, in which this opinion is recom-
mended and adopted, ends with the name of the lea.rne at the bar.
Dr. Marriott. (Bowing with great respect round to the House,
and laying his hand on his bosom) I now subscribe myself to that
opinion most seriously and most sincerely.
He was then ordered to withdraw.
Lord Nnrfh. – I apprehend we have now gone through
the evidence of all the gentlemen ordered to attend. There
are several papers, which I will move to have rend.
Mr. BaIcea~.—Early in the clay some one proposed, that
General Murray should be directed to attend; but if these
papers are now to be read, I suppose we are not to have
him at all.
Lord Nort/z.—I submit, whether the two last (lays have
not given us every necessary evidence. Besides, the general
left the province five years ago.
Mr. Thomas Toumslzend, jun. — General Murray is a.
material evidence, and he will not take up much time.
Captain I’hipps.—I just now saw general Murray in
the House. You may exzunine him now.
Mr. Cooper.–The usual way is to. have an order of the
_I-Iouse; but if notice be taken of the witness being in the
committee, he may he examined.
General Murray was gene.
Captain Plzipps.- His examination will not he a long
one. VVe shall not have the trouble of fishing for an un-
swer from the general. He saved the town of Quebec by
the spirit and wisdom of his conduct, and had 21 great share
in reducing Minorea ; and was useful, no doubt, upon the
first establishment of the eivil government. I was there at
the some time, and a. witness of what he did.
Colonel Btm-é.—VVill the noble lord eonsent to general
Mun-ay’s attending on Monday?

1774.] TOR 1711;; oovEni\n\n-:i~:T 01-‘ QUEBEC. 1’77
Lord North. -— I am not against his attending now. I
shall, I apprehend, otl’er my objections on Monday.
Mr. Dempster- – This is the first time I ever heard any
objection made to hearing a witness. The noble lord says,
he apprehends he shall oppose.
Colonel Bzzrré.—If, after admitting the necessity of
calling for information, you now refuse it, I shall oppose
the reading of these papers. If you refuse this evidence,
why send your seijeant formally for him P I had the
honour of serving with the general at the sieges of Louis-
bourg and Quebec. A gentleman who stood so high in the
opinion ofan oppressed people, who witnessed the devas-
tation of the country, and who remained in it as military
governor, in the hopes of alleviating their situation, must
know what were their wishes and expectations at the time,
and be able to tell you what will be the probable eilect of
the new government you are about to impose on them.
Such a man must be a proper witness to call: you will
have no evasion in his evidence; it will be brief and accu-
rate; and without it you cannot, with propriety, proceed :2.
step further.
The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to
sit again on Monday. Mr. Baker moved, that General Mur-
ray“) should attend on that day.
Mr. T. Town-s‘/temil, jun.-—-I hope he will be allowed to
come here. We shall then hear some reason. For God”s
sake, why oppose so fair at motion .P Is it for the sake of
gaining time? Is it because I was imprudent enough to
say, that the general concurred in opinion with Mr. Ma-
seres? I believe, when the noble lord gave his consent to
hearing him, and sent the serjeant-at-airms in quest of him,
he well knew he was not in the House.
(‘) The hon. James Murmy, fifth son of Alexzuider, fourth Lord Elibank.
He had distinguished hinnrelf in the action of September, 1759, which de.
eided the flute of Quebec, and in which Wolfe fell. In 1763, he wars
appointed governor of Cunarln, and in November 17711‘, governor of Mmorca.
He died in 179/ll.

1’78 nnnnrns on THE nnzn [June3,
Lord North.-— The honourable gentleman may believe
whatever he pleases. Ieare not what he thinks of me. I
never pay any regard to what a passionate and prejudiced
man may say. If gentlemen were desirous to have General
lVIurray’s testimony, why did they not move for his attend-
ance. How is it, that they did not find out before, that he
had been one of the governors of Canada? He is certainly
an excellent oificer; but if every person is to he called who
has happened to have resided in the province, we may go
on for ever and ever. I shall he against the motion; let
my doing so be called by whatever name it may. His
attendance is not to give necessary information, but to create
unnecessary delay. –
l\Ir. T. Townsfienol, jun. »-I rise, Sir, perfectly cool.
The noble lord says, he pays no regard to what a passionate
and prejudiced man may say. Who the passionate and pre-
judiced man is, I leave the House to judge. I said before,
and say again, that it is indecent to refuse the motion for
the genera.l’s attendance ; and it must have been passion, it
must have been prejudice, that could make the noble lord
say, that the evidence of e gentleman who had been governor
for some years, was just the same as the evidence of any
other man who happened to have heen in Cailada. Let
our actions speak for us. Let the noble lord be judged of,
as having opposed the motion ; and let me he judged of, as
having supported it; and then let passion and prejudice be
fixed upon him \vho most deserves it.
Lord N01’t/z. – I beg pardon, if 1 have spoken with too
much warmtli. I certainly did conceive, that what the
honourable gentleman threw out wzts a home charge against
inc. If I have spoken with passion, it has been the sn(lden-
ness of the charge that made inc do S04
Mr. Bulaer. — T he noble lord seems to apprehend, that
if we examine General Murray, we shall have every inhabi~
‘rant of Canada at our hen‘. But the question is one of
words: he is described, not as an inhabitant, but as late
governor of Quebec. I should wish to know, how the
noble lord can reconcile it with any idea of consistency, that

1774.] non THE GOVERNMENT 01? QUEBEC. 179
it should be proper to move for the attendance of those
other gentlemen, and not be proper to move for the attend-
ance of General Murray. It has been suggested, that there
is a di\‘l’erenee of opinion between General Carleton and
General Murray, with respect to the number of inhabitants
of the province. That, Sir, alone, is a sufiicient ground. for
ordering General Murray to attend. In a matter of this
imporhxnce, let us not entertain any idea of haste; let us
do justice. ‘
€apmin Phipps.–The House will not do its duty, if
they do n0£ hear the general. This bill was brought late
into the House of Lords, where it passed with little or no
inquiry, and was brought down late into this House. If
it is to be crammed down our throats in this manner, it
will be the most arbitrary measure ever passed by par-
Mr. Dempsfer. -—-VVhy this material evidence should be
withheld from us, I cannot see. I have been disappointed,
and I think Gencml Murray would give me the inf’onnati0n
I stand in need of.
Mr. Cliarles F om. —~ I confess myself, Sir, to he one of
those who are passionate and prejudiced, and liable to
human fruilties, and who consider it necessary to call in
General Murray. This House will show itself superior to
all human frailties, if it goes on with the bill, without
hearing the general. Such is my view of the subject. The
noble lord seems to have always two opinions. Most
people’s second thoughts are said to be best; but the noble
lord’s second thoughts are generally the worst. About half
an hour ago, the noble lord thought the evidence was
proper to be heard; but now he objects to it, and says that
is an entirely new thought. But this, Sir, is not the fact.
An honourable gentleman mentioned the subject some time
age; and is it not consonant with established rules, that
when I call for evidence, I am to determine whether it is
necessary to have more? If all the evidence had agreed,
you then would have some ground of argument to say, we
N 2 l

180 nnnnwns on THE BILL [June 3,
have thorough information. I am, perhaps, passionate and
prejudiced, but my passion and prejudice lead me to think,
that this has not been the case. Nay, I venture to go so far
as to say, that it never was conceived to have been the case.
I shall not be told, that Mr. Maseres and General Carleton
have given perfect accounts, or have been able to answer
all the questions material for information. The House
thought it materialito know, how the laws were admin-
istered, Whcther they gave satisfaction or dissatisfaction,
before they determined on giving the fornicr laws to the
colony.‘ Thejudge advocate did not give us his opinion.
We could not foresee that a witness would he captions, and
seek for delay. Upon the noble l0rd‘s own ground, we
ought to move for the judge advocat_e’s report. Sir, I am
one of those who think ill of the bill. I like it to pass
upon the present evidence, as well as upon any other; but
how far it will gain the gentlemen opposite any degree of
grace, any degree of dignity, any degree of popularity, let
thcsc individuals judge who would not only have refused
evidence, but acted in the teeth of it. Ircally am sur-
prised, that‘ gentlemen, who bring in such a hill as this,
should talk of want of time. l/Vas it not competent to
them, to bring it in at the beginning of the present session,
or even in the last? It is their fault, and not the fault of
those who moved for evidence. Allowing this hill to be
everything it could be wished, I believe the noble lord will
not contendthat it is a bill of absolute necessity. The
delay of a week or a fortnight is not material; nor has it
been thought proper to urge so ridiculous a pretence. I
adopt 21 passionate and prejudiced word. I must think the
refusal of the motion perfectly indecent.
Lord Nor!/t. — I flatter myself that the inconsistency of
my conduct does not appearto the House, as it has done to
the honourable gentleman who spoke last. General Murray
has been so long out of the province, that I do not think
his evidence can be very niztterial; but I yielded at the
desire of the committee, supposing he could be called in
immediately. When, however, the same proposition comes

in a manner that would cause delay, it is perfectly eon-
sistent in me to have a diiierent opinion. That I may have
changed my opinion I am very willing to own. To persist
always in the same opinion, is not so much the sign of
wisdom, as it is of self-sufiiciency.—-A love of popularity
has been insinuated against me. It is necessaiythat I
should solemnly declare, I never did desire popularity, I
never did know of any person who meant to compliment
me. Praise and dispraise are distributed, by means of
insinuations, for the mere purpose of carrying some ‘point,
not because the person praised or dispraised deserves appro~
bation. I solemnly declare, whatever compliments were
insinuated concerning me, and God knows such compliments
are very few, I never knew of them. If the honourable gen-
tleman would attend to anything I could ask, it would be
humbly to supplicate him to cease complimenting; it does
no good to the man or the business. As for popularity, if
popularity means the good opinion of men instructed in the
matter of i’aet—-if to have the character of a good public
servant, to love what is right, to do what is right»-if that
be popularity, then popularity must be my desire; but if
popularity is hunting after the opinion of the day~—if popu-
larity is what is made by art, and contrived to pass for
glory at the moment, without any solid ground of (le-
serving public approbation—-if that is popularity, I dis-
claim it.
Governor Pownall. (1)-I am against General Murray’s
being called in. I said to him, under the gallery, I per-
ceive you will he called in. Can you give me information
as to the boundaries of old Canada, before you commanded,
by the proclamation? He answered, that his commission
described it precisely. Now, Sir, I will venture to aflirni,
that his commission does not describe it precisely, but gene-
(‘) Thomas Pownnll, Esq. This learned antiquarian and politician was,
at this time, member for Tregony. In 1757, he was appointed governor of
Massachusetts’ Bay, and subsequently of South Carolina‘ He died in

182 DEBATES on T1-[E BILL [June 3,
rally-(1) I asked him, if he had ever seen the edict that
(lid settle it—a. bounrlary well known in the government of
Quebec. He said he hacl never seen it, and knew nothing
of the boundary. I was going on; but when he might
have been called in, he with(lrew. The gentlemen who
moved and seconded did not know this; but his \vith-
drawing at that moment certainly does look like an
affected delay. It affects me so much, that I shall vote
against his being called in.
Mr. T. Townshend, jun»-I reported no private conver-
sation with regard to General Murray. I heard him the
length of three or four benches. –
The S0lic2’t01″ General.-—Supposing that to have reached
the noble lord’s ears, it must have done him great injustice.
I imagined General Murray’s ideas were not the same with
those of Mr. Maseres, but that he was favourable to the
bill; and I said so to the noble lord.
Mr. Balom-.—I eoulcl not desire him to go away, for I do
not know him by sight.
Mr. Dumzing.–I hear from one honourable friend,
that the general can give useful evidence; I hear from an-
other that he cannot. I hear from one member that his
evidence will be friendly to the bill ; from another, that it
will not. My opinion is, that he can give material evidence,
because he is an intelligent man, disposed to make obser-
vations, and ready to communicate them. This is very
clear, that he must feel himself injured by what has now
(2) In the commission appointing General Murray governor of Quebec,
the province is stated to be “ bounded on the Labrador coast by the river
St. John; and from thence, by n line drawn from the head of that rive!
through the lake St. John, to the south end of the lake Nipissim, from
whence the said line crossing the river Stl Lnwrence and the luke Champlain,
in for-ty~five degrees of northern latitude, passes along the high lands which
divide the rivers that empty themselves into the said river St. Lawrence
from those which fall into the sea; and also along the north coast of the
Baye des Cliulenrs and the coast of the gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape
Rosiéfflfi; and from thence crossing the mouth of the river St. Lawrence,
by the west end of the island of Anticoste, terminates at the aforesaid river
St. John. ” ‘

1774-] FOIL THE oovnnxmmrr 01* QUEBEC. 183
been thrown out. Let him be asked, whether he can give
information, or cannot; whether he is a friend to the bill,
or an enemy P ”
The Solicitor-General. —- It would be rather singular to
call a gentleman to the bar, and ask that blunt question,
are you a friend or an enemy to the bill ?
Mr. Dunning.-1 pledge myself to the House, that I
would find that out in a minute.
The question being put, that Lieutenant~General Murray,
late governor of Canada, do attend the committee on Monday,
the House divided. Yeas 36. Noes 90.
lvfomlay, June 6.
The House resolved itself into a committee on the bill,
Sir Charles VVl\it\vorth in the chair. Tlie preamble being
postponed, and the first clause read; viz.-—
“And whereas, by the arrangements made by the said. royal
proclamation, avery large part of the territory of Canada, within
which there were several colonies and settlements, of the subjects
of France, who claimed to remain therein under the faith of the
said treaty, was left, without any provision being made for the
administration of civil government therein, and other parts of
the said country where sedentary fisheries had been established
and carried on by the subjects of France, inhabitants of the said
province of Canada, under grants and concessions from the go-
vernment thereof, were annexed to the government of Newfound-
land, &<‘. he it enacted, that all the said territories, islands, and
countries, heretofore part of the territory of Canada, in North
America, extending southward to the hanks of the river Ohio,
westward to the banks of Mississippi, and northward to the
southern boundary of the territory granted to the merchants
adventurers of England trading to Hu(lson’s Bay, and which said
territories, islands, and eoluitries, are not Within the limits oi?
some other British colony, as allowed and confirmed by the
Crown, or which have, since the lOth of February 1763, been

18/1< ntmyrns on THE 1111.1. [June 6, made part of the government of Newfoundland, be, and they are hereby, during his Majesty’s pleasure, annexed to, and made part and parcel of the province of Quebec, as created 2Ul(l established by the said royal proclamation of the 7th of October, 1763—” Lord N01’th.-—Therc are great clifilculties, as to the best mode of proceeding. I apprehend the alteration I am about to propose will save every right where there is a right. I will explain the amendment I intend to make; if that should not give satisfaction, gentlemen will state what it is they propose to substitute in its stead. VV e shall then ascertain how far we shall be able to make anything more precise. The question is an extremely cliflicult one. It is usual to have different boundaries laid down in difierent manners. VVherc the King is master of the country, there they are drawn by his Ma_jesty’s oiiicers only; where there has been any grant or charter, and it has been neces- sary to draw a boundary line, then, not only his Majcsty’s cfiicers but commissioners have been appointed, and to~ gather they draw a line, subject afterivai-(ls to an appeal to the privy council; therefore, that distinction is nmde here. It is intended, immediately after the passing of this act, to go on with the project of running the boundary line. be- tween Quebec and New York and Pennsylvania, &c., bo- longing to the Crown. This is made to prevent the province of Quebec from encroaching on the limits of any of those grants, whore no boundary has been settled. I find many ;>;un’tle1nen are desirous of having something still more pre-
cise, if possible. To this I have no objection; but we are
so much in the dark as to the situation of this country,
that it is not possible to cio anything more sate, than saving
the riglits of the other colonies, leaving them to be settled
on the spot by commissioners. Persons possessing local
knowledge can act better than we can. For that reason,
I propose to leave out the words, “heretofore part of the
telritory of Canada,” and insert “ extent of country ;” and
also to leave out the words “ said country,” and insert
“ territory of Canada.”

17741] run run GOV!-)ItNMEN’l‘ or QUEBEC. 185
Governor J0/mstone.(‘> ——~ I intended, Sir, to have 0fi”‘ere<1
a few words before the Speal<er’s leaving the chair ; but
he went out of it without my seeing him. Some other gen-
tlemen were watching, but he escaped even their eye; I
hope, therefore, the committee will indulge me in saying to
them, that as the House has not thought proper to call
upon General Murray, and as some misunderstanding has
arisen upon something he is supposed to have said, the
general has empowerecl me to clear that matter up, That
I may he the more accurate, I will read it. The general
says, that his expression was to the following eflect: that
he highly approved Mr. Maseres’s evidence as to the matters
of fact; that he gave the House the most accurate infor-
mation ; that the general does not recollect one circum-
stance of clifl”e1’ence between them, except as to the number
of inhabitants; but that the general is far from wishing it
to be understood, that he agrees with Mr. Maseres in all
the conclusions to he drawn from those facts. General
Murray desires nae to say further, that he feels no wish to
be examine<i, neither does he feel any wish to decline it, if
the committee think proper to call upon him, hut he does
not choose to eomo as a voluntary evidence. No\v, Sir, as
I am upon my legs, if the committee would permit me to
speak to the question, I think I could give them some
Mr. T. Townshend, jun.— I beg, before the honourable
governor goes to the argument, that he will permit me to say
one word. General Murray and I understood each other in
this matter very well: if any gentleman has taken clown the
words, I should be glad to know in what respect they are
different. I said, that General Murray had confirmed the
testimony given by lVIr.Maseres. These were my words, and
what induced me to make use of the expression was this:—I
was going out of theHouse, and saw General Murray. Upon
(’) Third son of Sir James Johnstone, of Westerhull, in the county of
Dumfries. In 1762, he commmided, successively, the Hind und the Wager,
in the West Indies; in P765, was appointed governor of Pensacola; and in
1768, hecume member for Cuckermuuth,

186 nsnrvrns on THE BILL [June 6,
seeing him, I said, Nobody knew you were in town; you
ought not to go away, without being called to the com-
mittee. He said, he could add nothing to the testimony
which Mr. Maseres had given. Upon which I said, he had
confirmed the testimony of Mr. Mascresg and I thought
myself justified at the time in saying so. I did not think
anything of the oonelusion he was to draw from it. ‘
Governor Jolmstone. — As to the clause now before the
committee, and the amendment that the noble lord proposes
to make upon it, I will state to the committee what I think.
The amendment that the noble lord has proposed does not
at all affect my objection to the bill. My objection to it is,
that you are going to extend a despotic government over too
large a surface; and that you are going to establish at
boundary line, with a pretence of bringing it within the
line of justice, where God and nature are against you. The
pretence that is held out, to induce this House to accede to
the measure is, first, that the former government of Quebec,
Canada did extend so far, and that as we are about to give
the Canadians back their old laws, we ought, at the same
time, to give them hack the full extent of what has been
asserted in this House to have been their ancient territory.
For my part, Sir, I never presume to inform the House of
anything but matters of fact. I endeavour to make myself
master of those facts, before I venture to offer them to the
House; and it is upon this ground only, that I wish the
House to give any credit to me.—Now, Sir, as I had the
honour of being appointed governor of \’Vest Florida, it
became my duty to make myself acquainted with the
boundaries of Louisiana, and I accordingly endeavoured to
obtain the best information upon that subject. I was sur-
prised, therefore, to hear it given in evidence, not directly,
but insinuated, that the former government of Canada
extended as far as you now propose to make it. One of
the reasons given by General Carleton for this extension of
country was, that the inhabitants of these remote parts
might be under the direction of the government of Canada.

1774.] Fon ‘1‘!-[E GOVEILNMENT or QUEBEC. 187
The measure can only he defended upon the principle of
policy. The pretence is, the protection of the Indian
trade. Are we every moment to contradict our former
acknowledgcmnts and declarations? Is the report of the
hoard of trade to be held for nothing? Is the same man to
support cliiferent opinions in this House, to What he does
out of it? You have published to your governor, over
and over again, that you had limited your provinces. You
have published to the Indians many regulations, that no
concessions should he made beyond such and such a line;
that the rest should he considered as the Indian country,
under certain regulations to be established. You after-
wards introduce a. clause, for bringing down men to the
nearer colonies, to be tried for capital ofl’enees; and now, in
order to keep these people in awe, you are, you say, going
to extend it, in order to protect the property of the Indian
trader! Sir, the great maxim to he learned from the
history of our colonization is–let men manage their own
:1{i’airs; they will do it better on the spot, than those at
a distance of six hundred miles can possibly do it for
them. Another contradiction in this hill.—-and it contains, I
think, some of the greatest contradictions in government, as
far as my capacity goes, I ever met with–is, that the
French commercial system, by the means of licences, is pre-
ferable to our own. Upon the whole, Sir, this hill, in my
opinion, contrary to all good sense and experience, goes
to the establishment of the principle, that to exclude men
from the manageinent of their own affairs constitutes pros-
perity; and, therefore, you give them no assembly. The
next contradiction is, that the habeus corpus is not essen-
tial for every well regulated society; the next, that trial
by jury is not the best way of trying civil rights; the
next, that bounding an empire by such extensive limits is
the best way of extending justice; the next, that a. mono~
poly is favourable to commerce; the next, that it is easier
carrying up than down a river; the next, that the Popish
religion is better than the Protestant; the next, that the

188 DEDATES on rm: BILL [June 6,
King’s word, passed under the seal of Great Britain, is of
no efiiect ; the next, that an arbitrary council is fit to bind
British subjects; the next, that the feudal tenure is favour-
able to population; the next, that the system given us by
our ancestors requires to be mixed with the despotism of
France; and lastly, that all which our forefatlicis have
been doing for so many years is to be undone by their
successors. All these things, Sir, are to be achieved by
the bill now before us. I am therefore heartily against this
clause, notwithstanding the amendment; and I defy any
man to lay down a single principle, upon which such an
extensive measure can be defended.
Mr. Edmund Burke.-—We are now settling the clause
that is to give limits to the excellent system of government
about to be provided for the Canadians by this bill. But,
in order to ascertain more precisely what those limits are,
I should be glad to get some further information, and
I shall move you, that Mr. Pownall be called to this
committee: no man is more able, no man more willing to
give that information. I move, “ That John Pownall, esq.,
under secretary for the American colonies, do attend this
Lord Nm’t”h.–I do not exactly see what the. honourable
gentlemaifs object is in calling Mr. Pownall; but if the
limits can be rendered more clear and. distinct by so doing,
it is possible I shall be very willing to have him before us.
To what point does the honourable gentleman mean to
examine him P
Mr. Erlmuml Burlce.-1 will give the noble lord all the
satisfaction in my power. I wish the attention of the com~
mittee, as I distrust my powers of explanation, when applied
to such an object. The impropriety of the bill has taken its
course already. If we had originated this measure above
stairs, where maps might have been laid upon the table, no
doubt the whole dispute of this day would have been
avoided. I shall ask for the attention of the committee;
partly that they may understand me; partly that I may

1774.] FOR rm; GOVERNMENT or QUEBEC. 189
understand myself. In the first place, when I heard that this
bill was to be brought in on the principle that parliament
were to draw a line of circurnvallation about our colonies,
and to establish a siege of arbitrary power, by bringing
round about Canada the control of other people, (iiilerent
in manners, language, and laws, from those of the inhabi-
tants of this colony,-I thought it of the highest importance
that we should endeavour to make this boundary as clear as
possible. I conceived it necessary for the security of those
who are to be besieged in this manner; and also necessary
for the British subject, who should be restricted within the
limits to which he was meant to he restricted, and not be
allowed to venture unknowingly into the colony to disturb
its possessors. I wish these limits to be ascertained and
fixed with precision, for the sake of both parties. Having
this object in my view, I shall first consider the line drawn
in the proclamation oi’ 1768. It was drawn from a point
taken in the lake called Nipissim: that lake stands to the
north of this point. I entreat the attention of the committee;
for the escape of a Word is the escape of a whole argument.
Sir, this boundary was fixed by 21 line drawn obliquely from
lake Nipissim, which line, crossing the river St. Lawrence
and the lake Champlain, forrned an angle in the latitude of
forty-five degrees. This constituted the south-west bound-
ary of Canada: beyond that the province was to extend no
further; and, confined within this limit, it remained from
the year 1763 to this time. That was then the boundary
of Canada; and when that boundary was formed, that was
the boundary of the government; and that boundary was
fixed there, because it was the boundary of the possession-
There was then no considerable settlement to the soutl1~
west of that line. This line the people of Canada acquiesced
in. They have since come before his Majcsty’s government,
and have laid before it a complaint in which they state,
that this was a line drawn especially for the purpose of
territorial jurisdiction, and the security oi’ property; but
they represent that it is a line ill suited for a growing

country. They do not complain that they have not the
legal limits, but they complain of the climate to which
they are restricted. “ The province,” they say, “ as it is
now bounded, by a line passing through the forty-fifth
degree of north latitude, is confined within too narrow
limits; this line is only fifteen leagues distant from Mon-
treal; and. yet it is only on this side that the lands of the
province are fertile, and that agriculture can be cultivated
to much advantage.” Sir, if no injustice will thereby be
done to any one, I clon’t know a more reasonable request,
than that their complaint should be attended to. I am not
one who opposes the principle of the bill throughout: if I
opposed the principle throughout, I should not oppose it in
this stage; it would he irregular. So far as this bill con-
veys to the natives of that country every right, civil and
religious, held either by the great charter of nature, or by
the treaty of 1763, or by the Kingfs proclamation, or by
what above all it ought to be held by, the lenity, the equity,
the justice of good government»-I would give the enjoyment
of those rights in the largest, and most beneficial manner;
but the very same line of justice which I would extend to
the subjects of Greet Britain ought not, in my opinion, to
be conceded to the old Canadians. –
Having drawn the line that best becomes the regulation
of right, the question comes now-whether what they ask
is a. favour which can be granted them, without doing a
material injury to the most substantial rights of others P-
whether the etl”ect of the power given by this clause may
not be to reduce British free subjects to French slaves?
Now, if the line drawn from lake Nipissirn is to be altered,
at whose expense will it he altered? The colony of New
York claims all the country south of that line, till it meets
with some other British colonies of known boundaries; and
these are claims which ought at least to be heard, before the
people of that colony are handed over to the French govern-
However, after this line had been settled to forty-five (le-

177/L] FOR roe GOVERNMENT or onenno. 191
grees, it was found that the French and English maps dif-
fered very considerably as to the position of this degree;
and this diflerence occasioned a great deal of confusion, so
that the colony of New York, which bounds next to Canada,
had perpetual controversy about the limitary line. Though
they agreed that the line should be settled to forty-five de-
grees, they never agreed where the forty-fifth degree of lati-
tude was. To remedy this confusion, in 1767, the colonies,
by a very provident order of the Crown, determined to hold
a meeting on the frontiers, at which they took an actual
observation, and fixed the latitude of forty-five degrees to
the head of’ the northern part of lake Champlain. When
they had fixed this limit, the colony of New York gave up
all that part included in the triangle, the base of which was
a line drawn through the angle of forty-five degrees. All
this was given up for the sake of peace. A definition of
that line so settled was brought home and submitted to the
board of trade; who examined it, and reported that they
thought it a proper line to be drawn; which report was
cmmfirmed by his Majesty in council. Having got that line
drawn, at parallel was to he run from east to west, till
stopped by some other colony : but when the line was fixed
of for-ty~five degrees, the line itself was not drawn, but only
the point settled from whence it should be drawn. The
east line, however, is actually drawn on the map; but tho
line on the north-west part was left totally undefined—thc
point being fixed simply to the head of lake Champlain. The
consequence was, that the whole west boundary of New York
extending about two hundred miles, a little more or less,
including all the best settled part of that province, and in<
hahited by various persons, civil and rnilitary—-all this has
been supposed to go under that description to the province
of Quebec, by the provisions of this hill. To those who
objected to S0l’l‘lgl1tf\\l a conclusion, it was said, it was in
the power of the Crown, after this act, to adjudge to this
province what belonged to it, on the other side of the line.
The first thing that occurred to me, after hearing this decla-

192 DEBATE5 on THE nun .lunoG,
ration was, that a law~suit would he the beginning of this
happy settlement; and that the claim between Canada and
New York, which cost so much blood formerly, would now
give rise to an interminable series of law-suits.
‘With very uneasy sensations on this head I came down
to the House. The noble lord showed me the amendment,
which by no means relieved my apprehensions. The reason
why I feel so anxious is, that the line proposed is not a line
of geographical distinction merely; it is not a line between
New Yorl: and some other English settlement; it is not a
question whether you shall receive English law and English
government upon the side of New York, or whether you
shall receive a more advantageous government upon the side
of Connecticut; or whether you are restrained upon the side
of New Jersey. In all these you still find English laws,
English customs, English juries, and English assemblies,
wherever you go. But this is a line which is to separate a
man from the right of an Englishman. First, the clause
provides nothing at all for the territorial jurisdiction of the
province. The Crown has the power of carrying the greatest
portion of the actually settled part of the province of New
York into Canada. It provides for individuals, that they may
hold their property; but they must hold it’subjcct to the
French laws, subject to French judges, without the benefit
of the trial byjury. Wliether the English mocle of descent
is better than the French, or whether a trial hy a judge is
better than a trial by a jury, it is not for mo to decide : but
an Englishman has a privilege that makes him think it is
better; and there is, Sir, as much reason to indulge an
Englishman in favour of his prejudice for liberty, as there
is to indulge a Frenchman in favour of his prejudice for
slavery. The hill turns freedom itself into slavery. These are
the reasons that compel me not to acquiesce‘ by any means,
either in the proposition originally in the bill, or in the
ainendrnent. Nay, the proposition in the amendment is a
great deal worse; because you therein make a saving of the
right of interference with, and may fix your boundary line

1774.] non THE GOVERNMENT or QUEBEC 198
at the very gates of New Yorlt, perhaps in the very town
itself, and subject that colony to the liability of becoming
a province of France. It was this state of things, Sir, that
made me Wish to establish a boundary of certainty. The
nohle lord has spoken upon the occasion with a great deal
of fairness. He says, that if any gentleman will find a boun~
dery of certainty, he will accept it. Whether, if we shall be
able to find such a boundary, the colony of New York will
be satisfied with it, I know not; but, speaking here as a
member of parliament, I do think the colony had better
have a boundary much less in extent, yet reduced to such a
certainty, that they may exactly know when and where they
cease to be English subjects. The boundary originally
settled between Canada and New York, by Governor
Murray and General Carleton, gave up a very considerable
part of what New York was entitled to contest with the
Crown, under the first proclamation. That was given up.
I am glad the noble lord has got a map before him. They
gave up a vast extent of country. I recommended them to
give up for peace all that part which lies between that coun-
try and the river 3t. Lawrence, and to take their departure
from at lino drawn through Lake Champlain in forty_five
degrees of latitude, asfar as the river St.Lawrence, then fol-
lowing the course of that river through lake Ontario and
lake Erie to make it the western bound of the colony of
Pennsylvania. These limits and bounds would give New
York a. territory sufiicient to enable it to meet every exi-
gcncy of government: it would give it a territory saleable
and valuable; it would give the Crown at boundary of oer»
tainty; it would give the people of Canada. a certainty of
knowing upon what side of the water their territory began ;
and it would give the subjects of Great Britain apower
of knowing where they can he free. If the noble lord gives
me this boundary, he takes oil’ the northern part of the ob-
jection; and, in that case, I shall not call upon Mr. Pownall.
If the noble lord does not admit this description to he
clearly expressed, there are persons enough able to do it;

194′ DEBATES on rm: BILL [June 6,
for it is ridiculohs to imagine, that any sense can be con~
ceived, and not expressed in parliamentary words.
In the next place, Sir, having explained myself as well as
I can, without having a map in every geiitlemazfs hands
who hears me, I shall now only say one wbrd to the noble
l01′<i’s objection. He dues not know enough of the state
of that country to be able to adopt the line {vhich he has
drawn: whereas nothing can he more g’eogrnpl1ic¥illy (lis-
tinguisheti than water and land. This boundary is physi-
cally distinguished; it is astroncniically distinguished. It
has been fixed by actual 0l)servati0n, and agreed upon by
the surveyors. We have everything that geography, astro-
nomy, and general convenience stronger sometimes than
either can give, to make this boundary definite.
I shall, therefore, now move the boundary which I have
proposed, viz., “ by 9. line drawn from u. point on the east
side of Lake Champlain, in 415° north latitude, and by a
line drawn in that parallel west to the river St. Lawrence,
and up that river to Lake Ontario, and across that lake to
the river Niagara, and from Niagara across Lake Erie, to
the north-west point of the boundary of Pennsylvania, and
down the west boundary of that province, by a line drawn
from thence till it strikes the Ohio.” If the noble lord atlmits
this proposition, the committee will, no doubt, he able to ex-
press it in proper words; if not, I must beg that we may receive
information from a gentleman who can abundantly inform
the House, who has a greater knowleclge of the subject than
any gentleman within this House, and who is as reaély to
communicate it as any man I ever knew.
Lord N01’th.-What has passed Between us, the honour-
able gentleman has stated fairly. VVe agree in principle, and
I hope we shall succeed in drawing a clear bounilary line;
but I am doubtful whether a clear boundary line can he
drmvnhy parliament. It strikes me, that the only method is
to leave it to be drawn after the passing of the act—leaving it
in such anianner, that the line when drawn shall actually
form £1 clear line between the province of Camrda and New

1774, run “run (:08!-ERNMENT or QUEBEC. 195
York. The line, as far as it appears by the map, is very
distinct. The objection I have is precisely what the
honourable gentleman has mentioned. I am not clear who»
ther there are not upon the south-east part of the river St.
Lawrence Canasdian settlements I have been informed there
are. I am sure there are no New York settlements in that
part of the world. I think it more prudent to have the
boundary line settled upon the spot; reserving, in the act,
all those lands that have been granted, under any authority,
to the old settlers. If any line can be drawn, ‘I have no
doubt the Canadians will prefer their own laws. At first
sight, I have no objection to the words proposed, and, if
the honourable gentleman desires it, I shall also not object
to the witness being called in, nor indeed to any evidence,
not likely to involve us in difliculties, that may be caleu-
l-ated tosett/le at distinct line for the security of the province-
It is my opinion, that all this uninhabited country added to
Canada, or added to New Yenk, should not be immedi-
ately vonsidered as oountry which the government are to
grant sway. I do nut think that we at all endeavour to
discourage settlements, by making those regulations. i
hope there will be great caution and restriction on the
part of governors against making grants in this western
<;m;m1;ry_ The necessity of sebtliiag the government goes upon other principles, which I shall have occasion to enter into in the eonrse of the debate; but at present I rise up to corifimi the declaration I have ‘made, that if a clear line can be made to the satisfaction of gentlemen, so that they a/re not likely to involve themselves by ‘drawing a line in West- -rn\i.nste1’ which would be better thrown in America, I shall not ogainzilitre it, but shall be very thankful to the gentleman who can draw that line. Mr. Edmund Bwrlne.-—-I shall satisfy the noble lord that there is no inconvenience in the \vorld in drawing this line; no injustice in the world to the Canadians; more injustice in dmwing am imaginary line, that may involve the whole colony df New York in confusion. I should be extremely 0 2 196 1>EnATEs”oN THE BILL [June 6,
tenderof the privilege of the subject; and therelhrc I would
not disturb any man living in his property. But the fact
is, that no man is injured by what I propose; but by what
the noble lord proposes, if Canada is in future to have
boundaries determined by the choice of the Crown, the
Crown is to have the power of putting a great part of the
subjects of England under laws, which are not the laws of
England. The government of France is good»-all govern~
ment is good–but, compared with the English government,
that of France is slavery. VVe have shed oceans of blood
for that government, and are ready, I hope, to shed oceans
of blood again for it. Upon the noble 10rd’s proposition,
half the colony of New York may be adjudged, and some of
it must be adjudged, to belong to the colony of Canada.
The fate of forty or fifty thousand souls is involved in this
question. At present the colony of New York is the Crown’s.
The noble lord may adjudge it to belong to Pennsyl-
vania; but he cannot deprive it of the laws of England.
Now, however, by an act ofparliament, he is going to do so.
The Crown has the power, at a stroke, to reduce that country
to slavery. It is the power of a magical word; which I
hope I shall never see any where exercised but in the play~
houses‘ This is a possible case; the otlienis certain-—that
a few Frenchmen may happen to be considered as English-
men. The noble lord does not suppose there are many.
The parties here are English liberty and French law; and
the whole province of New York, further than it is defined
by actual bound, is in the power of the Crown, not to adju-
dicate, but to grant, and hand over to the French. I do
not suppose, if the Crown were under the necessity of ad~
judging, that it would acljndge amiss ; but it is in the
power of the Crown to grant even its power of adjudging.
T/Vhen put on the English side, they are put in the power
of the laws; when put on the French side, they are put out
of the power of the laws. Let us consider, then, whether it is
not worth while to give aclear boundary, and to let the man
know whether he is or is not an Englishnmn. I shall take

1774,] non run GOVERNMENT or omsnnc. 19″!
the sense of the committee upon it. I am as much in
earnest as ever I was in my life. I have produced a prac-
tical idea—I can produce practical words.
After a long and desultory conversation, the words pro-
posed by Mr. Burke were inserted. The words-
” Until it strike the Ohio; and along the bank of the said river,
Westward to the hanks of the Mississippi, and northward, to the
southern boundary of the territory granted to the Merchants
Adventurers of England trading to Hudson’s Bay; and also all
such territories, islands, and countries, which have, since the 10th
of February, 1763, been made port of the government of New-
foundland, be, and they are hereby, during his M:rjesty’s pleasu1″e,
annexed to, and made part and parcel of the province of Quebec.”
-—were next read.
Sir C/‘ma-Zes Saunders.(’>—I rise to say :1 few words upon
this part of the clause. Though I dislike the whole of it, I
shall speak only to that part which relates to the fishery.
Your annexing the liherty of fishing to Canada, will take
the fishery from the mother country; will takeit to America.
That pert carried on by Canada must go to the French, and
thereby he very detrimentahto this country. In the first
place, no return is ever made here; in the next place, you
lose the employing of your own shipping, the furnishing the
men with materials, and breeding your seamen. The liberty
of fishing should remain under the inspection of the governor
of Newfoundland. The act of King William is the best
for the fishery: if you give up this, I am afraid you will
lose your breed of seamen, and I know no way that this
country has of breeding seamen but two; one the fishery,
and the other the coasting trade. All other trade is at the
expense of men, and whatever hurts your fishery must
reduce the naval force of this country. Sir, the fishery is
worth more to you, than all the possessions you have put
(‘) This distinguished naval commander was, at this time, member for
Heydon. He died in the following year, and was interred in Westminster
Abbey, near the monurncntof his friend and “brother ofthe war,” General

198 Dl<‘J1A’t‘ES on THE mm. [June 6, together. Without that fishery your possessions are not safe; nor are you safe in your own country. Instead of doing anything to hurt your fishery, new methods should he taken to rear more seamen. God imows, how much y0u”ll find the want of seamen, whenever this cvuntry finds it necessary to equip its fleets! For these reaSQI‘!5,I Hm against annexing the liberty of fishing to Canada, and I hope that this clause, for this reason, will not pass. Mr. Gascog/ne,——I agree with the honourable admiral; but I do not conceive, from what I have learned, that the liberty of fishing given in the clause has anything to d0 with that sort of fishery the honourable admiral means. They are sedentary fishers, taking seals and SG8»-QOW5- It does not appear, that there is any cod fishery along that coast. Mr. P2’es00t.(‘>–As I have, in the course of business,
some knowledge of the question before the House, I can take
upon me to say, that the honourable gentleman who spoke
last is mistaken. From the first conquest of the coast, there
were seveml c0d~fisheries near the strait of Belleisle.
Whether they are continued I cannot say, hut I ‘believe
they are. A relation of mine, much concerned in the
fishery, a Captain Darby, was examined by the board of
trade in my presence. The French may possibly have
interfered with us, It may become a valuable fishery. The
evidence was, that the fish was of a better kind, and ought
to be encouraged for the Spanish market. It would he
better to unite this fishery to the government of Newfound-
land. VVe ought to discourage carrying on the fishery of
the continent of America with Europe; as it gives rise to
a great deal of contraband trade.
Sir Charles Saunders.-I should not have troubled the
committee, if I had not been sure of what I said. We have
had a man-of-war there, ever since that country has been
(‘) George Prescot, esq , of ‘.l’he0lmld’s, in the county of Herts; grand-
father of the present Sn‘ George Prescot, and founder of the banking-house
of Prcscot, Grote and Co.

1774,] ron THE GOVERNMENT or QUEBEC. 199
put under the inspection of the governor of Newfoundland;
who has settled all disputes, agreeably to the act passed in
the reign of King William; and that is the reason [men-
tioned that act.
Lord Nbrth.–If the consequence stated by the honour-
able gentlemen is likely to ensue, and there is no method of
preventing it, undoubtedly it is a consideration of most
serious importance. But this liberty of fishery was grounded
upon two points, and for two reasons: the first and prin-
cipal reason was justice; the other was the nature of the
fishery, which is supposed to he peculiar to the fishery of
that coast. When Canada was conquered, and Montreal
surrendered upon capitulation-\vhile the inhabitants of
Canada were secured in their property, there were at that
time grants for fishing for seals and sea—cows; which grants
were profitable to the Canadians, and were as much secured
to them as any other species of property. They let the fishing-
Coast from time to time upon lease. These leases eicpired
about the year 1″/6%, and new leases were granted. The seal
and sea-cow fishery was, I understand, entirely sedentary;
carried on in the little creeks hetween the coast and the
island. It is a sort of decoy for fish. It is a decoy that
requires all the nicety, all the care, all the silence possible.
The trade cannot he carried on by competition. It must
he carried on separately and distinctly, or the fishery will
be ruined. It requires all the people to go away at a cer-
tain time in September, and return in December; and there-
fore it must he carried on by persons who stay there in the
winter. The ship fishers, I mean those who go from this
country to that, have -been permitted to fish in tlitferent
harbours; but the competition almost entirely destroyed
the fishery. It is therefore pbvious, that this fishery cannot
be carried on in the manner of the Newfoundland fishery,
and consequently cannot be subject to the laws of that
fishery. This was the reason for inserting this clause ; but
if it has a tendency to ‘(iestroy the cod fishery, and diminish
our stock of sea1ncn,i,t ought not to stand in the hill. I

200 DEBATIES on rm: mm, [June 6,
do not, however, conceive that giving this right to the inha~
bitants of Labrador will have any such effect.
Captain Phipp-s’.—Let us consider, Sir, whether it he
politic to sufier this cod fishery on the coast of Labrador to
be in the hands of the Canadians. The consequence will
he, that the French will be received in Canada with open
arms ; that they will carry their 1nanut’actures thither; and
that an intimate intercourse will be kept up between the
two countries, to the great injury of the English settlers.
They will also have opportunities of stirring up discontents
among the Indians. All this shews the necessity of another
bill, placing these fisheries under the government of New-
foundland. As far as my little experience in my profession
goes, I do not hesitate to declare, that this clause, while it
will be one of the severest blows this country ever met with,
will be one of the most material benefits that ever accrued
to France. _
‘ Mr. Cooper.–It is not the intent of this clause to protect
the sedentary fishery to the injury of the other. Suppose,
therefore, a proviso were added, that nothing in this act
should extend to prevent the government of Newfoundland,
&c. If I am rightly informed, the cod fishing is not carriecl
on at the same time. If so, it may be fixed at u season
which shall not interrupt that carried on in the same
situation by the sedentary fishers. As to the condition of
our navy, I have the satisfaction of stating, that the number
of seamen has greatly increased of late years.
Capt. P/1.ipps.–It is impossible to carry on the sedentary
fishing, without a property on the water-side. The clause
will destroy the right of those who come to try for fish
there, and will occasion endless disputes. If any sedentary
fishing is necessary, it ought to be put under the govern-
ment of St. Johrfs. The mischiefs that may arise from
this clause’shonld be frequently rung in your ears, until
they make an impression upon you.
Mr, Pre-s0ot.—The cod fishery and the seal fishery are
carried on unon the same coast. It is usual for them to

1774.] FOR run GOVERNMENT or cwnmsc. 201
leave some of their people there in the winter. It is for the
interest of this country, that they should be detached from
the government of Canada; they should, therefore, have a
government to protect them in winter as well as in summer.
Mr. B;/ng.—l/Ve have heard a great deal of the small
number of Protestants in Canada. That is one reason why
the sedentary fisheries should be put under the government
of Ne\v|“ound1and;‘ for unless that is done, we are handing
more of our people over to the Canadian laws.
Lord North.—The last alarm is not well founded. The
British may and will carry on the fishery to Canada. The
law they are under at present is rather more arbitrary than
the Canadian law.
Sir Charles S’aunders.——I do not see how it is possible
to carry on the fishery there. Where are the disputes to
he decided? At Quebec? The distance of the fishery from
Quebec is so great, that the loss of time and the expence
would ruin any fishery in the world; whereas the governor
of Newfoundland, upon any dispute arising, can settle it in
half an hour; neither time, trouble, nor expence, is lost:
immediately they go to work again. I never knew a trial
to last half an hour in my life. 4
Lord John Ca/uemlish»-I do not know the question at
present. N0 question has been put upon the clause. I
hope we are not quite ready to agree to it. This whole
description of Canada goes very much against my judgment.
I will, however, say a. few words to the particular clause.
The remedy proposed seems to fall short of the necessity of
the case. I think this proviso would not reach the point.
1 believe the only pretence the governor of Newfoundland
had for extending his authority there, was, that by the
proclamation this coast was put under his direction; but
when this authority shall be withdrawn by an act of parlia-
ment, he will have nothing to do with it. It will be left to
doubt. The seal fishery had better be provided for by
itself, than that this great nursery of our seamen should he
endangered. – s

980$ DEBATES on run mu, [June 6,
Mr, Thomas Townsheml, jun.—’1‘his, Sir, is undoubt-
edly a very material part of the bill, and we have had both
sides of the question stated to us. The honourable admiral
has told us, that that great nursery of British seamen will
be in much danger from the passing of this clause. The
noble lord on the other side, and the honourable secretary
of the treasury, have not denied any one of the assertions
which have come from the gentlemen of the navy, and from
the honourable member concerned in the trade under the
gallery. The noble lord has obliged the conimittee with 41
Very agreeable deseription of the seal fishery; he has told
you a great deal of the nnimal itself. He says, thgt the
decoy requires great nicety and care, an_d_ qll the silence
possible; and therefore he proposes, that Frenchmen not
being noisy, not being lgquacipus, it is better to trust that
fishery to them, than leave it to the English. The honour-
able secretary to the treasury has congra_tulated the country
upon the great inc\’ease of seamen, which he attributed t9
the favourable state of the Newfoundland fishery. Sir, I
believe the seal fishery has been carried on by the French
since the peace: now, from the very nature of the sedentary
fishery, if once they are established there, if once they have
a property in the stations, they must have the refu,sal of
the i;na1’kej:; they must set out with an advantgge over the
individuals that some fropi this country. Is it neqessary
to take great paiggs to show you that they have their eyes
upon this cpuntry ; thot there is no Part of their trade to
which they pay more attention; that they will strive to
avail tliemselves, from the similarity of ma.nner.s and reli-
gion, pf every opportunity of introducing their fishery,
to the e,\colusiop._1.of that can-ried on by British subjects?
;s it r_ieoessary to say that ;Fr<-m_cl1 ngzipxifactrires will, by
this means, be introduced into Canacia? If the noble lord
has a mind to regulate ,_the seal and sea-cow fishery, for
.Gpd’s sake let him confine this bill to one or two points,
and leave the rest to a. future session Surely this oannot
be too great a compliment to pay to that fishery which is

1774,} Fm: Tlfit eovpnum-znr or QUEBEC. 203
of so much importance to us. The very existence of this
nation depends on its naval power; and everybody knows
that the great foundation of the British navy are the fish~
eries and the cogs/ting trade.
Mr. Edmund Burke —-=1 cannot think that the gentle-
men opposite will not give way to so mqsoiiable a request.
lVe have proceeded with this mischievous bill thus far. Is
not this enough, without obliquely bringing into it another
branch——without deranging the whole nautical policy of the
country? It is true, that thfi government of Newfoundland
is of at more arbitrary nature than that of Quizbecg a military
officer, living on board a man-of-war, being the governor of
that place? But to say that these people will, by the bill,
be put in a. better condition, is to say nothing to the p111‘:-
pose. They are sent there to form a nursery for the navy;
and that is the best government for them which best a<:cnm=
plishes that end. Cannot the government of Quebec be
settled without this clause? The best way would be to
bring in :1 separate bill for Newfoundland; and then the
sedentary and the transitory fisheries, would be legitimate
objects of inquiry; but here, while we are discussing
H19 bflllndarifis Of Canada, we find ourselves in the middle
05.916 fisher-ies on the banks of Newfoundlaucl. Let trade
‘be regulated upon princples of trade, government upon
principles of g0vs1″nm<=n’r, and the navy upon principles host
calculated to rear recruits for /the navy; but let us not
jumble together, in so Oblique 41 mam1e1′, psnties so veiay
cliscovdgmt. Let us not, for the sake of hooking in $4110
fishery, give s lJ<>u\1<1a1″-y /to Canada which is by no menus not-iessary or expedient, and therei>y create further dJ’.fli-
The Sobiaitor-Genes-al.,~.~I-t is extremely cliflicul-t, upon
such a point as this, to contend, or to appear -b0 contend,
against the authority of the honourable gentleman, tosvllom
it may, perhaps, he very truly said, that this country owes
all the fishery it has upon the coast of Ne.\vfl>undlancl. Yet
I will long the indulgence of the committee while I state,

20¢ nnnnrns on THE BILL [June 6,
in a few words, how the different opinions entertained
upon it may, in my view of them, be reconciled. It is not, I
maintain, foreign to the purpose of this bill, to consider
whether it is better to annex the Labrador coast to Canada,
or tn throw it into any other government. To come to a
correct conclusion, the committee should take into its con~
sideration the present state of that coast, and the manner in
which the fishery is carried on. In 1765, the coast of
Labrador was made part of the government of Newfound-
land. Upon that coast an advantage is to be derived by
fixing a fishery, to be exercised at a particular season of the
year, which does not interfere with the regular cod fishery;
and if this object is obtained, it is so much gain to the
country. But, though annexed to the government of New-
foundland, gentlemen know that the governor stays there
no longer than to the end of the fishery: after that time
there is no resident government; so that the Labrador
coast must either be annexed to the government of New-
foundland or to that of Quebec, or there must be an espe-
cial governor appointed for that district. If annexed to the
government of Quebec, there will be magistrates, under the
authority of the governor, acting there to inquire into and
settle any disputes that may happen. The cod fishery, as
exercised there, I take to be a subject perfectly distinct. I
think no evil could arise to that fishery if, by express words,
the government of Newfoundland had the same power and
authority given to them upon the coast of Labrador as is
given, by the act of King William, with regard to the
Newfoundland fishery; and I shall submit these \vo1’ds–
“Provided always, that nothing shall extend to take from
the powers of the governor of Newfoundland, during the
season of fishery, all persons concerned in the cod fishery;
but that they lac extended to the cod fishery in the terri.
tories last before mentioned.”
Captain Phipps.-—These words will not at all cure the
evil; hecause the residents, who carry on the sea-cow and
seal fishery, will have possession of the land, and will thereby

1774.] FOR THE sovmznmnnr or QUEBEC. 205
have every opportunity of carrying on the cod fishery with
impunity, to the injury of this country. My learned friend
holds out 2. plausible protection to the cod fishery, and at
the same time cuts it up by the roots.
Mr. Cavendish, after some further debate, divided the
committee on the question, ‘that that part of the clause
which relates to Newfoundland should stand part of the
bill: Ayes, 89; Noes 48.“)
Thursday/, June 7.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of
the whole House upon the bill, the following clause was
“ And whereas, the provisions made by the said proclamation,
in respect to the civil government of the said province of Quebec,
and the powers and authorities given to the governor and other
civil oflicers of the said province, by the grants and commissions
issued in consequence thereof, have been found, upon experience,
to be inapplicable to the state and circumstances of the said
province, the inhabitants whereof amounted, at the conquest, to
ahovc one hundred thousand persons, professing the religion of
the church of Rome, and enjoying an established form of consti-
tution, and system of laws, by which their persons and property
have been protected, governed, and ordered for at long series of
years, from the first establishment of the said province of Canada:
be it therefore further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that
the said proclamation, so far as the same relates to the said pro-
vince of Quebec, and the commission under the authority whereof
the government of the said ‘province is at present administered,
and all and every the ordinance and ordinances made by the
governor and council of Quebec for the time being, relating to
(1) “ The danger of losing the fisheries, and the feeble manner in which
the proviso was supported, induced me to vote ngninsz the words being in
the l>ill.”-—H- C.

9206 nnnnrns on mm mu. [June 7,
the civil government and administration of justice in the said pro-
vince, and all commissions to judges and other oihcers thereof, be
and the some tire hereby revoked, annulled, and made void, from
and after the first clay of May, 1776.”
At the suggestion of Mr. Dempster, instead of the words
“ amounted, at the conquest, to above one hundred thousand
persons,” the words “ amounted, at the conquest, to above
sixty-five thousand persons,” were substituted.
Mr. Edmund Bu¢’ke.—-Instead of annulling all the ex-
isting ordinances, I think it would he better to leave the
local legislature to find local remedies. I am against de-
stroying laws, of the tendency of which I am totally igno-
G’ovei”u’oi’ J’0hnS?0ne.-‘I am sorry to differ with my
l1o’i1ou1″a.lJl‘e friend, with iegard to the propriety of inserting
or leaving out this clause. I am clearly of opinion, that these
ordinances ought to be repealed. The first business of the
legislature is to start from a certain point. I am well eon-
vinced, that all these ordinances are illegal : nothing but neces~
sity could have induced men to live under them. At Pen-
secola I was under the necessity of making some local laws.
1 constituted an asseinbly, and found the exceeding good ef-
fect of it. They did not alter one of those laws: they are what
has governed the colony ever since. The greatest fault o‘f the
governor of Quebec was his starting by the King-’s p1’uo’1:1m:;.-
‘tidn, lYnsl?1″uctid1is, and commissions, without a parliamentary
Iaothority. ‘I‘ha‘t is the great smn-ce of all the disputes with
our colonies. If ‘we had settled them under a parliameiitery
commission, there would have been no doubt of their depen_
dence on this eountry ; you would not have had this question
started. Win. respect to the proclamation, l cannot thinli it
was unwise. I consider the steps we are now taking unwise;
not the proclamation. Vlfhenever the King’s subjects emigrate,
they carry the law and the constitution along with them.
Establish a proper legislative authority. If you do that, what
need you be afraid of? The people will compel you to do

1774.] ron was sovznnnnw on (;),U’EBEC 207
so in due time. Never, since the conquest, was there such
confusion in Canada as there is at pfesent; and all arising
from the conduct of some of the civil oilicers sent over fi*0in
England. I do not wish to look back. I feel grateful to
those who sent out the gentlemen who have appeared at the
bar. If only such men had been sent, I am persuaded the
Canadians would have been reconciled to our laws. The
real complaints of Canada were all made before those gen-
tlemen went there.
Mr. Dem]1ster.—By this bill, British subjects are de-
prived of the trial by jury, and of all the other rights
enjoyed under our constitiftion. An honourable gentle-
man says, that the limits of the province being altered,
the laws now in force are not applicable fo its enlarged coh-
dition. Now, I should be glad to know, Sir, when the
English laws were extended to VVales and to Ireland,
whether the parliament began by repealing the old ones?
As, between this and May next, a council will be appointed
to take into consideration all the ordinances of the province,
would it not be better to leave them as they arc, and to let
those gentlemen, when they arrive there, repeal such as are
objectionable, and leave standing such as require no amend-
Mr. Thomas Townshend, jun.—’l‘he best way, at pre-
sent, is to e0‘nfi1’m the old ordinances. By this clanse we
admit the French law into ‘Canada, and destroy the English
law. Is it necessary, because you give then: hack ‘their old
laws relating to their persons and property, that you s‘houh’1
take away from them all the laws relating to their civil and
religious ‘rights? It is better that the people of Quebec
should bear the misery of English law a little While longs,
think to have H. new code o’f laws given to them, ’th‘at ‘may he
laid aside at the end o‘f six nionths.
Lord B£’auchZun;p.”*–‘I do not see that the objection tn
(‘) In 17%, his lordship succeeded his father, as sedond M1n‘q\i|s of
Yiertfoi-d, and, oh his death lX\ 1822, was succeeded by his son, the present

208 nnnrvrns on ‘1‘!-{E mu, [June 7,
the clause has any foundation whatever. Besides their own
laws and customs, we give to the Canadians the criminal law
of this country ; and is not that a suiiicient body of laws
for them to be governed hy P The object of the bill is to
take the province out of the most cruel situation in which a
respectable country ever stood-—that of being in a state of
uncertainty as to the form of government the people are to
live under.
Lord John Caeemlish.-—When I objected to the second
reading of this bill, I was asked, with an air of triumph,
whether the government of Canada (lid not want regulation?
My answer was, that it was a reproach to the government
there, that they hacl waited so long without doing anything ;
but that this bill was framed upon such ruinous principles,
that, in every step of its progress, it led to nothing but
confllsion, and ought to be withdrawn. We should with-
draw the bill, and bring in another upon totally different
principles. I know that, in 1767, the House of Lords came
to a resolution that something ought to be done for the
better regulation of the government of Quebec. The board
of trade were in such a hurry that something should he
done, that General Carleton was sent for over. They could
not endure delay in 1767, and now, in 17“/4’, we are leaving
every clause of the subject in general words: we are leav-
ing them for future kings to determine what shall he
done with them. Vi/hether it is Owing to want of abilities,
or what, I know not, but after nine years of preparation,
we ourselves are doing nothing.
Mr. Cornwalkll)-—It is much, Sir, to the honour of par-
liament, that every gentleman who has spoken in the course
of the debates on this bill, appears to have been struck with
the tyranny of an attempt to destroy all the prejudices,
with regard to religion and the laws, of the people of a
country which has now been in our possession eleven yearsi
(‘) Charles Wolfian Cornwall, esqi, at this time member for Grampound,
and n lord of the treasury. In 1780, he was chosen Speaker of the House
vf C<>mm<ms, and mu in 1’/so.

I774 J FOR run euvsmnnnm~ or mmrnc. 209
For my part, I think the progress of your reformation has
gone on gloriously in that country. We have had the
evidence oi’ the two able lawyers who resided in it for some
years, with so much honour to themselves and advantage to
the inhabitants; and that evidence has convinced me, that
the Canadians were prepared in due time to receive the
entire of the criminal law of England; and that the same
will be the case with the civil law, no gentleman who knows
how closely the principles of the English law twine about
each other, can have any doubt. With regard to religion-
the same libernlity which has been extended to their laws
has been extended to their religion also. But it is supposed,
that at decided preference has been given to the Roman
Catholic over the Protestant. Now, Sir, with the exception
of that ilhusecl country Ireland, is there an instancein the
world of the established religion being forced upon any coun-
try,c0nt\-ary to the sense of its inhabitants? Does history
furnish us with an instance of an establishment being forced
upon a country; the majority of‘ the people of which coun-
try were of a diii’crent faith ? I fancy not‘ The existence
of two established religions, in one and the same country,
is a novelty in the British dominions. How is that novelty
to be dealt with? The establishment of :1 religion in a coun_
try is a thing vory distinct from its toleration. I have al-
ways understood, that, in every country, acertain portion of
the public money has been appropriated for the establish-
ment of the popular religion of that country. This bill goes
upon that principle. Every professor of the Roman Catholic
religion is expected to protect and support that religion;
and if, at ii Future day, the Protestant should become the
popular religion, the professors of it will be expected to do
the same. For God”s sake, let us consider what is at pre-
sent the situation of the Protestants E-what they are in
point of numbers and in point of establishment! Three
hundred and sixty individuals scattered throughout that
immense country, and not at single church or chapel for
-the exercise of this religion ! In my opinion, the clause goes

2l0 nnnuns on THE mm [lune 7,
fairly to meet the system which necessity has introduced into
the colony»-I now proceed to take notice of the clause which
enables his Majesty to appoint alegislative council for the at?
fairs of the province. The first suggestion, I own, that pre-
sented itself to my mind was, whether an assembly could or
could not,in the present situation of the colony,be established?
With very few exceptions, Sir, I believe the members of
this, or of any other House, would say, that in the present
condition of Canada, the establishment of an assembly would
be a most unwise measure. The first absurdity that presents
itself is, that a portion oi’ such assembly would be English,
and a portion Canadian settlers. The great majority would
consist of old Canadians. But, having proceeded thus far,
having got an assembly, in what language would their pro-
ceedings be carricd on? When they had assembled, would
they understand one another, when they came to debate, as
we, Sir, are now doing, upon matters of public c0n~
corn? And then, with regard to this legislative council, the
power of taxing the people is not committed to that body.
WVhat they have to do is only to make such laws as will
render the people happy.–The next point is one which must,
I think, have originated in Canada‘ _ They do not Wish 10
have a jury, a true English jury, in its most essential cha-
racteristic, Now, Sir, if, in decisions upon property, there is
one thing more valuable than another, it is the unanimity of
the jury in their verdict. What is proposed to be substituted
in its stead P A decision by a majority of two-thirds, or of
seven out of thirteen. I am very far from saying that ajury
upon the English plan is not preferable to such ajury; on the
contrary, I think it the very best; but I would ask honour-
able members, whether we are not tickling our ears with
the magical name of juries? I beg leave to thank the com-
mittee for allowing me, in this stage, to deliver my opinion
upon the leading points of the bill; which I ought to have
clone sooner.
Mr. Dunning.–‘l‘lie legislative council is a subject for
future consideration: It is too early to enter upon it at pre-

1774.] rm: THE GOVERNMENT OF~’QU’EBl-IC. 211
sent. The honourable gentleman who spoke last encourages
me to proceed; and I hope I shall not be considered irregular
if I follow him. According to my apprehension, Sir, it is
grossly improper, that the proclamation, and the ordinances
made by the governor subsequent. to that proclamation,
should be repealed; but in saying this, I hope I shall not
he understood to mean, that it is my wish that those ordi.
nances should, uncorrected, remain the law of Canada.
They undoubtedly require explanation and amendment;
but I do not wish to see them repealed and abolished.
If ithad been made out to our satisfaction that, in the words
of the clause, the constitution of Canada, grounded upon
the laws of England, had been found, upon experience,
to he inapplicable to the state and circumstances of the pro-
vince, it would then become our duty to consider what
constitution should he given in the place of it. But, Sir,
has that been so made out? You have had witnesses at your
bar of clifl’crent sorts and in difl”crent stations: from which
of those classes of witnesses is it, that this committee will take
up the idea ofa fit constitution to be given to that country ?
Will not its civil constitution necessarily be best understood
by those to whom, professionally and oiiieially, that subject in~
dividuelly belongs? Iwasnot at allsurprised to learn from the
governor, that at the period of his arrival in the province, he
found the inhabitants very much indisposecl to the English
government; very much indisposed to the English system
of laws. If what the honourable gentleman says he true,
nothing can be more natural, than that such characters en-
trusted with the administration of the laws should become
obnoxious to the people. When they see ignorant, foolish,
and low men placed on the seat of justice, it is very natural
that the ridicule thereby excited should he transferred to
the lows they were sent out to administer; but, that such
is no longer the condition of the province, we learn from the
concurrent testimony of two individuals, than whom no men
were ever better qualified to fill the situations to which
they were appointed. Sir, it was natural that that should
r 2

92192 nenmns on run mu. [June 7,
happen which, from their evidence, is proved did lwlppenn
Both those gentlemen have told you, that in proportion as
the knowledge of the English constitution increased, in that
proportion were the inhabitants of the province satisfied with –
it. The first witness, Mr. Maseres, dexzlared himself of
opinion, that with some alteration, the Canadians, so far
from objecting to, would be desirous of embracing that
constitution; and further, with regard to the characteristic
which distinguishes the laws ofithis country from those of
any other on the face of the globe-—-the trial by jury-~he
expressed his conviction, that they would readily adopt that
mode of trial; and the other learned gentlemen, Mr. Hey,
confirmed all this, as far as his situation, as chief-justice of
the supreme court, enabled him to confirm it. But supposing,
Sir, that the Canadians were as adverse, as they have been
proved to be favourable to, the trial by jury, is the com-
mittee prepared to maintain, that we ought to indulge them in
their prejudices? That the constitution ofa colony ought not,
as nearly as possible, to be the constitution of the mother
country? Had the prejudices of the people of Ireland been
given way to, would not that country be still subject to the
Brt.-hon law P Does any gentleman wish that this should be
the condition of that country? With regard to that in-
estimable right of Englishmen, the habeas corpus, I should
he glad to know, whether it is the intention of government
to introduce into the bill a clause in favour of it.
Lord Clare.–‘l‘he learned gentleman has asked, whether
there is an Irishman who wishes to have the Brehon law
revived in that country P I, Sir, am a descendant of some
of those who voted for the introduction of the English laws.
But, how were they introduced P By an act of parliament.
And is that any reason why we should impose the laws of
this country upon a people who do not understand them?
You make those people free, to whom you give the form of
government they best like. It is natural for men to be
wedded to those laws and customs in which they have been
brought up. Could a Canadian be satisfied with the (leci=»

1774~] non min GOVERNMENT or qunnnc. Q13
sion of a cause, not one of the reasons of which decision he
understands? There are several species of arbitrary go-
vernment; they all diiier in degrees: but there never was at
species of arbitrary government so tyrannical as that which
goes to give to a people laws which they do not understand.
So arbitrary n species of government never did exist, and
God forbid a British parliament should first give birth to
such :1 monster!
Mr. Edmmzcl Bun-ke.—I have very little to say to this
clause: perhaps I should have nothing to say to it, except
that it is a violation of the faith of Great Britain held out
to the Canadians ; that it is a violation of a. promise to give
them the benefit of the laws of England. It does not give
to Canada the benefit of an English assembly, an English
jury, or any of the valuable laws of England, except only
the criminal law, which is a restraint of the benefit. In that
case, I humbly conceive the faith of the Crown of England
and of the parliament of England, to be directly violated.
I agree with the learned gentleman-~if ever I disagree with
the learned gentleman it is with fear and trembling; I shall
always stand up with great confidence against anything
.which he opposes—-that there is a. great difl’erence between
making the laws of England the basis of the Canadian con~
stitution, and assuming the old law of France as that basis.
But I am not unwilling to intermit some part of the Eng-
lish laws, so far as they interfere with the habits of the Ca-
nadians. I always consider the Canadians, Sir, as the first
object of my attention ; no doubt the English subjects ought
to he the second object. They ought, indeed, to he a great
object of attention; while every security to their liberty
should be established. I would have English liberty car-
ried into the French colonies, but I would not have French
slavery brought into the English colonies. The clause goes
to deprive the subjects of Canada of the benefit of the pro-
clamation; it goes also to deprive the English subject of
the benefit of the laws of England, while he is residing in a
place under the protection of the laws of Great Britain.-—

214: IDEBATES on THE 1311.1 {June 7,
Now, Sir, having said this, I avoid entering into a detail Of
the particulars, because they are the subjects of other clauses.
I say, in general, that the repeal of this proclamation does
to the Englishman a. great wrong, and carries away from
hiin the benefit of the laws of England; which ought to
attend him as constantly as the shadow, which “ proves the
substance true.” But you take from him the laws of En~
gland, and present him only with a shadow in their stead. We
(lo not know that the evidence on this point is satisfactory:
it appears to me rather to support a contrary conclusion. It
is not proved that the laws of England are not approved of
by the people of that country. VVith regard to this whole
clause, it appears to me a violation of the pr0clamu.ti0n——t0
the French, a denial of a promise; to the Englishman, a
denial of law. I shall state, at the proper time, what, in
my opinion, is fitting to be established in its place.
Mr. Howarclfl’-I should have been content to give
upon this, as upon most occasions, a silent ‘vote, if I
did not think myself indispensihly callccl upon, while T
possess the gift of utterance, to bear my testimony against
this most tyrannical proposition–a proposition calculated
to introduce tyranny and oppression into the colony, ex-
pressly contrary to the terms of the proclamation. It has
been said,that this clause is necessary. To this I answer, that
the assertion is false; that the contrary has been proved by
Mr. Maseres. l/Vhat, Sir, can possibly be the object of
such a proceeding, but some design, some dark scheme, to
introduce slavery and oppression into the colonies? If the
existing law be found inconvenient or partial, let us alter
or amend it, and then make it perpetual. I have hitherto
looked upon this House as the barrier between the preroga-
tive of the Crown and the liberty of the subject. I now find
the barrier is to be taken away; that the trial by jury, the
great bulwark of the constitution, is to be broken down;
(l) The lion. Thomas Howard, second son Of the Earl of Suifclkancl
B@Yk5l1i1‘@- In 1779, by the decease of his grand-nephew, he succeeded to
the earldom. He died in 1783.

1774.] FOR. THE eov1<:1mm1s.\”‘r or eunmzc. 215
that there is to be no habeas corpus; but that, in the morn
of it, French letzfres dc cachet are to be established; and that
arbitrary governors are to be suffered to dispose of them as
they may think proper. Now, I will say, that any minister
who should advise his Majesty to pass a bill, the effect of
which is to take away the trial by jury, would not hesitate
to advise him to issue lettres de cachet, or anything else.
Sir, it has been said, that the number of English inhabi-
tants is few, as compared with the Canadians ; and that the
former, only about three hundred and sixty in number,
consist of the lowest disbanded soldiers and poor traders.
But why is their fate to be involved in that of the
greater number? And why are both to be involved in this
scheme of French government? Now, Sir, as to these dis<
banded soldiers, I think they had far better have continued
under the arbitrary government of martial law, than,
being disbanded, become members of this community under
the French law. And this is the rewardj held out to
them, for the blood they have shed in the cause of their
country ! This is the encouragement given to others to
tread in their footsteps ! I could go much further, but shall
content myself with saying, that I am entirely opposed to
this clause.
The Attorney Geneml.—Some of the gentlemen opposite
have confined themselves to that which is the regular order
of the proceeding, giving an opinion upon the clause; others
have advanced beyond that point, and discussed the whole of
the bill. They are very industrious to inform you, that
they apply themselves to the subject of the civil law, and
they talk about depriving the people of trial by jury and
the habeas corpus. YVhile they are doing that, I hold it to
be totally impossible for any man who wishes to discuss the
bill in an orderly manner, or to express himself in an intel-
ligible mzrnner, to enter into the debate.
Captain 1-’ltipps.—-If I understand the professed object
of the bill, this clause is inapplicable; if it has any other,
I wish gentlemen in the secret would avow thgrt object; but

216 nrcnnrns on THE mm, [June 7,
let us not, under the colour of one object, endeavour to pro-
cure others. From the evidence I have heard, I cannot
conscientiously give my vote for declaring the civil govern~
mcnt of this country inapplicable to Canada. ‘
The question being put, that this clause stand part of
the hill, the committee divided :-——Ayes, 91 ; Noes, 81. The
noes went f’ortli.<‘> The following clause was then read 1 -——
“And, for the more perfect security and ease of the minds of
the inhabitants of the said province, it is hereby declared that his
Majesty’s subjects, professing tho religion of the church of Rome,
of and in the said province of Quebec, may have, hold, and enjoy,
the free exercise of the religion of the church of Rome, subject to
the King’s supremacy, declared and established by an act mode
in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, over all the
dominions and countries which then did or thereafter shall belong
to the Imperial Crown of this realm ; and that the clergy of the
said church may hold, secure, and enjoy, their accustomed due$
and rights with respect to such persons only as shall profess the
said religion.”
To this clause Lord North proposed to add these
words :,._.
“ P1’0vid011, Hfirvtrtheless, that it shallhe lawful for his Majesty,
his heirs or successors, to make such provision out of the rest of
the said accustomed dues and rights for the encouragement of
the Protestant religion, and for the maintenance and support of a.
Protestant clergy within the said province, as he or they shall,
from time to time, think necessary or expedient.”
Lord NorUz,.–I do not know thatit is necessary to insert
this proviso, in order to enable the King hereafter to support
the Protestants of Canada, in case they should become en-
titled to have their clergy provided for by the tithe, &c. ; but
I apprehend that intention is more clearly expressed in the
words I have proposed.
Mr. Edmund Bu?‘/cc.–I am not a little hurt, that the
evils of arbitrary power are to he corrected by the insertion
(‘J “ I voted for the cla.use,ns I considered it more conducive to the
liappmefis of the CuXIz\dl¢nS.”~—H. C.

1-774.] Fon THE GOVERNMENT on QUEBEC. £17
of other acts of arbitrary power, It seems to he asserted,
that the holders of these institutions hold them not by act
of parliament, but at the King’s pleasure. In fact, every
body is made to depend upon the Kings pleasure. It
leaves the possession of tithe not fixed agreeably to any cer-
tain rule, but dispossessahle at the King’S pleasure. This
is in no way neeessary. We find the King’s pleasure twist-
ing itself about every fibre of this bill. If the power of ap-
pointing Protestant ministers were granted to the Society
for propagating the Gospel in foreign parts, it must be an
act of public notoriety, an act of’ record, that enables them
to go and examine what the tithes are. By this means, they
would not only be provided for, but ten thousand times
better provided for. Yet all is to be sacrificed to that
beautiful idol, the Kings Pl£;‘8SU1‘6l I want as much of
law as you please, and as little of the Kings pleasure as
possible. This act gives to his Majesty :1 power to appoint.
Does it restrain him from taking away, W119“, Where» 01‘
how much, he pleases ? Docs it not give him power to rob
the Popish clergy, without giving any advantage to the Pi-o—
testant clergy ? I hope it will becomeafund directly for the
support of the Protestant clergy. Never will I give a vote for
abolishing all religion ; for tithe is the large premium upon
religion. Some Protestant clergy are wanted immediately,
because there are some Protestant inhabitants. Let the
law be the golden rule, that establishes religion for the
Frenchman, or gives it to the Englisliman. I want a legal
provision, not an arbitrary provision. Let those who have
the tithes, and those who get them, have them and get them
by law. Taxes unapplied are not taxes. The clause might
seem to give the King it power of taxing; but every thing
that gives the power, gives the means, I will move an ads
dition, which shall give the power of taxing to parliament,
as an amendment.
Lord North‘-It is a matter of little consequence I will
withdraw the ztmenclnicnt.
Mr. Erlmu/Ml .BWlce.-Does the noble lord mean to say,

218 nmniyrms on run BILL [June 7,
that he wishes the clause to stand, without any amend-
ment P
Lord Nort/t.——I conceived the amendment I had pro‘
posed would have obviated the objections which some gen-
tlemen had to it.
Mr. Edmund Bm~ke.–‘.[‘hen, as that clause stands, there
is a direct premium given for atheism. I shall move an
amendment, that no new taxes he laid upon the colony
without the consent of parliament, and I shall propose, that
the tithe of the Protestants be paid to some Protestant
ministers established in the country.
Mr. Charles F ow.–Tlie noble lord“s amendment seems to
me to give a power to the King of taking away the dues of
the Roman Catholic clergy, and giving them to the Protes~
tants. I think, if it is proper to establish the Itoma1iCa~
tholie religion, that parliament should do it; and that it
should not be in the power of his Majesty’s ministers to
excite individuals to establish a religion contrary to the
opinion of the majority of the people in it.
The Solicitor GeneraZ.~—I will state in a few words the
intention of the proviso, with respect to the establishment
of a provision for the clergy in‘ Canada. First, I agree that
the Roman Catholic religion ought to be the established
religion of that country, in its present state; the clergy-
men of which are paid by the lauded revenue of that coun-
try. I do not mean to assert, that this should he perpetually
the state of Canada; or that we are by law to enact that the
people are not to be converted ; or that the tithe shall remain
in the Popish clergy; or that the tithe shall sink. I would not
hold out the temptation, that if you are a convert you shall
not pay tithe. If the majority of a parish are Popish, there
ought to be a Popish clergy in that parish; that Popish
clergy ought to he maintained by such as are P-apists; but
the money of the Protestants ought to he applied for the
‘encouragement of Protestants, and for the maintenance of
Protestant clergy. In proportion as the scale, with regard to
numbers, shall t-urn to the Protestant side, the clcrgymcn

1774.] FOR THE oovnnnnsnr or onnmsc. 219
ought to he Protestant. The amendment points rather more
definitely to this object than the clause. There is no harm
in leaving the discretion open. I would leave it so large,
thatif they were to be converted to the Protestant religion,
I should hold it to be absolutely necessary to adopt the
mode of Protestant worship; and then all tithe should be
paid by Popish inhabitants and others to the Protestant
clergy. The bill waits events.
Mr. Cltmles F0.r.—I perfectly agree, that no Protestant
ought to pay tithe to the Romish clergy. That is provided
for in the clause. It could not be better stated for that
purpose. But the learned gentleman has not absolutely said
how far this proviso goes. The noble lord’s amendment
points to a more definite purpose. Am I to understand the
tithe to he absolute, so that you are not to alter it ; and that
it is contemplated to give to his Majesty the power ofapply-
ing that tithe to the support of which clergy he pleases?
The Soliciior GeneraZ.——’l‘hough I wish to tolerate the
Popish religion, I do not wish to encourage it. VVhen we
tell the Roman Catholics of Canada, that we will not op-
press them, we, at the same time, tell the followers of the
church of England, that whenever their faith shall prevail,
it will have a right to its establishment. As soon as the
majority of a parish shall be Protestant inhabitants, then
I think the ministers of the Crown are bound to make the
minister of that parish a Protestant clergyman; thcn, I
think, it could not be felt by any man an act of injustice to
say, that the whole revenue of that parish shall be paid to
the Protestant clergyman.
Lord Nerfl1..—Sir, as you have pointed to me, I presume
to offer my sentiments, to explain the views I had when I
made this amendment. I was in hopes of meeting the objec-
tions which had been made against the hill as it stood hefore.
Those objections are two ; one, that no care was taken of the
Protestant clergy; that no establishment hacl been thought
of for them; that, in the course of this bill, we had not
only tolerated, but established the Roman Catholic religion;

9190 DEBATES on run mu, [June 7,
and that nothing had been thought of for the Protestant
clergy. I am persuaclecl, in the present state of that coun-
try, the Protestant religion does not call much for support;
but the hope of greater encouragement should he held out
to it. A small establishment, however, will he sufiicient
at present. The question then is asked, what is to become
of the tithe which will be paid to the Protestant clergy at a
future period ? Are the people, in the mean time, to pay no
tithe? And do you hold out to persons, that they may,
for the sake of saving the tithe, disclaim the Roman Catlio‘
lic religion, and not embrace any other P I thought, by the
alteration of this clause, that both those questions would be
answered; and I proposed it, by way of pointing out the
method in which the tithe, which would otherwise he paid.
by the Protestants to the Popish clergy, should be applied
by the King to the Protestant clergy. The words I ofi’ered
would, I thought, have answered that purpose. If gentle-
men do not approve of them»-I proposed them to remove
particular ohjectious, but if they encounter greater objec-
tions—-I shall ivithdraw them. I will read my amendment:
–“ The King will not be able to raise any tithe not now
payable; but may dispose of that which is payable.” There
will be an extent ‘of power given to the King, in that cirl-
cumstance. _
Mr. Dunni1r_g.—My opinion of religious toleration goes
to all who stand in need of it, in all parts of the globe. It is
a natural right of mankind, that men should judge for
themselves, and other up to the Creator that worship which
they conceive likely to be most acceptable to Him. It is
neither eompetent, wise, norjust for society to restrain them,
further than is necessary I should think the Roman
Catholics would oonsider themselves well treated, if they
were put in the same situation the Protestant subjects are
put in by this bill: at least, the preference ought not to
he given against them. I am anxious to know from the
learned gentleman, what the extent is understood to be of
those laws, which we are going, by this hill, to give to the

1774.} FOR rm: r;o*<‘El1Nm’s:N’1’ on qunmw. 92211
Catllolic church. VVill they include all ranks now in that
province? WVill it include the bishop ? I shouldbe glad to
know how he came there; what power he has there; from
whom he derives that power; whether by papal authority, 0’1‘
whether by royal authority? In my apprehension, these ques~
Lions deserve a serious answer. The dues and tithes, what-
ever they are, which may belong to this bishop, and which
he has thought fit to appropriate to himself by his own au-
thority, will go to his successor to the end of time, without
any interposition of royal authority. Vllhether the bishop
has exercised the power of nomination, I do not know-
Upon that fact I wish to he informed. Is it the intention
of ministers that he shall, for the future, name to vacant
churches, or that the King shall so name? If they think
that the King only should name thereto, they will take care
not blindly to give the power to the bishop ; nor will they
give him the power of suspension ; if they are, as they
ought to be, ministers of peace, anxious to promote good-
will, and good fellowship among men. To establish, in the
judgment of the learned gentleman, is not to encourage : in
my judgment, it is to encourage; and especially if this is to
he the predominant religion. I do not like domineering in
religion. I do not think the religion of the many ought to
bethe religion of the few. According to my apprehension,
those few have as good a right to judge for themselves, as
those many. Every man has a right to pursue his own
opinion: no man ought to be permitted to control that of
Mr. Stanley.-—There is no inconvenienc_e in supposing
two religions established in the same country. For exam-
ple, the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion has
by no means excluded the Protestant.
M1″. T/umms Townshend, jun.—-I want to see some spe-
cific provision innnediately made in Canada for the Protese
taut religion. I was concerned to hear that, nine or ten vears
ago, there was not a single place of worship for the Protesheint;
which I consider to have been a great disgrace to the English

222 ‘.DEBA’l‘ILS on THE nun [June 7,
governor. I was surprised at an expression dropped by the
noble lord, “ that the Protestant religion in Canada at pre»
sent was hardly an object worthy of consideration.” During
the whole of these discussions pains have been taken by the
prime minster of this country, and chancellor of the uni-
versity of Oxford, to rank the Protestants in Canada as low
as possible, in number, consequence, and character.
– Lord North.-The honourable gentleman is word catch-
ing. I certainly did say, that the Protestant inhabitants
were so few, that they were hardly worthy of attention; but
I explained it at the time. WVhat I meant was, that they
were not sufiiciently numerous at present to make it neces~
sary for the legislature to provide establishments and a
revenue for them. With regard to the bishop, it is my
opinion—-an opinion founded in law-—~tl1at if a Roman
Catholic bishop is professcdly subject to the Kingfs su-
premacy, under the act of Queen Elizabeth, none of those
powers can be exercised from which dangers are to be
Mr. Edmund Burke.—The noble lord says, he makes
the proposition contained in the amendment, in order to
make the clause palatable; but-if not liked, he has no
objection to withdraw that amendment. Are they, then,
mere nugatory words, since they ‘are withdrawn with such
extreme levity? Then I promise mine as a. better candi-
date for the consideration of the committee. But before I
proceed, allow me to state, in a few words, my opinion with
regard to the principle of toleration. There is but one
healing, Catholic principle of toleration which ought to find
favour in this House. It is wanted, not only in our colonies,
but here. The thirsty earth of our own country is gasping
and gaping, and crying out for that healing shower from
heaven. The noble lord has told you of the right of those
people by the treaty ; but I consider the right of conquest
so little, and the right of human nature so much, that the
former has very little consitieration with me. I look upon

l'[74t] ron T!-IE G-0’\’ERNMEN’1‘ or ounrrc. 223
the people of Canada as coming, by the disphnsation of God,
under the British government. I would have us govern
it, in the same manner as the all-wise disposition of Pro-
vidence would govern it. We know He snfiiers the sun to
shine upon the righteous and unrighteous; and we ought
to su(‘l’er all classes, without distinction, to enjoy equally
the right of worshipping God, according to the light He has
been pleased to give them. The word “established” has
been made use of: it is not only a crime, but something
unnatural to establish a religion, the tenets of which you do
not believei Applying it to the ancient inhabitants of
Canada, how does the question stand P It stands thus :–you
have got it people professing the Roman Catholic religion,
and in possession of a maintenance, legally appropriated to
its clergy. VVill you deprive them of that? Now, that is not
a question of “ establishmentz” the establishment was not
made by you ; it existed before the treaty; it took nothing
from the treaty; no legislature has a right to take it away;
no governor” has a right to suspend it. This principle is con-
firmed by the usage of every civilized nation of Europe. In
all our conquered colonies, the established religion was con-
firmed to them ; by which I understand, that religion should
receive the protection of the state’ in those colonies; and I
should not consider that it had received such protection, if
their clergy were not protected. I do say, that a Pro-
testant clergyman going into that country does not re-
ceive the protcction of the laws, if he is not allowed to wor-
ship God according to his o\vn creed. Is this removing the
sacred land-mark P What I desire is, that everyone should
contribute towards the maintenance of the religion he pro~
fesses; and if this is proper to be done, why not do it im-
mediately P The religion to be established should be that
approved religion which we call. the religion of the church
of England. VVith regard to the religion of our own conn-
try, there would be propriety in the use of the word “ estab-
lished ;” but I maintain, that cvery one ought to contribute
to the support of some religion or other? Does any gentle-

224 DEHATES on THE mm. [June 7,
man mean to say, that the impious profiigate, the moment
he chooses to avow himself an unbelievor, can appropriate to
his own use the tithe he has been accustomed to pay for the
support of any religious establishment? Suppose one of
those persons should turn Jew»-I would give him complete
toleration, but I say, let him support the synagogue. I will
suppose this ease: when a man is sued for his tithe, he will
declare that he does not profess the Roman Catholic religion.
He then walks directly into that m:1ss~house, or church, for
the support of which hc- has positively refiised to engage
himself : he says, he docs not profess the Popish religion;
and suppose he abstracts himself‘ from all religion, he pays
no tithe. If this he allowed, you are encouraging him to
be an atheist. ‘l‘hcref’ore, this clause does not provide for
the establishment of popery, but it does provide for the
establishment of atheism. I have not yet heard a shadow
of an answer to this charge; nor the slightest attempt made
to remedy this evil. VVith a view of meeting it, I shall pro-
pose a clause, providing that the tithe paid by perstrns
not professing the Roman Catholic religion shall he handed
over to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.
“lhat objection can he made to my proposition I can~
not conjecture. Does it trench on the rights of English-
men? Does it trench on the rights of the ancient inhabi-
tants of Canada? By no means. Wlien the people become
divided in their religion, why not follow the generous
example set by the treaty of “Testphalia; by which the
.,duties of two or three establishments were discharged in
the same church on the some day; the Roman Catholic,
the Lutheran, and the reformed religion? It sets an exam~
ple worthy of a Christian church. It is o. happy union,
that has fixed peace for ever in those provinces.
The Attorney General.-—’l‘he present question turns upon
the merits of two propositions. The one moved by the
noble lorcl stands in a very small compass-“ let those inha-
bitants who profess the Popish religion continue under the
obligation of paying tithes for the maintenance of the Popish

1774.] non rm: ooveimnnnr or eumme. 225
clergy.” But as there are a certain number of persons in
the province who do not profess the Popish religion, some
regulation oughffto be entered into with regard to their
tithe. The noble lord proposes a clause referring it to the
King, to appoint the payment of their tithe, in such course
and order, as his Majesty‘s wisdom shall suggest, for the
support of the Protestant clergy. Another plan which has
been proposed is, that instead of the tithes of the Protestants
being paid as circumstances may require, they shall all he
paid to the receiver-general. They are not even then to be
disposed of, even by his Majesty, as the exigency requires,
but to be paid to the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in foreign parts : so that, instead of the disposal of
the tithe being committed to the King, we are called upon
to declare by our vote, that it is a fitter thing to place
greater confidence in the wisdom and discretion of“ a reli-
gious corporation. I should never have thought of referring
this to the opinion of the House. I have no diiliculty in
saying, that the first proposition is infinitely the better of
the two. ‘
Mr. Edmund Bur/ce.-—If the amendment of the noble
lord should be carried, I shall propose a clause to make it
compulsory upon the Crown to maintain Protestant minis-
ters in Canada, and to appropriate whatever tithes may be
received to that purpose.
Governor Jolmstone.–As I do not agree with the one
amendment or the other, I wish to state my objections to
both the amendments together, and to the clause proposed.
TheAtt01’ney-General, interrupting him, begged to know,
whether the amendment the honourable governor was about
to propose would not come on better afterwards, as ai ques-
tion upon thoclause.
Governor Jolmst0ne.—~I am exceedingly obliged to my
learned friend fu1″admonishing me, in point of order. He
hardly know whether I was about to propose any amend-
ment. He probably judged that I was incapable of propos-
ing any, under such a clause. As I shall state my argu-
Q .

226 DEBATES on run mm. [June7,
ments aftertvards, I shall for-hear saying anything more at
Mr. Pulteney.-Giving tithe perpetually will hurt agri-
culture. It is in evidence, that there is a tithe estab-
lished–the twenty-sixth part.
The Attorney-General.–Tliat clause which establishes
the legislative authority gives authority to every extent;
but with respect to the ordinances concerning religion, it
requires them to be transmitted here. The clause, there-
fore, seems not to require that alteration.
Governor Johnstone.–I apprehend that when the legis-
lature, by the bill, has prescribed what shall take place, the
legislative power can alter that establishment. It comes to
that great question-VVhether the delegated authority is not
answerable to the power that delegated it? They never
can make an act of parliament contrary to the parliament‘
of Great Britain. [The House cried out, no 2]
Lord John C’a’vendish.—~VVhat is to become of the money
in the interval, before the establishment of the Protestant
clergy E’ This clause prevents the King from applying it to
other purposes. It must lie somewhere, till an opportunity
ofl”ers for its employment.
Mr. William Bwrlce.–I understand the clause to mean,
that the King might employ it for that purpose, hut that he
was not bound to do so. Vvords ought to be introduced,
which would bind the King so to apply it.
Mr. Edmund Burke.-1 presume the King is not bound.
Of the four-and-arhalf per cent duties, given for the purpose
of defending these colonies, not one shilling has been ex-
pended for that purpose. The Crown has otherwise appro~
priated the whole of that money.
The amendment of Lord North was carried without a
Governor Jolmstzme. – One part of the clause refers to
the act of Queen Elizabeth respecting the oath of supremacy.
Now, I wish to ask, are not the Roman Catholics obliged to
take an oath P Will they not take an oath? But, by the

1774.] non THE GOVERNMENT or cwniuzo. 227
bill, you leave them subject to persecution, at the will of the
Crown. Do you wish the Roman Catholics to become
Protestants? The best way to efl”eet it would have been to
relieve them from tithe; but now you have entailed it upon
them, you will, I am afraid, make very few proselytes.
Colonel Barré. –I wish to put s few questions to the
noble lord. I wish to ask him, whether the bishop had the
power of exercising an interdict or not? The noble lord
thought not. Now, does this bill take it away? I under-
stand he has exercised that very power lately. Are you
content to leave that religion in the situation in which you
found it, if it has as power of persecuting other religions? I
wish to know also, whether the Roman Catholic inhabitants
will be permitted to bear arms ?——whether a Canadian can
become a private soldier ?–whether, in becoming a private
soldier, he is excused from signing the declaration which a
private soldier of this country is compelled to sign ?-—whe-
ther any Canadian inhabitant can hold a military employ-
ment under the governor P-—-and, if he can hold such em-
ployment, whether he is obliged to take the oath of
supremacy and abjuration, and sign the declaration P I
ask these questions, that we may not move blindfold in this
matter; that we may know what will be the operation of
the bill in that country.
Lord N01’th.— These are questions that would be put
with more propriety to my learned friends, the attorney and
solicitor general. The bill, I apprehend, leaves the inhabi-
tants in possession of all the privileges they before enjoyed.
Ofiieers and soldiers in Canada may serve without taking
the oath.
Mr. Edmund Bm’7ce.—I understand the oath of supre-
macy will be repealed, and another substituted in the place
of it.
Colonel Bawé.-—The noble lord refers me to the attorney
and solicitor general. I Waited to see whether they would
rise; but as I see they are not disposed to do so, I must
make a few remarks on what the noble lord has said, by way
e 2

V228 nnrwrns on THE BILL [Sune 7,
of answer to me. He tells us, that men serving in the army
in Canada, are not liable to the pains and penalties of pre-
munire, to which the same persons would be liable in
Europe. Sir, I should be sorry if they were. He says,
that Roman Catholics are, by this bill, left in possession ‘of
the same rights they enjoyed previous to the conquest of
Canada. Now, I know of no rights they enjoyed previous
to the conquest, but such as were held at the pleasure of the
King of France. My question is, whether they can now
serve the King of England, as officers and private soldiers,
without taking the oaths, &c. P
Lord North.»-I said, that, by the passing of this bill,
they would be enabled to do so.
M1’. William Burlse. -— Has not the King the power of
ordering the army to any part of his doininions? May not
the ofiicers of Canada be ordered to this country? It is
in the power of the Crown to have an army of Roman
Catholics here.
Mr. Baker,-—The difficulties thicken so amazingly, that
it is almost impossible to go on with the bill; and, unless
we have an answer to these questions, it will be indecent to
proceed with it. _
Colonel Barré.—— In the noble l0rd’s answer I find some-
thing that strikes me with a more serious and deeper
detestation of this hill than before. I suspected through-
out, that there was some mischief in it, not avowed
in the bill itself. A very extraordinary indulgence is
given to the inhabitants of this province, and one calcu-
lated to gain the hearts and affections of these people. To
this I cannot object, if it is to be applied to good purposes;
but if you are about to raise a Popish army to serve in the
colonies–from this time, all hope of peace in America will
be destroyed. The Americans will look on the Canadians
as their task-masters, and, in the end, their execntioners. I
smelt this business out from the beginning. But, is it pru-
dent to arm the Canadians, so long as you can keep them
unarmed? If you accustom them to arms, will they ever

get rid of their military spirit? VV ill they not look up to
their own country ? And will it not be worth the while of
that country to cultivate this military spirit more and more?
I wash my hands of this business. I here declare my so-
lemn aversion to it. I know what you mean. Liberwui
animam» meam! I have foretold the thing. There is not
a man in the government that means to deny it. But, if it
be your plan—~if it be part of your plan—throw it out here,
and let it be discussed.
The Attorney-GeneraZ.—The single question is, whether
this clause should stand part of the bill? -It amounts to
no more than this»-shell the inhabitants enjoy the free ex-
ercise of their religion; and shall their clergy have their
accustomed dues and tithes? In the discussion upon this
clause, or even in the discussion upon the general merits of‘
the bill, how the future condition of Canadian soldiers and
oflicers can he made a’part of the argument, l cannot see.
The question had rather be taken upon the debate on the
mutiny bill. ‘ _
Lord Barrin_qi0n.——What the learned gentleman states is
undoubtedly true. VVhether the Canadians can or cannot
be soldiers or oflicers has nothing to do with this clause.
When not only this clause but the whole -bill shall be
passed, the Canadian, with regard to serving in the King’s
army, will, I apprehend, stand upon the footing he has evcr
done, since the conquest of the province. No Canadian was
ever hindered from being a common soldier. He has only
to take a short oath to he faithful to the King. ‘ It is the
opinion of some of the ablest lawyers in this country, that a
foreigner is capable of being a common soldier. Whether
a Canadian can bear a commission in the Kingis army, I am
not lawyer enough to know. I should be inclined to doubt
whether the conquest has made him an English subject: but
this hill gives no additional advantage with regard to that.
No Canadian can serve as an otliccr, without taking all the
oaths; so that there is every guard, after this hill is passed,
that there was previoulsly.

£30 1)1€IlA’1‘ES Km THE 1111.1, _ [June 7,
Colonel Barré.-The noble lord has removed the un~
easincss I had, by saying that a Canadian must take the
oaths. I am obliged to him for another piece of informa-
tion-that the office of a soldier is not an oiiice of trust. H0
says, that the only oath of a soldier is that described in the
articles of war; but, is there not something else required in
those articles–an attestation taken before a magistrate, the
first sentence of which is, that the man avows himself to be
a Protestant P ‘
Lord Bar1’in_gton.——I do not know whether there is such
a clause or not. The office of a soldier is certainly an oiiice
of trust.
Mr. Caoendis/z asked Colonel Barré, how the Roman
Catholics of Ireland proceeded, with regard to the attes-
tation P
Colonel Bawé. — They have so little scruple, that they
always take it.
The question being put, the clause was agreed to. Mr.
Baker then moved, that the Chairman report progress. On
the question, that the Chairman do leave the chair, the
Committee divided: Yeas, 81 ; Noes, ‘Y5. The next clause
was read, enabling his Majesty‘s,Canadian subjects to hold
and enjoy their property and possessions, together with all
customs and usages relative thereto, and all other civil
rights, 8:0. ; and that, in matters of controversy, relative to
property and civil rights, resort should be had to the laws
of Canada for the decision.
Mr. Edmund Burlce. —’I‘he question under this clause
is, whether we shall take awzty all the law of England, at
six months or twelve months hence. I declare myself inca-
pable of arguing the question. I have neither strength of
body nor energy of mind, to proceed at this late hour.
He spoke warmly against going on with the debate, and
left the House. Lord John Cavendish spoke to the same
eilcct, and also went out. Mr. Cavendish spoke to the same
purpose, but would not go out. ,
Mr. T/wmas Ybwnsheml, _jun.—- The gentlemen oppo-

1‘774.]‘ non run covnnnmtmr on QUEBEC. 2813
site, who are now sitting in sullen silence, as soon as they
have obtained a kind of licence to proceed, by the absence
of those honourable meinbers who oppose them, \vill go
further than people who talk upon the subject. I should
be glad to know how far we are to go. I believe we have
no instance upon the journals of the House, of business
being treated in this manner. And why? Because the
administration have been idle — have neglected their duty,
and been guilty of criminal negligence. Looking at the
volume of reports upon the table, I ask-where is Lord Pal-‘
merston Pi‘) Where are the members of that board of trade?
Wliy have they gone from their opinions? Gentlemen who
have signed their names to a report, should tell us why they
now have difi”ered from that report. Is this all to he passed
over in sullen silence, and no answer to be given to any ob-
jection E‘
Colonel Barré. —– I do not rise to express any warmth.
A bill of greater magnitude never came before the House in
such a shape as this bill. It passed the House of Lords
without a single evidence in its favour. Vi/hen it was sent
down here, we obtained some evidence, but other documents
were refused. The noble lord himself, with every appear~
ance of candour, in the first stages, called for assistance in
discussing. Sir, we have discussed till we are tired. ‘Will
anybody deny that the noble lord has not had help, even
from those who, only as inembers cl’ this House, were
required to give it him? The request made by my honour-
able friend is a very proper one. If other gentlemen cannot
draw an answer, I cannot draw one. Ican only say, it
would have been more in character to declare, that you shall
pass this bill as the Lords have sent it, and not have any
discussion upon it: that would have been the more manly
conduct. .
Mr. Charles Fox.-—It is indeed indecent conduct; as it
(l) Henry Temple, second Viscount Palmerston, at this time one of the
lords of the admiralty, and niember for Southampton. –

28% DEBATES on rue rum. [June7,
appeared to me, the other night, when ministers refused to
call for General Murray. What was then said? “ No pre-
cipitation is used in the passing of this bill ; as much time
is given to it as to any other.” Vllhoever made this assertion
has frankly broke his word, and will be as much respected
as a man ought to be, who makes a promise and does not
keep it. 1/Vhat single attempt has been made on our part
to delay this bill? Has the same debate been gone over
twice ? They have not hinted that there has been any
delay. Upon what ground does the bill now stand? Two
or three clauses have been gone through, Are the rest not
as material? Yes; but they should not be taken up at
twelve o’clock at night. The boundary was settled in the
House of Commons, without having anything fixed by
those whose duty it was to have that boundary fixed. VVas
no boundary necessary, in their opinion, that they came un-
prepared P
Lord N0rth.- As to the boundary, I, for one, was very
well satisfied with it, as it stood in the bill. Several gen-
tlemen, speaking for particular provinces, entreated that
other boundaries might be taken; and there was that atten-
tion paid to their doubts, that, provided they would settle a
good boundary, the friends of the bill were willing to give
way: in my opinion, the first boundary ought to have satis-
fied every body. As for the clause before us, I am very
much mistaken if it has not been fairly debated already;
but I do not in the least object to have it debated again. I
would submit it to any honourable gentleman, whether,
after we have sat so long upon it,–after the clause has
been so fairly debated —- it is so very violent, so very preci-
pitate, to proceed with it before the committee rises to-
night: I am for proceeding at least through this clause be-
fore the oommittee breaks up.
The committee having gone on with the clauses, to the
end of the criminal law clause, Lord North said, if any
gentleman wished to adjourn, he had no objection. The
Chairman was going on, but Mr. Charles Fox got up, and

1774.] Fon Tim eovi~:mm1cm’ or QUEBEC. $233
desired the committee might adjourn; which it accordingly
did. Lord North said to him, are we not very candid? I-
said, I generally was for adjourning at twelve u’clock.
Wed/rzesclay, June 8.
The -House having resolved itself into a committee of the
whole House on the billf‘) < V Mr. Edmund B1//rice said—I should, Sir, have proposed some amendments to the bill last night, if my ideas had not been thought ridiculous, by the conduct of the committee, in proceeding with a most material part of the bill at twelve o’clock, when the natural constitutions of gentlemen were perfectly exhausted. VVhen this bill was brought down to us, the general voice of almost every one who sup‘ ported. it was, that it was a very imperfect measure as it stood, and that, agreeably to the universal practice, it would be open to any amendment. Unfortunately, I was not here upon the second reading. When I came to town I was utterly unacquainted with the bill. I took it up with 5. deter- mination to come here, not only with my mind unprejudiced, but with a determination to avoid everything that had any shadow of passion in it; and I appeal to the candour, the direct justice, of parliament, whether the clause fixing a boundary to such an extent of territory, or the clauses set» tling the laws and religion of such a province, could be well debated, upon the numberlcss momentous questions that arose, in less time than we have given to them. The pri- vilege allowed in couirnittees of the House of speaking more than once, is a privilege founded upon reason. An argu- ment upon the principle of a measure may be dispatched in (‘) ” About forty members were in the House at four o’clock.”-H.C. 2344 I)I;I}A’I‘ES on THE mm, [Juno 8, the I-Iouse at one speaking, as well as at a thousand; but in the committee, where matters of detail are gone into, it is necessary to speak more than once. The noble lord, there- fore, has no right to say that we have interposed any delay. The first part of the bill took us up two days-—-in my opinion, a very short time to spend upon such a subject. Fixing the geography, was the work of one day; fixing the religion, of another. These, and other delays, if they can be called delays, were absolutely necessary. The committee ought to take care, that no delays but necessary ones should be allowed in this husiness—hut the necessary delay arising from a dotaili Now, Sir, if an enterta.inment(‘> should be
given ten miles from London, and we were to adjourn over
this day, and thereby make the business of the nation give
way to such entertainment, what would be the opinion of the
people P I do not censure the House for entering into the in-
nocent gaities of this life, provided they give time enough for
the discharge of more important duties. If any youth, in the
gallantry of his spirit, calls gentlemen to such an entertain-
ment, I would not say, do not enjoy it; but go and enjoy
it, if you have taken care, at the same time, to provide for
the prosperity of your country. But, while I say this, I
ask, that the same indulgence which is given to those who
engage in scenes of joy and dissipation should be given to
those who have need of rest to support their bodies to enable
them to come here to discharge their duty. I for one coin-
plain, that I am precluded from doing my duty. I com.
plain, on the part of the people of England, who have sent
here five hundred and fifty-eight men to represent their in-
terests, that they anrl I are cruelly, wickeclly, and unjustly
treated. I complain of it, and demand justice: that is, I_
demand a reparation of the wrong which has been done us.
I have spoken strong words. Last night I spoke feebly;
but now my_ voice is raised, my accusation is steady and
(‘) Mr. Burke alludes to the grand fete clmmpétre given at the Oaks, in
Snrry, on the following day, on Lord Stanley’s approaching marriage with
Lady Betty Hamilton, only daughter of the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon.

1774.] non run covnnNMJs1~:1‘ or twnimc. $235
resolute. I had several very material amendments to
propose to the clauses. I had an equitable clause, with
regard to revocation, 8:0. [He mentioned other alterations]
I wished to have provided a remedy for the objection, that
causes were tried by persons not fit to be trusted. My opi-
nion is, that the people of Canada, with regard to the civil
law, have not expressed their dislike of the trial by jury.
These are some of the matters thatl would have stated;
but it would have been impossible to have debated them nt
that hour of the night. Having said this in defence of a
conduct which may have been alittle nnjustifiable, I will
add, that this headlong mode of proceeding will not tend
to make this law go down with the people of England.
They will certainly dislike it. America will dislike it. As
I was not permitted to make these amendments before, I
conclude I shall not be heard to-day.
Mr. Cavendish was sorry the honourable gentleman did
not make the amendments he intended.
Lord North.—These amendments may still be made, by
being thrown into the form of a clause. The honourable
gentleman is not precluded from making, even in the com~
mittee, any alteration he proposes; but as to the pro-
positions themselves which he threw out, as far as I
understand them, I shall certainly be against admitting
them. We are not, at the present time, competent to
enter into a detail of the necessity of those provisions for
the constitution of Canada. All that the parliament of
Great Britain can do is to lay down general rules; to say,
you shall proceed according to Canadian customs, or ac-
cording to the English law. Every alteration which the
circumstances of the country can admit of–every variation
which the interest of the old subjects may require-—all these
circumstances will be more properly considered upon the
other side of the water, where they may be regulated by
special ordinances. It would be in vain, and more likely to
occasion confusion, for the parliament of Great Britain to
attempt to enter into the particular laws by detail ; to say,

Q36 nnnnrrzs on rnxc inn, [June 3,‘
this law you shall have, or you shall not have. The best
way is to give them the Canadian customs, and to let them
be altered as they ought to be altered. What is of infinite
advantage, they will thus have the law that they uncler~
stand. The laws and customs of Canada are the basis of the
law that they understand‘ If any ordinances are made
varying that law, they will he promulgated, and they will
understand them. For these reasons, I shall certainly oppose
any proposition for entering into a detail connected with the
English criminal or the Canadian civil law; because I think
that detail, these alterations, and those amenclments which
are necessary can only he entered into and settled with pro-
priety by lawyers upon the spot. As to the proceedings
of last night, I shall remain satisfied in the consciousness of
the reetitude of my conduct: it is a very suiiicient reward,
and it is the only rewa1‘d I shall he likely to have. Upon
the whole, I will venture to say, that there never was a bill
that has been more amply examined and debated than this
has be/en. There are few bills that have remained so long
in the House, as this has done: there have been few propn~
sitions, where there has not been a readiness in the friends
of the bill, to accept any suggestions, from whatever quarter
they might come. The honourable gentleman says, that
we are to adjourn to~m0rrow for an entertainment, which he
approves of as an entertainment ; but he thinks, that as he
left the House at twelve last night, it would be a disgrace
to the House to adjourn over to-morrow. For my part, I
do not desire to adjourn over to~morr0w; but I see no
reason why, upon Friday, we may not give this bill every
attention. I accuse no person of designed delay; but, at
the same time, no person can accuse me of having shut out
any material amendments. Those amendments may he pro-
posed now: many could not be proposed last night; and if
they are not proposed in the committee, there are yet two
stages when they may be proposed. I was accused of a
sullen silence last night: perhaps I may be excused from
expatiating upon a matter not really before us : but when

1774,] non ‘1‘!-IE covnnunnnr or évnnne. 287
the House is taken up with what is not of importance to
the bill, I trust that the candour of the House will excuse
me, if I respect the time of the House more than the justi-
fication of myself from any personal charge.
Lord John C<wendish.—Tl1oug;h I never can find out
from whence this bill came, and though nobody seems to
avow it, there is evidently concurrence enough to carry it
on. _ .
Mr. Thomas Toumshend, jun.—I must complain, Sir,
of the slovenly manner in which the two clauses were can
ried through the committee. I will venture to say, that
two-thirzls of that majority never heard the debate. It
consisted of those gentlemen who take their meals regu~
larly, and who are new taking their dinners. They
come in when they have dined, and are extremely clamo-
rous, crying, go on! go on! I do not thank the noble lord
for the candour of last night; but I thank him for the can-
dour of to-day, in chalking out a method oi‘ going on for
the future. I likewise understand, that the House is to
adjourn for a day, on account of a fete champétre ; and, to
be sure, the day that follows the ninth of June is a day
more proper for a fete champétre, than for a committee of
the House of Commons to be sitting on so important a bill!
But, at the same time, I cannot but confess, that the noble
lord has shown an amazing degree of foresight in fixing,
above all other days in the year, on the 10th of June, fot
finishing a bill which goes to establish Popery. For God’s
sake, Sir, let us come down with white roses in our hats!
A day more propitious for a bill of this complexion could
not have been fixed on. On the report of the bill, I shall
propose a clause for rendering it temporary, and ifbthe
noble lorcl will sufler it to pass, he never had at his levee a
more humble suppliant for a boon for himself, than I am for
the Canadians. This bill will make the Canadians the do-2
testation of the English colonies. ”
Mr. Dmming,~—~Tl1e noble lord takes credit for his can-
dour. His canclour consists in giving ‘five clays to the eon-

‘Q88 nnnnrns on run mu. [June 8,
sideration of this bill; but five days are very little indeed
for the-mischief which this bill provides. I collect the
noble lord meant to tell us this-—that it is his intention to
refer every thing, in future, to that legislative council, to
whom these Canadians are to be referred, but that it is far
from his intention to introduce trial by jury. ls that his
candour? Is that the concession for which we are not pre-
cluded thanking him? Thank ye, for nothing, would be a
true description of the thanks that are due for this con-
cession: but unless it be the pleasure of the creatures crea-
ted by this bill, to counteract the pleasure of their Creator,
can it be expected this blessing will be produced? VVill
they counteract all the purposes of the bill~—all the plea-
sures of those who made the bill? And is not, then, the
question concluded, as far as the committee have to do with
it? In point of form, it will be competent for the House
to reject the provision, and the bill itself containing the
provision; but that this ought to be done, goes a very
little way, in my opinion, to cause it to be done. My expec-
tations are not better founded upon the future pleasure of
the House, than on the future legislative council.
Colonel Ba’r1’é.– This bill, Sir, originated with the
House of Lords. It is Popish from the beginning to the
end. The Lords are the Romish priests, who will give his
Majesty absolution for breaking his promise given in the
proclamation of 1768. In this bill they have done like all
other priests-—-not considered separately the crimes with
which the bill ahounded, but have bundled them all up
together, and, for dispatch, given absolution for the whole at
once. When, however, the measure came down to this
House, its members, not being so Popishly inclined, wished
to have some information. They asked for papers: all the
papers they asked for were not granted. They asked for
evidence: all the evidence was not granted. The first man
who governed the colony you would not hear, though I
stated the reasons why he ought to be called. The chief
justice and the attorney-general of Canada were both ex-

1774_] ron rma GOYEIKNMENT or QUEBEC. 289-
amined; aiid their testimony goes in the teeth of this bill.
Thus it is decidedly opposite to the opinion of two of the
most repectahle men in the kingdom. When the noble lord
was asked for the papers containing these opinions, he refused
to give them, alleging that the reports are very long : hut the
attorney and solicitor-general are both in this House, and I
wish to hear the abstract of their opinions given by themselves-
This they could have done, but the House would not let
them. The advocate-general was called to the bar, upon
which they said, we meant to create delay. The witness is
so singular :1 man, that I cannot persuade myself to be out
of temper with him. He was mounted. very high, and
pranced and prancerl, and never moved from the place. I
noticed at few expressions not l)ecoming’ him as a witness at
the bar, but altogether singular from a man who tells you,
he had not memory to relate any thing he had written, and
is at the some time known to boot’ so singular at memory, that,
without the help of notes, he can sum up the largest trainof
evidence, not thinking it worth while to take it down upon
paper. Some time ago we were given to understand, that we
were not to expect a general election : the report now runs,
that parliament is immetiiately to he dissolved; and, in truth,
Sir, after the passing of this bill, the sooner it is dissolved
the better! In its infancy it was at very compliant one, and
l1umoure(l the ministry in what I thought astrong measure,
_I mean the Midcllcscx election. It continued to do so up
to the middle of its existence ; and, upon its dissolution,
people may say, as they did after the death of King Charles,
that, by some papers found after its dcccase, there is great
reason to suspect that it died in the profession of the Roman
Catholic religion.
Mr. Eclrnund Bm’loe.—’l‘l1erc is one favour I admit to
have received from the noble lord. He has assured me, that
I may propose those clauses of which I have spoken, but
that when they are proposed he will certainly reject them.
I think the noble lord does deserve my warmest acknowledg-

924-0 DEBATIES on run rum, [June 8,
ments. That is a kind of favour which is paid imme-
diately on the receipt. Most assuredly I never will propose
Mr. Jenlcinsonfll-—The honourable colonel tells us, that
this parliament is a Roman Catholic parliament, and very
near its end. I have always understood, that when a Catho-
lic is dying, he is generally attended by a number of trouble.
some people, disposed to put many fl‘0Hl)l0E()IIlG questions
to him. Now”, I hope that Catholic practice will not be
followed in our case, but that he will, at least, allow us to
die in quiet.
After some further conversation, the Chairman read the
following clause :—-
” That it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs
and successors, by warrant under his or their signet, or sign
manual, and with the advice of the privy council, to constitute and
appoint a council, to consist of such persons resident there, not
exceeding twenty-three nor less than seventeen, as his Majesty,
his heirs and successors, shall be pleased to appoint; and upon
the death, removal, or absence of any of the members of the
said council, in like manner to constitute and appoint such and so
many other person or persons as shall be necessary to supply the
vacancy or vacancies, which council, so appointed or nominated,
or the major part thereof, shall have full power and authority to
make ordinances for the peace, welfare, and good government of
the said province, with the consent of his Majesty’s governor, or, for the time being.”
Mr. Dem42ster.»-I do not see the use of making this
council consist of a fluctuating number. With great sub-
mission, I would throw out, that the number is rather small,
and that it had better consist of thirty than scventeen. Iwoultl
(‘) Charles Jenlrinson, Esq., at this time vice-treasurer of Ireland, and a
member of the privy council. In 1786, he was raised to the peerage by the
tifle of Baron I-Iawkcsbury, and, in 1796, advanced to be Earl of Liver-
pool. He died in 1808.

I774.] Fun TI-IE covnnnumwr -or‘ o.uIcnr.c. 24-1
further submit, whether it is not necessary to describe From
what body of men this council should be select_e<1—that it
shall consist of members of the different religions of the old
and new subjects. I would also suggest to the noble lord,
the necessity of enacting a quorum; say fifteen of the thirty,
or twelve, if the number is to remain twenty-three.
Lord N 0rth.——As to the last objection, I apprehend there
is now a quorum established by the bill, which says, that
“the major part shall,” &e.; therefore, there must be a
majority of seventeen. It is intended that part shall be
Canadians, and that the majority shall be Protestants; but
it is (lifiieult to know what number of Canadians you can
admit. The behaviour of the Canadians has been, hitherto,
nnexceptionable, and there is no reason to doubt of their
fidelity in general; but they are Roman Catholics. They
have been old and attached subjects of the Crown of France,
find have had some reason to regret the change. It will,
therefore, be necessrwy to be cautious in the choice, that none
may be chosen, hut those on whose good character and
fidelity you can rely. It will he difiicult to say how many
come within that description.
Mr. Dempstei-.—’l‘he reasons of the noble lord would
have their weight with me, provided I could have a cer-
tainty that this was only to he a temporary law. If we do
not give s. qualification to the council, some of the worst
characters in the country will get into it-—-men who will
shew a ready compliance to the will of the governor; and
thus you will have a despotism of the worst sort. If the
council were to consist of gentlemen of property in that
country, their own fortunes would go far to assure the colony
of their making none but such laws as are necessary for its
good government.
Captain Phipps.–The clause states, that “ it is at present
inexpedient to call an assembly.” Now, I wish to know
why some reservation is not made of the King‘s power to
appoint an assembly, or why the measure is not made tem-
porary. I speak constitutionally. I speak as 11 member of
It ,

9242 DEBATES on run mm. [June 8,
the House of Commons, when I say it is with great caution
this House, acting legislatively, ought to concur with the
other House, to take the power out of the hands of the
people, and vest it in the Crown.
Governor Johnst<me.— I should not object to the clause, it‘ the bill was a temporary one. The English colonies have flourished more than others; they have found out the secret of carrying freedom to the distant parts of the empire. I hope gentlemen will not come to the conclusion, because certain assemblies in America have recently been tumultuous on a nice point, that therefore all assemblies are to be diseountenaneed. I know the meeting an assembly is more dreadful to evil doers, than meeting the House of Commons. I know that without an assembly, it is im- possible to carry on the various concerns of the country. My difiiculty lies here. I think you should make the individuals composing that legislative authority feel that they have some rights. To induce them to give their voice faithfully, and without fear and terror, they must hold some rights in the place they possess. The tyranny of a number is greater than the tyranny of ‘a few. If there were no House of Commons, does any gentleman believe that the King and the House of Lords would not be more tyrannical than the King alone? We see it daily. A multitude will do things, which :1 single person through shame would not dare to perform. I see throughout the whole, that the interest of the governor, and the interest of the receiver-general, are the predominant “features of the bill; together with surrounding our own colonies with a line of despotism. Ais an Irishman said to me, in that nice metaphorical language that belongs to his country, you are coming round and round, till, like water flowing in upon an island, encroaching upon it more and more, you will not leave :1 foot of ground for the fowl of the air to rest upon. I fear you will not leave at foot for liberty to rest upon. Lord Beauehamp. ~— This clause has been objected t0., as it’ the proposcd_ legislative council were to become the 1774.] FOR “rm: GOVEILNBIENT or QUEBEC. 9248 mere creature of power, dependant upon the governor. Now, I apprehend the bill has guarded against any such inconvenience, as much as it possibly could do. All appoint- ments must be made by the King in council, and the rc- movals must be effected in the some manner. The honour- able gentleman says, that the inexpeclieiicy of calling an assembly has not been proved; and he afterwards took oc- casion to observe, that the establishment of a popular assem- bly in Canada. was objected to in this House, in consequence of our unhappy dispute with America; but I think no member has advocated the appointment of this legislative council on that ground, or ventured to say, that it will always be inexpedicnt to give the province an assembly : no man can foresee what changes will happen in that province ; hut I am in hopes that there are such events in the womb of time, as may make that plan of government admis- sible. But, though I throw out a wish that this bill may, in reality, be o temporary measure, if 21 clause to that effect should be proposed, I shall feel it my duty to object to it. Captain I’lz@ps.—-The noble lord says, you are not to hold out a permanent government. In another sentence he says, that the House of Lords is against allowing an assem-1 bly, and that if it be allowed, it should he (lone by the whole legislature. I say, a great principle of aristocracy prevails in that House; that it is always an enemy to the communi- cation of a free assembly to any people. I say, that this legislative council should prevail, till his Majesty sees it con- venient to establish an assembly. M1″. l~’ulteney.(‘>-An assembly might do a vreat deal of
good, and could not do much mischief. With regard to the
qualification, the right of electing might he given to such
as had property. I am 11ot aware that the assemblies in
(‘) Second son of SirJ’ames Johnstone of We5terhall,:\n(I brother of G0ver-
nor J ohnstone. Having married Miss Pulteney, neiec oi the Earl of ]3’utl1,he
changed his name, in 1767, by sign manual, to Pulteney. By the death of
his elder brother,in 1797, he became inheritor of the baroiietcy; and died
in 1805.

QM nnnnrns on THE mm [June S,
America have done any mischief, except in being adverse to
the power \ve assume over them of taxing them~ We have
no power superior to the people, \vhich can act for them. I
do not see why the Canadians should not be indulged with
an assembly immediately. The power of electing annually
is so complete a check, that I am persuaded they would
be satisfied with that alone. In the island of Granada,
the exclusion of Roman Catholics from voting at elections
created great discontent.
Mr. BaIce1~.—It-is said in the bill, “ upon the death, re-
moval, or absence, &cc.” \Vhether a vacancy happens by
death, removal, or absence, it is considered in the same light :
but the removal may he by the act of the governor, or by
the act of the King; and the absence may be accidental or
designed. It is so generally expressed here, that whatever
be the occasion, the King has the power of admitting as
many more members as he pleases. ls it proper that so
general a po\ver as this should be given, without dis-
tinguishing what those occasions may be?
Lord.Nm’th.–‘I‘his absence must he a very serious absence.
The vacancy must be filled up by his Majesty in council:
government cannot be informed of a slight absence. It
must be an absence out of the colony; not an absence of
illness. I have an amendment of some consequence to pro-
pose. It is necessary that a power should be given to the
legislative conncihto raise certain rates, corresponding to
our county rates and parish rates ; but care should he taken,
in drawing it up, that the words of the proviso do not convey
a general power to the council of imposing. taxes upon the
The noble lord then read his proviso as follows:
“Provided always, that nothing; in this act contained, shall
extend to authorize or empower the said legislative council to lay
any taxes or duties within the said province, such rates and taxes
only excepted, us the inhabilzmts of any town or district within
the said province may beauthorized by the said council to assess.

1774.] FOR TI-IE G()VE1lNMI’11\’T or Qumuc. £45
levy, and apply, within the said town or district, for the purpose
of making roads, erecting and repairing public buildings, or for
any other purpose respecting the local convenience and economy
of such town or district.”
The proviso was read a first time.
M1‘. Charles Fow.—l do not rise to oppose this proviso,
nor to make, at this time, an objection to the clause, but to
remark, that they contain two principles; first, that that
which is the proper legislature, is not the proper legislature
for laying taxes. By the amendment, another principle is
established, which I am pleased to see admitted–that that
can never be a proper power for a legislature to possess,
which is at the distance this country is from Canada. The
inconveniences are so obvious, that the noble lord is obliged
to move an amendment, to give authority to some power to
raise a tax.
Lord North.——I am extremely happy, that any motion of
mine coincides with the sentiments of the honourable gen-
tleman. His principles justify his int/erpretaxion of the
clause; yet we may have some difference of opinion about
the power of the legislature. The supreme legislature may
communicate to a subordinate legislature a power of
making laws without raising taxes; but it is equally cer-
tain, that there is no supreme legislature, that has not
within itself the power of raising taxes. At the same time,
that all legislatures on the other side of the Atlantic ought
to have the power of taxation, it does not follow that it
would be impossible, inconvenient, or wrong, in any respect,
that the supreme legislature should, for purposes respecting
the whole empire, exert, even on the other side of the
Atlantic, the power of taxation.
The proviso was agreed to; after which, the question was
put upon the clause.
Mr. Charles F0/v.—I wish, Sir, to state, in two or three
words, what I consider to be the principle of this clause,
My objection to the bill consists mainly in my objection
to this clause: it begins by stating, that “it is at present

24:6 nnnwns on ll‘!-CE mm: ]_June8,
inexpedient to call an assembly.” Now, that I can contradict
this assertion, and say it is expedient to call an assembly, I
will not assert; but, from all the information I have obtained
in this House, I am inclined to think it is expedient.
The principle laid down, in the course of these discussions,
has been this, that the government of the colony ought to be
assimilated, as much as possible, with that of the mother
country. That the establishment of this legislative council
is a step towards such assimilation, I hold to be impossible.
I am free to say, that the Canadians are my first object:
and I maintain, that their happiness and their liberties are
the proper obj eets, and ought to he the leading principle, of
this bill; but how these are to be secured to them without
an assembly, I cannot see. It is not in nature for men to
love laws, by which their rights and liberties are not pro-
tected. I must have more substantial evidence before I
consent to establish arbitrary power in that country : before
I consent to establish such 2. government upon the principle,
that volenti non _/it injzwifi, I must he exceedingly well
assured of the oolens. You say, that the measure may be
corrected. But, is it likely that this legislative Cvunfiil
would go on, from clay to day, considering how they
could abridge their own power? This, Sir, is what can
be expected from no set of men whatever. I never wish
to see the liberties of a country dependent on sueh extra-
ordinary virtue. Hitherto, I have not heard :1 single
argument against the establishment of an assembly. We
have heard much of the danger of putting power into the
hanclspf the Canadians; but as the persons of the greatest
consequence in the colony are stated to be attached to
French law and French customs, are we not, by preferring
a legislative council to an assembly, putting power into the
lmnds of those most partial to French govemment P No one
has urged the circumstance of the people of Canada. being
Roman Catholics as an objection to an assembly» and I
trust I shall never hear such an objection stated; for no
one who has ever conversezl with Roman Catholics can, I

think, believe that there is anything repugnant, in their
views, to the principles of political freedom. ‘l‘he principles
of political freedom, though not practised in Roman
Catholic countries, are as much cherished and revered by the
people, as in Protestant countries. If there was danger, I
should look for it more from those of high rank, than those
of low.
Lord North.–111 the first place, Sir, I cannot admit, that
the evidence taken at our bar has been in opposition to the
principle of the bill; on the contrary, I think it confirms
the most material parts of it. VVith regard to the parti-
cular clause before us, what have the witnesses at the bar
said? The governor certainly is evidence against an as-
sembly; the chief justice certainly is evidence against an
assembly; Mr. Maseres is fornn assembly. But, in point of
fact, what came out in evidence ? That there were in the
province at present one hundred and fifty thousand Roman
Catholic subjects, and about three hundred and sixty 1’ro~
testant families, whose numbers we will suppose to he a
thousand or twelve hundred persons ; but very few of them
are possessed of any property at all. The fair inference,
therefore, is, that the assembly would be composed of Ro-
man Catholics. Now, I ask, is it safe for this country-
for we must consider this country—to put the principal
power into the hands of an assembly of Roman Catholic
new subjects? I agree with the honourable gentleman, that
the Roman Catholics may be honest, able, worthy, sensible
men, entertaining very correct notions of political liberty;
but I must say, there is something in that religion, which
makes it not prudent in a Protestant government, to establish
an assembly consisting entirely of Roman Catholics. The
honourable gentleman is of Opinion, that more is to be dreaded
from the seignenrs than from those in the lower ranks.
Sure I am, that the seignenrs, who are the great possessors
of the lands, would be the persons who composed the as-
sembly, and some of them will, I hope, be admitted to the
legislative council ; but then, the governor will choose those

248’ Dl£!IA’l’l<}S on rm; mm. [June 8,’
on whose fidelity he has the greatest reason to rely. They
will be removeahle by the King in council, and will not
filepfilld wholly npon the Roman Catholic electors, or be
removeahle at their pleasure. It is not at present expedient
to call an assembly. That is what the act says; though it
would he convenient that the Canadian laws should be assimi-
lated to those of this country, as far as the laws of Great
Britain admit, and that British subjects should have s0me~
thing or other in their constitution preserved for them, which
they will probably lose when they cease to he governed
entirely by British laws. That it is desirable to give the
C-aiiadians a constitution in every respect like the consti-
tution of Great Britain, I will not say; but I earnestly
hope, that they will, in the course of time, enjoy as much of
our laws, and as much of our constitution, as may beihene-‘
ficial for that country, and safe for this. But that time is
not yet come.
Mr. l’ulteney.—T he nohle lord has said, that there could
not he on assembly granted, because, from the great number
of Roman Catholics compared with Protestants, there would
not be a fair and equal representation; hut, will you conclude,
that because you cannot give them the best sort of assembly,
therefore you will not give them ony at all?
_ Mn Charles F0w.—l did not speak of the opinion of
the witnesses, with regard to the propriety of an assembly.
I spoke only of the inclination of the Canadians themselves
to an assembly. General Carleton said, they did not wish
for one, because of the disgrace into which the American
assemblies had fallen. After that objection was removed,
they would wish for an assembly. I understood both Mr.
Mztseres and Mr. Hey to say, that the Canadians would
lihe an assembly, hut that they would not like an assembly
of Protestants. Had the evidence been on the other side, I
should have required very strong proof to make me suppose,
that men do not like to have a share in the government of
their country. _ y _ _
Governor Jo/msio-ne.—I wish to speak to 21 point of fact.

1774.] FOR run GOVl<21tNM1DN’1′ on QUEBEC. 249
It is said that there are ahundred and fifty thousand Roman
Catholic subjects in Canada. N ow, if this is intended to be
used in argument, I shall beg leave to produce a paper
properly authenticated, by which it is shewn, that the
number cannot exceed eighty thousand. General Carleton
spoke from common report. Here is the most absolute
evidence ever given—-the name, sex, age, condition of every
one person in the province, is stated in a census taken in
1766. Can you fancy the population to have so much in-
creased ? Why, it is greater than the increase of population
among the frogs. All the questions respecting tithes and
the cler’gy, depend on the numbers.
M1’. Dempstev‘.—-It has always appeared to me necessary,
that laws should not be too hastily made; that they should
not be the result of one day’s deliberation ; and that acertain
time should elapse between the proposing of the law, and
the day on which it is to take place. There is nothing so
shocking as the law made by a drunken prince over night,
which is to take place next morning. Whoever reads the
history of an arbitrary country will see it: whoever reads
the history of the East-India Company will see the necessity
of it. When a law is proposed in council, it should be im-
mediately promulgated in some town or province. A second
publication should take place at the end of three weeks;
and another at the end of three weeks more. At the end of
six weeks, it will become a law. I wish to propose another
amendment ; which is, th at the law shall not have force till
it has been registered in the supreme courts of that country.
This will make it approach, at least in some degree, to the
edicts of France, and be a little check to the exercise of
arbitrary power.
Lord N01’th.—I am entirely of opinion, that one reso-
lution of the council should not make a law; but that it
should be considered two or three separate times, and at
certain intervals be promulgated and registered. All that
is very reasonable, but I should apprehend that three weeks
between each reading is too much. Many circunistances may
occur which will not admit of that time. What you have

250 nenmtns on ‘1‘!-IE mun [June 8,
done in this bill has only given a general power to the coun-
cil. The rest is matter of detail, meant to be formed upon
the King’s instructions ; and either by those instructions or
by the bill it will undoubtedly be taken care of.
The clause was agneecl to.
Mr. JenIvins0n.——It having been mentioned last uigllb
that the act of supremacy, besides declaring that all supreme
power resides in the King, &c., enacts, that every person in
holy orders, every person exercising office, shall he obliged
to take the oath which enters very largely into the speculative
question of the Pope being the head of the church; the
consequence would be, that every priest, if obliged to take
that oath would certainly relinquish his cure, and that
parishes would he left without priests; or persons of bad
morals, who would have no scrnple to take the oath, would
he in possession of this charge-—l have drawn up a new
oath, which I beg leave to bring up, and which it is my
wish to have inserted as a clause in the bill.
It was accordingly brought up, and rcad as follows 1-»-
“ Provided always, and be it enacted, that no person professing
the religion of the church of Rome, and residing in the said
province, shall be obliged to take-the oath required by the said
statute passed in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth,
or any other oaths substituted by-any other act in the p1a¢@
thereof; but that every such person who by the said statute is
requ.ire is hereby required, to take and subscribe the following oath before
the governor, or such other person in such court of record as his
Nlajesty shall appoint, who are hereby ztuthorized to ztdministcr
the some ; videlical,
“ I, /1.13., do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faith-
ful, and hear true allegiance to his Majesty King George, and
him will defend to the utmost of my power, against all trajtorous
conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made
against his person, Crown, and dignity ; and I will do my utmost
endeavour to disclose and make known to his Majesty, his heirs,
and successors, all trensons, and traitorous conspiracies and
attempts, which I shall know to be against him, or any of them ;

and all this I (lo swear without any equivoection, mental evasion
or secret reservation, mid renouncing all pardons and dispense.
tions from any power or person whomsocver to the contrary. So
help me God.
“ And every such person who shall neglect or refuse to take the
said oath before mentioned, shall incur and be liable to the same
penalties, foifeitures, disabilities, and incapecities, as he would
have incurred and been liable to, for neglecting or refusing to
take the oath required by the said statute passed in the first year
of tlic reign of Queen Elizabcthf’
The clause was agreed to. After which, the preamble
of the bill was read.
Mr. William Bm-li‘e.<‘>—I do not remember that I ever
saw the House of Commons in so sick at situation as it
is at present. [Cry of order I order! order E] I soy, Sir, that
the parliament of Great Britain is in an unfortunate situation.
This is the worst bill, that ever engaged the attention of at
British council. It is 21 hill to establish the Popish religion
——to establish despotism. There have been instances in
human ali’airs, in which, for purposes of eonimerce, we have
established freedom, £l.S far as we could, in a certain locality ;
hut to establish Popcry, to establish clespostism, in a con-
quered province, is what we have never before done. I am
aware I cannot count forty upon you ; [There were forty-
five members at this time in the House] but I Will say,
that this business has been brought forwaril very late in the
session; when men of great rank and property in this
(‘) Mr. William Burke hail been secretary to General Conway, while one
of the principal secretaries of state. In 17’/7, he proceeded to India; OM”-
rying with him ii letter from his kinsinan Edmund, to the late Sir Philip
Fl‘€i1’lCiS, containing this pi1ssage—-“ I part with ti friend, whom I have
tenderly loved, highly valued, and coutinuiiliy lived with, in an unioii not to
he expressed, quite since our boyish days. Indeinnii”y me, my dear sir, for
such a loss, by eoiitributing to the fortune of my friend. You know what
his situation has been, and what things lie might have surely kept, and inti-
nitely increased, if he had not lied those feelings which make a man worthy
of fortune. Remember that he asks those ri.\VO\ll‘S wliicli nothing but his
sense of honour prevented liisliaving it in his power to bestow.” He became
agent to the Rajah of Tmijore, and subsequently deputy piiyinustcr-gciieral
for India.

252 nnrmes on THE mm. [June 8,
country must be tired. There is Mr. Soame Jenyns. He
is a lord of trade, and possesses a great deal of wit, and
a great deal of information. I wish to hear him speak
upon the subject. I also expect to hear the attorney
and the solicitor-general; who have hitherto been very
sparing of their law. They heard the witnesses at the bar,
but did not dare to say they were wrong ; and they saw the
majority voting plump in the teeth of their own evidence-
I say it is quite disgraceful to them, not to tell the House,
whether the King is or is not bound by this bill to apply a
portion of the revenue arising from tithes, to the establish-
ment of a Protestant clergy in the province. I say, that hy
this bill, he is not bound; but may apply those revenues
to any purposes, however extravagant or profiigate–either
to raise an army, or to bribe, or anything in the world that
he pleases. I will say this to that majority to whom I am
to submit, and to that public who may hear the little which
I have to say, that never, since God made the world or
parliaments existed, was there a time when the conduct that
is now carried on wasjnstifiable. The gentlemen who op-
pose the bill, knowing it was impossible to defeat it, have
almost worked themselves to death, to make it as far as they
could, consonant to English liberty, and the principles of
the English constitution. I do not know what they meant
by opposing the amendment of my honourable kinsman,for
placing the dehateable tithe under the control of the Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel. I vow to God, that I
believe the noble lord did not know his own situation; that
he did not know there was such a thing in the country as
that society. I don’t believe the law officers knew ahit about
it. But whether he knew there was or was not such a society
(I don‘t lcnow which, nor much care), I say, nothing but
ignorance can justify the refusal of that motion of my
honourable kinsrnan. There will come an hour, when it will
be necessary, when it will be proper, when it will be just,
to testify that there was some opposition made, some pro~
test entered, against this mad proceeding.
The preamble being agreed to, the House resumed.

1774.] rout THE oovnitmiimr or QUEBEC. 9253
F’1~iduy, J (me l0.
Sir Charles Whitworth reported to the House the amend-
ments which the Committee had made to the bill. ‘l‘he
first clause being read, there was much puzzling about set-
tling the boundary line. Mr. Edmund Burke, Mr. J aekS0n,
Mr. Baker, and Sir Charles Whitivortli went up stairs, in
order to settle it, while the House was supposed to be
proceeding upon it. The House continued for at least half
an hour doing nothing in the mean time. The diilerence
was, whether the tract of country not inhabited should
belong to New York or Canada? At five dclock, Mr.
Edmund Burke returned with the amendments; some of
which were agreed to, others not. The following is the
clause as finally agreed to by the House:-
“ That all the territories, islands, and countries in North
America, belonging to the Crown of Great Britain, bounded on
the south by :1 line from the Bay of Chaleurs, along the high
lands which divide the livers that empty themselves into the
river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, to 0. point
in forty-five degrees of northern latitude, on the eastern bank of
the river Connecticut, keeping the same latitude directly West,
through the lake Champlain, until, in the same latitude, it meets
the river St. Lawrence; from thence up the eastern bank of the
said river to the lake Ontario ; thence through the lake Ontario,
and the river commonly culled Niagara; and thence along by the
eastern and south-eastern bank of lake Erie, following‘ the said
hank, until the same shall be intersected by the northern bound-
ary, granted by the charter of the province of Pennsylvania, in
case the same shell he so intersected; and from thence along the
said northern and western boundaries of the said province, until
the said western boundary strike the Ohio; hut in case the said
bank_ of the said lake shall not be found to he so intersected,

25% nnmvrns on ‘rn1<: nnzn [June l0, then following the said bank until it shall arrive at that point of the said bank which shall he nearest to the north-western angle of the said province of Pennsylvania, and thence, by a right line, to the said north-western angle of the said province; and thence along the western boundary of the said province, until it strike the river Ohio ; and along the bank of the said river, west\va.rd, to the hanks of the Mississippi, and northward to the southern boundary of the territory granted to the merchants adventurers of England trading to Hudson’s Bay; and also all such teni» tories, islands, and countries, which have, since the 10th of February 1763, been made part of the government of Newfound- land, be, and they are hereby, during his lvfajestys pleasure, annexed to, and made part and parcel of, the province of Quebec, as created and established by the said royal proclamation of the 7th of October 1763. “ Provided always, that nothing herein contained, relative to the boundary of the province of Quebec, shall in anywise affect the boundaries of any other colony.” Mr. ]lI1wlcw01’th.—Si1’, after the flood of eloquence which, for five days, has deluged this House, even to washing away a large portion of its members, it would ill become me to occupy much of your time, While I call your attention to the situation in which the English merchants trading to Canada will. be placed by this bi1l._ Supposing the attach- ment of these merchants to the civil laws of their native country to he prejncliees, surely, Sir, they are prejudices that ought to be allowed to run part pussu with those of the native Canadians. The annual amount of the exports to Canada is from one to two hundred thousand pounds; and, though the number of these merchants may be small, their credit is great. VVe have no proof that the mode of trial by jury had been attended with any oppression; on the contrary, it was becoming more and more a favourite with the people; and it is the opinion of these merchants, that it will he impossible to carry on mercantile transactions without it‘ They therefore ask that it may be adopted; and that contending parties may have the option of a jury 1774.] FOR THE GOVERNMENT or ounnnc. 9255 in all civil eases. Now, what mischief could arise, even if those Canadians who are unfriendly to the ‘measure were compelled to have a jury? I hope, therefore, that the House will suffei‘ the clause I am about to propose to go out by way of experiment. It has been said, that the point may be settled by an ordinance. I admit that it may; but why leave so important a matter to the will of another P The merchants say they prefer having it settled by an act of parliament. If the governor and council, after a trial, found it (lid not succeed, I should at any time be ready to consent to its repeal. I move, Sir, that the following clause be added to the bi1l:— “ That in all trials relating to property or civil rights, where the value shall exceed a certain sum, either of the contending parties may demand a trial by jury, constituted according to the laws of England, and that the issue between the parties shall he determined by the verdict of such jury, and not otherwise.” Lord Nm’th.—In considering, Sir, the various interests involved in this regulation, many difiperent parties present themselves, with whose inclinations and desires the House must naturally be disposed to comply. The first great interest that calls for the consideration of the House is the interest of this country, in point of sovereignty and authority over that; the second interest is, undoubtedly, that of his Ma~ jesty’s Canadian subjects at large, who are, with the exception of a very small number, professors of the Roman Catholic religion; a third interest is, the one to which the honourable member has directed the attention of the I-louse—that of the English merchants trading to the province, to whose capital and to whose skill much of the increase of commerce which has taken place in that colony is to be attributed. There is also another party, whose interests ought not to be left out of our consideration–I mean the ancient nololesse. In the first place, Sir, with regard to this clause, which proposes to give optional juries in civil causes, I do not consider that it, in any degree, affects the right of this £356 I)1U3A’1‘ES on run HILL [Jung I0, country over Canada in point of sovereignty. If the Crown is interested—if the power and authority of this country is in- terested—in any questions concerning a jury, it is in criminal matters; and such a jury the bill has already given to the Canadians. The British parliament, Sir, having duly con- sidered the great protection atihrded to the subject by juries, against the claim and authority of the Crown, have uni- versally givcn them a jury in all criminal causes. Now, with regard to giving them also a jury in civil causes, as far as the King’s authority is concerned, I do not conceive that any individual, standing in my situation, would object to it. In granting :1 jury in all civil causes, the only point to he considered is, the happiness of the parties concerned. The English merchants trading to Canada have an undoubted claim to the protection of parliament. They are a most respectable body, and much of the flourishing condition of the colony is owing to their exertions. In compliance with their interests and desires, I would go as far as the honourable gentleman, in granting them every thing that can be granted, without producing inconvenience and embarrassment. If, Sir, I understand the evidence which has been given at our l>ar,it certainly is not the desire of the Canadians to have
the trial by jury in civil causes._ General Carleton, if I re-
member his evidence, informed the House that, though the
mode of trial by juries had been introduced into the courts,
the Canadians, in general, did not desire to be tried by
them ; and it was his opinion, that to give them their old
system of laws would he the only means of making them a
happy people. VVith regard to the other evidence, Mr. Hey,
the chief’ justice of Quebec, was of opinion, that the trial hy
jury is, at present, not preferred hy the people; that the
noblesse and the superior class of the Canadians hold it
to be humiliating ; and that the lower orders consider it, as
in truth it is, a burtheni Mr. Hey told us, that he did not
think the Canadians, in their present state of ignorance,
were {it to be upon a jury; that he had endeavoured to
explain to them the benefit of the English laws, particularly

1774.] Eon THE (;0\’EltNi\[ENT or QUEBEC.
in point of trial; but, whether what he said was not properly
interpreted to them, or whether his reasons and not his
argument had any efl”ect upon them. He also said, that there
had been cases of misbehaviour in juries; not of corruption
or partiality, but several cases in which they had refused to
decide at all, Mr. Maseres, it is true, told us, that juries
\vould, he believed, be liked under proper regulations; but
that the people did not choose to give their time and attend-
ance for nothing. M. Lotbiniere, on a question being put to
him, whether he did not think the English laws the best
for the Canadians in general, answered, that he made no
doubt our laws were good and wise, and made us a happy
people, but that his countrymen preferred their old laws and
customs. Now, Sir, this proposition requires, that thejury
shall be, in all cases, constituted according‘ to the laws of
England; and is consequently not such a jury as, from the
evidence of the gentlemen you have heard at your bar, is
the most proper and suitable for the people of Canada, It
goes to submit every question of every sort, relative to pro-
perty and civil rights; all the questions of feudal right;
all the questions of private tenures, and the persons holding
under them, to trial by jury; and after what we have
heard, I think it would be rather a hasty step to entrust
all these things to the decision of an optional jury. The
best way will be to leave the whole question in the hands
of those to whom the administration of justice in Canada
will be confided, and whose duty it will be to adopt, from
time to time, such amendments as the actual state and
condition of the colony may require.
Upon these considerations, I submit, whether it will be
proper to hind down the Crown by the clause now oiiered,
or whether, in this case, the people of Canada may not safely
repose in the confidence, that, in the forming of the courts
of judieaturc, the interests of all persons concerned will be
taken into consideration, and such a plan settled as, under
the peculiar circumstances of the country, will be found
most beneficial to the whole of the inhabitants.

258 DIGBATIES on Tl-IE nim, [June 10,
Mr. Seijeant Glynn.-—In the concluding proposition of
the noble lord, I perfectly agree; namely, that as the
House is now considering the plan of laws and judicature to
he given to the people of Canada, the one that is hest calcu-
lated to promote the permanent happiness of the people
\vho are to he governed by it is the preferable plan, and the
one which it is the duty of the King‘ to give them. Having
thus far agreed with the noble lord, he must pardon me
when I declare, from the bottom of my heart, that I think
the only certain step we can take to secure for them that
permanent happiness, is to bestow upon them that system of
laws and judicature, which have been productive of so
much happiness to ourselves at home, and obtained for us so
much honour abroad. I would give it to them subject to
such restrictions and regulations as the particular tenures
by which their property is held might require. Give them,
if you please, their particular usages and customs, butlet the
leading principle be that of the laws of England.
I am one of those, Sir, who are glad that the clause has
been proposed; and though, to he candid, I cannot say that
the adoption of it would remove my objections to this bill, yet
I am certain it has a tendency to reconcile the minds of some
gentlemen to the measure, and to remove some of the
most striking and f’ormidable objections to it. The omission
of this right of appeal to a juryv in civil causes appears to
me an insuperahle objection to the bill. To any predilec-
tion of the Canadians for their ancient laws and customs, I
should be inclined as much us any one to yield, as far as I
could do so with safety; but to carry my compliance to the
exclusion of the laws of England»—to consent to substitute
in their place the laws of France—and to add to all this a
form of legislature correspondent to that of the kingdom
whence those laws were borrowed, is what I can never con-
sent ‘O4 And I own my objection to the measure was
strengthened when I was told, that there was n prejudice
and predilection in these people favourable to those laws,
and that it was considered good policy to avail ourselves

1774] FOR run o0vmtx:\1a<:x’r or ounnne. 259
of this predilection, to build a system of government upon
it so contrary to our own. I should have thought it
was rather our duty, by all gentle means, to root those
prejudices from the minds of the Canadians, to attach them
by degrees to the civil government of England, and to rivet
the union by the strong ties of laws, language, and religion.
You have followed the opposite principle; which, instead of
making it at secure possession to this country, will cause
it to remain for ever, a dangerous one. I have contemplated
with some horror the nursery thus establisherl for men reared
up in irreconcilcable aversion to our laws and constitution.
“Then I was told by the noble lord, that they were insensible
to the value of those laws and held them in contempt,
wishing to be hound by laws of their own making-—whcn I
was tolcl that they had no regard for eivil rights, I must
confess that it operated with me in a contrary way, and I
could not help thinking that it f’urnishc<1 an unanswerable
argument against gratifying them. I think that we could
not, with humanity or policy, gratify them in their love of
French law, of French religion. The common safety is
concerned in our refusal.
If tl1e Canadians love French law and French religion,
and entertain opinions adverse to the peace and safety of
the mother country, would it not he wise to recal them
from their delusion, hy putting them in immediate possession
of civil rights; by which they would see all questions con-
cerning their own property determined on the fairest and
most impartial manner, by laws which are the best guard
of the weak and the strong, the inferior and the most p0w-
erful part of the community? Without they possess the
highest sense of civil rights, they can never be good friends
with us, or good subjects of the King. Upon this ground,
I expected there was an opening left for the laws of England
being restored to them : hut now I find that notion exploded ;
and upon the ground, the professed ground, that juries in
civil causes are incompatible with the laws you are giving
them. If, Sir, juries, the most valuable part of our consti~
s 2

Q60 nxn1\’r1:s 024 THE BILL [1uncl9,
tution, are incompatible with the laws \ve‘are giving the
Canadians, we cannot be at any great loss to discover what
the general spirit of those laws must be. Will anybody say,
that juries are incompatible with any form by which justice
can be administered? In God’s name, what can be the
views and what the operations of that bill, with which
juries are incompatible? what can be the purposes and
designs to be answered by this bill? I have no pleasure in
thinking of them : l have too much decency to name them.
The noble lord, having passed this sentence of conrlem~
nation against juries, went on to assure us, that administration
had no interest in the matter—that there was nothing to be
gained to the Crown by the suppression of juries, and esta-
blishment of another form of adininistering justice. The
noble lord presumes, that provided the criminal proceed-
ings are conducted on the principles of the laws of England,
no questions will arise between the subject and the Sovereign.
He told us, that there was no interest in the Crown, in eon-
tradistinction to this right which we claim for the subject.
But, the noble lord is mistaken. If there is :1 design of ex-
tending thejprerogative; if violent or extravagant acts of
power are ever attempted, they may be attempted with im-
punity, unless juries are allowed. It is not in criminal
matters only,that the right of the Crown can be brought
in question. In civil proceedings we find the inestimable
value of juries, when applied to the important object oi’
protecting the liberties of the people against the oppression oi
all those, magistrates or others,‘ who fancy themselves great
enough to commit acts of that description with impunity. All
actions brought for the redress of personal wrong come into
this scheme of being tried without a jury. Duties claimed
by the Crown ought to come in the shape of civil actions.
If those duties have not been taken legally, the subject
brings his action to recover; as I-lmnpden brought his
action in the great case of ship-money. This is just the
place to begin with such at scheme. The Canadians are
at submissive, quiet people. They are not inclined to v.lis~

177%. 4 FOR run oovnnmieur or Q,UE)3I<J(l. 261
pute. If any ease of taxation or imposition, equally un-
warrantahle with that of ship-money, is to be tried there,
supposing a man with Hampden’s spirit to stand up——what
prospect of success has he? His right will never come to
the decision of a jury——it will be determined by the judge.
The noble lord tells us, that justice will be equally ad-
ministered in civil and in criminal causes. Let me ask the
noble lord, supposing an action of that importance brought
–supposing a case of general warrant ?—it does not strike
me as ridieulons»-
Lord North.—I certainly did not imagine the learned
gentleman could suppose, from anything in my manner,
that anything he had said was ridiculous.
Mr. Serjeant G23/m2.—I have stated a point which I
think important. I have stated an opinion I shall always
hold, in condemnation of general warrants: but it is in-
different in this question. Let me put the ease of an action
brought for redress against oppression of the, very highest
nature-—by whom is that action to be tried ? By whom but
delegates appointed by the Crown, and removeable by the
Crown, through the medium of the governor. It is to he
tried by 41 judge, and there is no opportunity given for a
jury to exercise their opinion upon it. After having heard
this, will the noble lord still cling to his opinion, that juries
are of no use in civil cases, and that the Crown will gain
nothing by this suppression of juries? If you take away
juries, you leave these people in as unguarded a state as the
inhabitants of any country whatever ; not to add, that you
contradict the eulogiums ofall foreigners on oureonstitutional
mode ofadministering the laws, and it goes out, on the an.
thority of this and the other House of Parliament, that the
constitution they have been taught to value is an affair of no
consequence; that general warrants are innocent things; and
that trial byjury is a damnable mode of trial, affording no
security either to the liberty or property of the people.
Such, Sir, are the sentiments which this bill is calculated
to give birth to. The noble lord tells us, that in consenting

262 DEDATES ox THE BILL [June 10,
to the passing of it, we are complying with the wishes of
the Canadians; and he has cited the opinions given at our
bar, to show that there exists a fixed, settled, and general
aversion to trial by jury throughout the province. He sup-
poses that juries were refractory; that they did not do
their duty ; that they could not he prevailed upon to attend.
Now, Sir, the plain answer to all this, as I conceive
it to be, is, that they have not been bound to attend In
England, coercive measures are resorted to: and why not
introduce the practice into the colony P Another objection
is, that when they do attend, they will not perform their
duty: but this, Sir, is a very poor argument; for I can
never admit, that one or two instances of the abuse of juries
can fairly be brought forward as an argument against the
existence of the institution, any more than I could admit
certain passages, which I find in history, of the abuse of its
power by this House, to be adduced as proofs, that we ought
no longer to have a House of Commons. Abuses are in-
separable from all human institutions. If this argument
of abuse be allowed, you may at once part with your whole
constitution The right of being tried by ajury is one of
the fundamental privileges of the people; and ii‘, in some
few instances, the privilege has been abused, the mischief
arising from such abuse has been of no great consequence;
no public mischief has followed: whereas, whenever the
legislature abuses its powers, great and important public
mischief must necessarily follow. I conceive, therefore,
that it is no argument against the proposed clause, to say
that juries occasionally have abused the power repcsed in
them. But, Sir, we all know that the constitution of
a jury is not without a check, as well as every other
part of our constitution. If juries will take upon them-
selves to determine the law, it is in the power of the party
aggrieved by that determination, to take it out of their
hands by a (ie!llUl‘l’0l‘ upon the evidence. It is only upon
questions of law, that you can have special verdicts found.
The party dcmurs upon the evidence, and every question oi”

1774.] ron THE GOVEILNMENT or QUX‘l13EC- 263
law comes before the com-ti No institution in the world
is less likely to be abused; and, in cases of abuse, the law is
not without a remedy.
The noble lord has put it, that we are now giving laws to
a great number of new inhabitants, and to a small body of
our old subjects, and that itis our duty to give them such at
form of government as shall best promote their happiness;
but what I contend for is, that the bill upon our table, in~
stead of providing that best form of government, puts
them in the worst possible condition, as it takes from them
a blessing which they now enjoy, and the greatest which
it is in the power of any legislature to bestow. Instead of
being tried by juries selected from among themselves, and
by judges sworn to administer justice according to the
laws of the country, you substitute a trial before an indivi-
dual appointed at the will of the governor, probably unedu-
cated in those laws, and, if educated, brought up to en~
tcrtain violent notions of law and justice. Such are the
men by \vh0m you would have justice decided! And
all this is done, because it is right to indulge the natural
predilection of the Canadians in favour of their ancient laws
and usages! Let me, Sir, in like manner, plead the law
in favour of the English merchants–in favour of the Eng-
lish inhabitmits. If it be cruel, if it be oppressive, to ob-
trude upon the Canadians this law, which they have been
eleven years in the exercise of, what should be said of
those who take away the law from the poor English sub-
jects who reside there? These men have a predilection and
liking for the laws of their own country, and claim their
privilege of being protected, according to the usage andjust
principles of policy of their ancestors. They have settled
there in consequence of the royal faith pledged to them, that
they should not be deprived of the law which they esteem
so valuable, and that none of their privileges should be
infringed. Is it justice to these men to force them to live
under an arbitrary form of government, and to submit to
the administration of justice by the principles of another

9264‘ DEBATES on TX-XE mum. [June 10,
law, to the exclusion of juries, for the gratification of others,
who prefer being placed under a despotic form of govern-
ment? Is not the gratification clue to the natives of Eng-
land, rather than to the natives of Canada E’
‘l‘here is, Sir, another consideration which I will submit
to the House. Every man born in Canada since the con-
quest must be a free-born subject. In process of time, all
will be of that description, and as such, entitled to partake
of all the rights and privileges of that system of govern»
ment which we are about to transmit to them. Is it then,
wise, I ask, out of compassion to the prejudices of those who
have been horn under the arbitrary law of another country,
to perpetuate at system of government, which will deprive all
those who may liercafter he born, from the enjoyment of the
privileges of other British subjects? I will give the House no
further trouble. I see that the attempt to resist the passing
of this mischievous bill will be in vain; but I earnestly
hope, that it will be rendered less mischievous, by the admis-
sion of the clause proposed by the honourable gentleman
near me. i
The A tt01’ne_1/-Gevzeral.-I shall confine myself more par-
ticularly and pointedly to the question immediately before
us; namely, whether the clause proposed to be introduced
does or does not square with the other parts of the hill?
The first thing that strikes me is this—that it clashes with
the preceding clause, which says, “that all causes that shall
hereafter he instituted in any of the courts of justice, to he
appointed within and for the said province of Canada,
shall be heard and determined according to the laws and
customs of that country.” Now, it is upon this clause that
the honourable gentleman proposes to engraft another
clause, which is to give the party concerned the option of a
jury; hut, will any gentleman say, that trial by jury was
one of the ancient laws and customs of Canada? I am
afraid it would be extremely difilcult indeed to introduce
such a clause into the present bill ; and, for what purpose
is it intended to be introduced? My learned friend, who

1774.] FOR arm; GOVERNMENT on eumziac. 265
argued with great zeal and eloquence the cause of ‘the
Canadians, tells us, that their desire to return to their old
laws and customs is not a sufficient reason for our permit-
ting them to do so. Now, Sir, I do not believe that any
address or any eloquence will succeed in inducing a polished
assembly of men to adopt the barbarous principle, that the
moment a conquest is obtained, it consists with humanity,
it consists with wisdom, it consists with common honesty,
to take away all the laws of the conquered country, and
more especially that portion of those laws which regulated
the proceedings of the inhabitants in civil matters. Speaking
of the rights of conquest, Grotius has these words, “ Cum
omne imperiurn victis eripitur relinqui illis, possunt circa res
privatas et publicas suae leges, suiquc mores et magistratus.”
These are the moderated ideas of conquest. Such has been
the practice of nations between one another. To say, there~
fore, that you would take from the Canadians, against their
will, their cstahlished mode of deciding all civil questions,
and give them another which is, in your opinion, better
than theirs, is to talk in a strain partaking, in my mind,
of a great deal of ignorance, and at the same time of
barbarity; and such as cannot be inculcated, at this time
of‘ day, in any assembly that has at all considered the
But we are told, that the Canadians do not object to our
mode of trial by jury; that eleven or twelve years’ experi-
ence has convinced them, that the manner of trying rights
according to the English form is better suited to them, and
more favourable, than the old manner of trial. I was exceed-
dingl y surprised to hear this assertion, nor can I conceive from
which of the Witnesses it is collected. When Mr. Maser-es
was asked, whether the Canadians did not consider it a bur-
then to be dragged from their homes to serve upon juries, he
answered, that he had heard complaints of the kind. In
reply to another question, he gave it as his opinion, that a
small allowance would make them wish to serve upon juries.
But then, Sir, whatsort ofajury? \/Ve have all soon the

2’66 DEBATES on rue mm, {June 10,
scheme which this gentleman has proposed for a jury. Is
it an English jury P Is it not a court to consist of fifteen
persons ? and is not the decision to be by a majority E’ Is this
at all like the constitution of an English jury? Certainly
not. What is the next thing he proposes? ‘l‘hat every
jurymen should be paid five shillings; so that three pounds
additional expcnce is put upon every cause. And yet this is
the gentleman now quoted, to prove that the Canadians are
fond of our constitution of a jury !
But it is said, thatjuries will be of very great advantage,
particularly in causes of revenue, or in causes where consti-
tutional questions may arise. What, Sir, is it then the
serious and sober opinion of any gentleman living, that
questions of revenue, as to whether the claims have been
legally demanded or not, are, of all questions, the most fit to
be put to ajury-—a provincial jury P or that, upon all those
constitutional questions which must always be depending be-
tween this country and that, it is better to refer those ques-
tions to the juries of that country, than to thejudge? I have
already cited an authority much stronger than any opinion
1 can give, which will be regarded, on this subject, with
much less prejudice than any opinion of mine, that these are
the very questions it would be unfit that juries should be
admitted to decide upon. I look upon the Canadians, being
the most ancient subjects, as first entitled to our protection;
next come the English inhabitants, and, lastly, the English
merchants who trade thil’her~—which is 2. much remoter
interest still. Now, if those who live upon the spot are not
entitled to this degree of consideration, it seems odd to
insist, that those who trade with them should be allowed
an alteration of their laws, in order to accommodate the com-
mercial intercourse which they may hold with them. But it
has been asked, why introduce this new system into Canada?
By the King”s proclamation, the laws of England were sup-
posed to be existing in Canada -, yet it has been shown in evi-
dence before you, that the Canadians, instead of resorting
to those laws, have usually gone into the courts where those

1774,] FOR rmz covnnmiisnr or Qunimv. 267
laws were not in force, or have decided the matter in dispute
by reference among themselves. Can the laws be said to
be conformable to their wishes, when their practice is so
much to the contrary? And why should not laws be allowed
them in conformity to the wishes they entertain? Upon
this account I wish the clause not to pass.
Mr. Dunming.-—Sir, in entering upon the subject, there
are three classes of individuals to he considered: the Ca-
nadians, who are the old inhabitants; the English settlers
in the colony; and the merchants, inhabitants of this coun-
try, trading to that colony. The first class are represented
as being averse to trial by jury; the two last are stated to
be desirous of the establishment of such a tribunal, but
their desires, it seems, are not worth attending to. I cannot,
by any means, assent to the opinion of the learned gentleman,
with regard to the first class, when he supposes that the
evidence of the witnesses who have been examined at our bar
tends to prove, that, in their judgment at least, trial by jury
was not desireable in the opinion of the old inhabitants 0fCa-
nada, the King’s new subjects. If I can hear aright, if I can
understand rightly, all those witnesses agreed, and agreed so
clearly, and expressed themselves so forcibly, that the most
wilful misrepresentation cannot place them upon the other
side of this question, Mr. Maseres, I am perfectly sure, was
systematical in his evidence, in declaring, that the Canadians
were ready to receive the trial by jury ; that they desire it,
and will not be content without it. It was presented to them
in an optional form; and it was evident what their wish
was, from the use they made of it: they claimed the benefit
of it; they had the benefit of it; they were satisfied with
the benefit of it. Mr. Hey, if I did not misunclorstzincl him,
said precisely the same thing. They therefore distinguished
the line of clifi’erence, and stated where they were dissatisfied;
in what they wished to have some modification of the law;
what part of the old system they wished l’0~GSffi.l]liSl1€Cl ; and
what part of the new system they wished to be rectified.
Evcryear acquiesced in thcvoiee thatstatecl to them that, with

268 nmnnms on ‘r1-11‘: 1111.1. [June 10,
reference to all commercial subjects, all matters of contract’
all matters of debt, all matters of eivil right, with the cxcep~
tion of those that had relation to matters of religious property:
might safely stand upon English bottom. These, with the
whole criminal law of England, and particularly the right
of Iuzbeas corpus, made up together a system, with which,
in the opinion of Mr. Hey, the old and the new subjects of
Canada would, at that time, have been perfectly content. But
he went on to say, that he doubted whether such would be
the case now ; though he still thought it ought to be.
Such, Sir, is the result of the evidence before us: but at the
time that I say this, I am ready to admit,1hat if,af’ter more ac~
curate experience, we are now ripe to say, that a trial by jury
is not adapted to the circumstances of the colony, we ought
not to enforce it. Has any body made such discovery P Has
any body found out, that though applicable in criminal mat~
tors, it is not so in those which relate to personal property P
Indeed, every sort of right is capable of being stated, and of
being discussed and decided upon by a jury. As to sub-
mitting questions of revenue to juries, God forbid that that
idea should be understood in the full extent of it! But sure
I am, that if questions of revenue were not to be decided
in this country by juries, no creature could endure to live in
it for a single hour. That is the only check-—~and it is a
feeble one—-with regard to the claini of the Crown. Juries
are not to make the law : they are not judges ofthc law: more
especially are they not judges of such laws. The legislature
may make those laws; they are to administer; they are to
apply them. If the Crown, or the ofiicers of the Crown, say
such a law is imposed, it is not competent to aj ury to question
the validity of that law. If that be proved to their satisflictioii
they are bound to find it so; they are bound to carry that
law into execution. If they neglect that duty, it is obvious
the same power exists to correct the misconduct of juries
abroad as well as at home. Ii’ they persist in that sort of
conduct, the law is not so weak, but that it can apply :1
proper coercion. I can lmrclly conceive u. jury in a pre-

dicament of wilful <1etermination to refuse to do their duty.
In every point of view, I have always thought, that of all
human institutions for the investigation of truth and the
rejection of falsehood and error, they are by far the most
competent judges imaginable. They are called upon to
perform a duty: they return again into society, when that
purpose is answered : they are liable to no temptation: they
have the common interest of their fellow-subjects in view:
they have every motive to induce them to do right: they
have no possible temptation to do wrong.
Is that, Sir, the case with judges? With regard to
the clause now proposed to be added to the bill, I think
it does not warrant our going into that consideration.
Upon that point, I will only beg to ash, who those
judges are to whom the explication of this law is meant
to be entrusted? After the passing of this bill, the ex-
cellent judge who appeared at our bar will be chief
justice no longer, unless he should he again called to
fill the same situation. The House, I trust, has not for-
gotten what he said with regard to himself upon that
subject. A question having been put to him, whether he
could make himself equally master of the Canadian law
as of the English law, he answered, that it would require a
great deal of time and attention, and he was afraid more abi-
lities than he was master of. I beg the learned gentleman will
tell us, whether he knows any one who has more abilities. I
do not know where such at man is to be found. I think it
will be diiiicult to meet with a man of that description.
The learned gentleman mistook when he spoke of a person
thrusting himself into a place, for the purpose of getting
what did not belong to him; and he affected to claim only
three hundred and sixty men, as the whole amount of the
nurnherof Protestantsin the colony; but, on this point, the
witness afterwards explained himself to mean three hundred
and sixty masters of families, making the number altogether
about two thousand: but, whether three hundred and sixty,
or two thousand, or twenty thousand, be their number, is no

Q70 DEBATES on run BILL [June 10,
part of the present question. These are men who did not
thrust themselves into the place, for the purpose of getting
what did not belong to them ; these are men invited thither;
these are men tempted thither. They thought they might
trust the King‘s word; they presumed that that word was
sacred; they did not foresee the time would come when any
man would dare to violate it : it imported nothing of impo-
sition to them. Those men, therefore, going thither upon 11
ground which they thought would not sink under them,
now address themselves to you, and claim the protection of
those laws, which are generally understood to secure to them
the due perforinance of all n1en’s engagements. That it is
the desire of these inhabitants to have the trial by jury in
civil causes introduced into this bill, every Witness at your
hm” has borne testimony. I apprehend that their situation
and condition, and the means by which they have been
brought into that situation and condition, give them a just
claim to the protection of the legislature. And why, Sir, is
the third class to which I have alluded supposed to be less
entitled in this case to consideration? They are known to
you as merchants trading to that part of the world: but
how long has it been the case, that merchants trading to
that part of the world have ‘not been worthy of attention ;
especially when they have this additional claim to urge-
that the difiiculties to which they are exposed sprung from
the same origin-—the King’s proclzunution P The same wit-
ness has told you, that they have formed connections in
that country ; that they have become creditors upon the faith
of having English laws; upon the faith of having English
juries to administer those laws, if they should want them.
The merchants are too contemptuously treated, if they are
left to suppose, that this measure is not to be uclged of at
all by their inclination. But, if I were of opinion that it
should solely depend upon the inclination of the Canadians,
since it is not mentioned that it is desired by the Canadians,
but only supposed that they are not averse to it, that they
would not oppose it, and though only t\vo classes would

1774.] 1-‘on run eovmummzr or evmmm 971
desire it, their right to it depending upon such grounds as
it does, I should say, there is nothing clearer, than that if
the measure is to depend upon the inclination of the inhabi-
tants, this inclination points clearly in its favour. But that
is not the point upon which the question rests; for though
it would he improper and iinpolitic to do any thing dis-
agreeable to certain classes of the people, yet if any doubt
exists, that doubt ought to be decided by your own judg-
ment. The I-Iouse ought to decide, whether it be proper to
adopt or to reject it.
Sir, I have felt it to be my duty to detain the House thus
long, in answer to the arguments which have been urged
on the other side. I have not given myself this trouble, from
any expectation that what I have said will produce any efl’e<:t;
but that I might reply to the only argument that has been
urged, and to state, that what I have heard has not, in any
degree, altered my opinion. One advantage, however, will
result from this discussion. The fact, that there was a division
upon this proposition will get into theJournals of the House,
and there stand a perpetual memento, that a small minority
were of opinion, thzit English trial by jury should not be
The S0licitov’~Ge1wral.—-It is not my intention to enter
into at debate on the other parts of the bill, but to confine
myself to the clause now offered by the honourable member.
It will not be, in my apprehension, an evidence that those
who vote for the clause are of the opinion‘ that the learned
gentleman supposes, even if they do support it. I do not
conceive, that it introduces an English jury into Canada.
It introduces an institution somewhat similar to an English
jury ; but one, in my opinion, very unfit to he adopted in any
country whatever. One argument made use of by the learned
gentleman struck me, I confess, as being extremely dange-
rous, and not stated with his usual discretion. The learned
gentleman established the truth of what, I believe, every
man in the House is extremely well convinc0d—-that the in<
stitution of trial by jury has been proved iuthis country to

2’72 DEBATES on THE mm, [June1O,
be superior to any other mode of trial, of \vhich we have
any account in history. He spoke with a laudable zeal
upon it: the custom cannot be carried too far, unless it
leads us to argue, from our own sentiments, that the
ideas oi” other men, when they are opposed to our
own, are gross, barbarous, and absurd : but it is still less a
fair argument to say to those who may be of a contrary
opinion-—“because I am convinced from experience of the
value of a jury–because I consider it congenial to the con-
stitution of this country–the1’ei’ore it is a matter of no
moment, whether you are satisfied with it or not; you are
deficient in good sense; you are blinded by prejudice: it
arises from the state of ignorance in which you live; you
must divest yourself of this barharism; he reformed; this
institution is best for you, because I know it is best for me.“
Such a line of argument would go to sanction the esta-
blishment of the worst institution, as well as the best.
Every nation is attached to its own usages. It requires us
only to read history to be convinced, that deluges of blood
have been spilt by nations, in their endeavour to force others
to adopt them, who have not had the same motives for vener-
ation and attachment to them. If you attempt by force to
make men change their customs: if you attempt to make
the establishment of the law precede the conviction of its
expediency, you exercise the same‘ power which the Span-
iards have exercised over their subjects in America; and
the establishment of the inquisition would he proved to
to be a right measure, from the conviction which the
Spaniards had, that it was good for Mexico, because it
was necessary for the constitution of Spain. They who
think their faith in spiritual things more valuable than
temporal felicity may, by a little stretch of reasoning, come
to the conclusion, that the inquisition is to be preferred to all
other considerations; and they would not think they acted
barbarously in speaking this language to the people—“Quit
your prejudices; be wise; agree with me in my reasoning,
without further enquiry: the institution is good foryou, not

1774,] FOR rue GOVERNMENT or omamac. 273
because you are convinced; not because I have taken any
pains to convince you, but because the force of conviction
in my o\vn mind makes me know that it is right for me, and
therefore it must be right for you.” I am not in the least dis-
posed to detract from any encomium which the learned
gentleman has bestowed upon trial by jury, although his
enthusiasm has led him a little beyond the bounds of
historical accuracy. He instances Mr. Hampderfs casein
favour of a jury. A jury never could exist in that case.
The learned gentleman supposes, that Mr. Hampden had
brought actions to recover, and that he had :1 verdict. The
case was this. He came in upon at process, pleaded to it,
and the deternlination was against him. A jury had no
more to do with the ease of Mr. Hampden, than the court
of chancery had.
I wish the learned gentleman who spoke last had not come
in under the prejudice, that the matter had been argued
di{l’erently to what it was. He supposed, that the merchants
had been considered as men who had no right to complain ;
though we all know, that had he been here, he ‘wou1d have
heard, that all possible regard was due to them, and that so
far from its being represented as impertinent in them toapply,
the noble lord had said, that the questions in which they
were concerned should be decided in the way most agreeable
to them, and that every possible degree of attention should
be shewn them.
Let me state, then, in a few words, how the bill stands.
In criminal eases, the trial by jury is to prevail uni~
versally: in civil matters, although by no means incompatible
with the institution of a jury, the bill states, that the laws
and customs of Canada. are to be the rule of decision-—not
that it shall be determined by the judges: it stands simply
thus——that the laws and customs of the province are to form
the rule of decision; but how those causes are to be tried,
what is to be the form of the jutlicature, of how many judges
the court is to consist-—all this is not stated in the bill, but
is provided for in the clause which reserves to his Majesty

2’74 l)El’;A’I‘ES on zrnn mm, [June 10,
the power to erect proper courts of justice. The institution
of a jury belongs to the jutlicature of the country.
I beg leave, in addition, to say what my opinion is upon
this particular part of the question. I think the sentiments of
the Canadians ought to he much attended to, in every regu-
lation we make; that this is the polar star to which all the
parts of the bill ought to be directed. Steering to that point,
We should endeavour to assimilate the laws and customs of
that country with those of our own: hut this is not to he
-‘clone by tyrannically introducing laws and customs to which
the people are strangers. No doubt the institution of a jury
‘for the trial of all facts, for determining the damages to
be awarded for breach of contract and the reparation of
_a wrong, is the best institution that can be devised: but
there are many countries which consider_themselves free,
that have no such advantages: there are many countries
junder British government which have no such advantage;
yet these countries would be a little astonished to be told
that they were slaves. They may be wrong in not having
adopted it; but custom reconciles them to institutions at-
tended with many inconveniences. I have not a doubt that
there is no form of judicature so excellent to determine all
inatters of fart, so excellent to determine the amount of
reparation for civil injuries, so excellent to determine
questions of criminal law, as a jury is; but there is one
principle of which I am equally well satisfied–which is,
that that form of administration of justice is best, which
the people over whom that justice is to be exercised think
the best; that it is of the utmost necessity, that the
people to whom justice is administered should think that
justice is well administered, and that they live under equal
law; under law administered to all men alike. It is of the
utmost necessity, that the opinion of the people should he
that ustice is done; and it is of equal importance with this
belief, that justice should be done. In the ahstract, in moral
matters, in edicts, in reference to Divine justice, in matters
of opinion, the first consideration is, that_justice should

1774-] FOR T1-IE GOVEItNM1£N’l‘ on‘ eunnize. 275
be done,-fiat justitia, ruat cmlmn’ but in political jus-
tice, it is full as important, that mankind should he satis-
fied that justice is done; that mankind should he satisfied,
that the mocle contrived for administrating justice is such,
that it will administer equal justice ‘to all. Thinking
so, I should hold it to be extremely unwise to tell a
people, whose manners, usages, habits of life and thinking,
would make them inclined to doubt that the mode you have
devised for them is the hest mode, that it is best for them,
because you have found it from experience to he the best
for yourselves.
It is in evidence at the bar–and I state it to the
House as my opinion, which I believe I can never alter
—-that the introducing of an English jury, in matters of
eivil right, would he totally unfit for the present state
of Canada–that the people would not believe that to
he justice which was so administered. In the first place,
Mr. Maseres, Mr. Hey, and General Carleton have all
stated their opinions. I give entire credit to the cau-
dour and ingenuousness of all those gentlemen Mr. Ma-
sercs has stated what he conceives to be the proper con»
stitution of 9. jury, the proper qualifications of jurymen,
under what course of regulations he thought Canada would
bear a jury. These are, that juryinen should be paid at the
rate of five shillings a man : whereby three pounds would he
added to the expense of the litigation; which is, perhaps, too
much. He thinks a jury should be composed of -an unequal
number, that a majority should decide, and that they ought
to be bound by a positive rule, in all eases, to find a special
verdict. Now, Sir, that is Mr. Maseres’s idea of :1 jury that
could obtain and could be received in Canada’; and with
which he thinks the people would be satisfied. But that is
not an English jury; that is setting project against project.
I think that is a bad institution of a jury, Many inconve-
niences woulcl attend it: they had hotter he without a jury,
until they are fitted to receive such ajury as would be more
‘r 2

276 DEHA’l‘T<)S on THE mm, [June I0,
It is supposed that Mr. Hey stated, that the Canadians
would have been satisfied at first to have admitted the trial.
by jury, hut that, by the encouragement since given them,
they had been induced to oppose it. Let us, Sir, consider
a moment what that proves. VVhatever the encouragement
was, it would not produce the wish, if they had it not;
but their readiness to express this wish, when encourage-
ment induced them to ‘do so, at least proves that the wish
existed; that the temper of the people went to the preserva-
tion of their old customs. I think the learned gentleman
overlooked what 2tf’terwa1‘(ls fell irom Mr. Hey, or he would
not have asked the question, why was that encouragement
given? He says, he knew of no particular encouragement;
that if there was any, it was not to be imputed to the gover-
/nor, who afforded no particular encouragement on the sub-
ject; but he said, it was a natural progression in the minds of
the people, who, from being at first in a state of distrac-
tion and despair, expecting to enjoy nothing, grew in hopes,
until they came to extend their wishes to therestitution
of their whole laws and customs.–oi’ all that had been the
favourite object of their earliest attachments.
Now, Sir, the evidence standing thus, what are we to do
upon the subject? VVill you disclaim juries for ever? By
no means. “Till you establish juries at once? I think
that would be equally wrong. Will you take the optional
jury ? If so, the clause is improperly worded. My objec-
tions go to the clause-—to the spirit and intention of it. It
cannot he meant to give a jury power, in all cases, to deter-
mine the issue at law; for, in some cases, if a jury knows its
duty, most undoubtedly it leaves the determining part of the
law to the court. In revenue causes, it is said, :1 jury is parti-
cularly proper. I have always seen juries in revenue causes
behave with the utmost honour; with the utmost candour,
with the utmost attention to the rights, puhlie and private,
of their fellow-subjects. T here is nothing more to he wished
for, in the conduct of juries in revenue eases, in this coun-
try. But, would that be the case in Canada? I do not say,

1774.] FOR THE GOVERNMENT or ouztmsc. 277
because the jury in Canada is apt to run riotous, that that
is an argument against its being eventually established
there: but the fact is, that two questions, standing pre-
cisely on the same grounds, have been determined in Eng-
land by a jury and judge in one way, and by a jury in
Canada in another. They were determined to find against
the direction of the judge. They were told of what had
happened in England; they were told of the conduct of the
English jury; they were told, that all the merchants were
satisfied with the verdict of that jury. Their duty was pressed
upon them. If they were right in determining that ques-
tion as they did determine it, the English jury was wrong.
Their conduct was the contrast to :1 better conduct here.
In England, the turn of men’s minds is formed to the
business of a jury. They come with previous knowledge
of their duties to the determination of this or that question.
They see, from daily experience, the conduct of juries in
various cases. They reflect upon that conduct. Juries
are not unsuited to their business in this country; but we
see that when a jury in Canada was empannelled, it would
not confine itself to its proper province and give 11 proper
But it is said, that all that is now proposed is an op-
tional jury. The first principle-gentlemen will feel the force
of it-the first important principle is, that the people should
admit thatjustice is well administered. VVith optional juries,
Sir, one party must he dissatisfied. If the plaintiii” talks of
option, the defendant conceives that it would he disadvan-
tageous to him. I have no idea of an optional jury : where-
evcr it is fit to admit ajury, let there be no option: let the
same mode of trial prevail with regard to all causes: let not
the parties decide for themselves. An optional jury is a
thing abhorrent to the law of England. The friends of the
parties to the cause decide it; -whereas, it should be decided
without rei’erence to the inclinations, prejudices, or fancies
of either party.
How far, then, might the trial by jury be admitted into

278 nnmrns or rm: mu [June 10,
Canada? In all cases of contract; in all cases of repara-
tion of wrong; in all cases not of legal difficulty, a jury
would do extremely well in Canada; but not if you. force
it upon them; not if you say, you must take it. Its
success would then be impossible‘ Juries might prevail, in
any given court to be erected; all the mechanical parts
being given, just as juries are occasionally resorted to, by
order of the court of chancery. There is scarcely a day in
which the courtofchancery does not senal something tohe tried;
by a jury. I think it is the duty–I think it is the interest
—-of those to whom the administration of Cflnélda
will be committed, to cherish this disposition to promote trial
by jury. Whatever courts of jurlicature are erectecl should
be erected so as to leave the power of resorting to juries
very large and full indeed.
I beg pardon of the House for having gone pretty much
at large into the general question. Thouglm incapable of
forming a decided judgment upon the business, having expe-
rienced great difi’erence of opinion upon it, I am, upon the
whole, inclined to think that, at a given time of their estab-
lishment, trial by jury ought to exist in Canada, and that
it is a matter of expedience whether this is the time or not ;
but above all, I am totally and entirely against this optional!
Mr. Thomas Towns/zeml, jun. -‘- As I took the liberty
to second the motion of the honourable gentleman, I beg
leave to say a few words in support of it. The subject of
it is a matter of great concern to the people of Canada.
Much has been said upon the want of education on the
part of the Canadians, as unfitting them to serve upon
juries. Now, I own it is my opinion -— an erroneous one,
perhaps -—that almost any education fits a man for serving
on a jury. Much, too, has been said with regard to the
petition of the Canadians; but I think I am justified in
asserting, that though, in that petition, I find them express~
ing a desire to have their own laws and customs restored
to them, by what rule you can discover in any of those

petitions, that their prayer is confined to the criminal laws
alone, I am at ti loss to judge. When I consider the ma-
terials of which Canadian judges have been made, I do not
think the Canadians will have much satisfaction, ii’ they
forego the advantage of a jury, and place them under their
care. No gentleman will suppose by this, that I moan any
reflection on Mr. Hey; but such men are not often to be
found. I believe the emolument is a. thousand a-year; and
there are not many men of his talents to be found, for ten
thousand a-yeatr; particularly, when it is remembered, that
the ofiice is not very acceptable to an Englishman. I do
not wish to go back to the predecessors of Mr. Hey and
Mr. Maseres ; but may not the dislike of the Canadian to
English law be reasonably supposed to proceed from
the manner in which that law was administered, rather
than from hostility to the law itself? At one time, an
army surgeon, a gentleman certainly very respectable by
education, presided in the court of King’s bench; but, not
being versed in the English law, he could not impress the
Canadians with any exalted opinion of the benefit of that
law.——I have repeatedly asked, who is the author of this
hill? The noble lord has tolcl us, that no ministerial in-
fluence has been exerted. From what quarter, then, does
this aversion to the introduction of trial by jury into the
bill—— this general condemnation of the law of England-
proceed P If there is blame, it is but just that those who
have not incurred that blame should throw it off their
shoulders; if there is merit, it is wrong to withhold from
them the honest applause of their country, There has been
a great deal of skill and dexterity in the framing of it, in
defining it, from the different evidences of different gentle
men. Not choosing to abide by the evidence of one man,
the concoctors of it have adopted the most exceptionable
part of the evidence of every one.–With regard to the
governor, as 2. military man, I entertain for him great
respect; as at gentleman, every body respects him: and, if
despotic government is to be trusted to any hands—- I will

£86 nnnnrns 0N THE BILL [June I0,
not say it will be safe in those of General Carleton—— hut
I am persuaded it will be as safe in his as in any ho-
dy”s. This is only doing justice to his character. VVhen
I recollect the complexion of his evidence, I am convinced
that he is determined to do right; and I wish to throw as
few obstacles in his way as possible. If there are any
inaccuracies in the wording of this clause, let us amend
them; but dd not let us leave the bill without any English
M1‘. Ambleuill–Tliis is not a question, whether trial by
jury is to he introduced into the new settl0ments’now to he
formed; it is not a question, whether trial by jury should
be iutroclucezi among the people of Canada, ‘pr0vided they
are disposed to receive it; but whether it would be politic
to force that particular form upon a hundred thousand per-
sons, contrary to their inclinations. If this is so, why in»
trocluce any other law? or if you introduce any other, why
confine yourselves to the trial by jury? why not introduce
the habcasicorpus? If that was to be the case, I believe
you would he deceiving and provoking the Canadians; for
you hold out, in this bill, that you will not take from
them any law whatever contrary to their inclinations.
That they are not inclined ‘to receive this law you have
evidence at the bar, and particularly the evidence of M,
Lotbiniére. v
Mr. Byng-(‘1)-—~A learned gentleman some time ago in-
formed the House, that this bill would not destroy juries
in Canada; now, I have always understood, that there was no
institution in Canada that answered, in any shape, the
description of a jury. I am next told, that the establish-
ment ofjuries is to be left to the will of the council; hut I
had rather take this half of it, than trust to a council, who
hold their situations at the pleasure and will of the Crown.
There is scarcely a clause in the hill but is left to the
(‘) Kings council, nnd solicitonganeral to the Queen.
(’) George Byng, Esq., of Wrotham Park; father of the present member
for Midzllesex.

1774.] non “run eovmiunnnr or ounnuc. 9281
pleasure of the Crown; which appears, indeed, to he the
main drift of the whole bill. In comparison with the bill
intended to be introduced, I understand it is drawn up
in a tone and spirit quite legal and constitutional; and this
makes me join with my honourable friend in his anxiety
to know, who the author of this bill is. Who the author
is we have not been informed. He must be some great
character of the law. Finding they cannot succeed in
destroying the power of juries at home, it seems to he
their intention to try what they can do in that distant
country. They want to know first, whether such an
attempt will be tolerated by three hundred and sixty British
families. I do not place implicit confidence in everything
that is advanced with regard to this bill. The happiness
of the Canadians is said to he the main object; and yet,
when the question was asked, whether it would make the
Canadians happy, wewere told, that that was :1 question with
which we had nothing to do. Sir, when gentlemen argue
upon such grounds, I cannot but think there must be some-
thing concealed. The Canadians are said to be a docile
people. Good God! are we to go to Canada for doeilityi’
WVe have such instances before our eyes, that we need not
go to Canada for docility.
Governor J0lmstone.—I understand, Sir, the question
before you to be, whether or not, in all civil causes, when the
value is above ten pounds, u trial by jury may not he insti-
tuted in any court of justice, at the demand of either of the
contending parties. I am very sensible how extremely the
prejudices of the people of this country run in favour of
juries. I believe, not only from experience, but upon the
soundest reasoning, that this institution ought to he sup-
ported; yet I must acknowledge, with respect to other
countries, that it ought only to he introduced upon much
consideration. In the determination of property, which
depends upon diii’erent pleadings and clifierent statements, I
do not, indeed, know whether you could allow it, in its
utmost extent, without some prejudice. I may instance the

282 ]JEI)1\’l‘ES on THE BILL [June 10,
country in which‘ I was born; though having loft it very
young, I cannot pretend to a great acquaintmaee with itslaws
and customs. My conueetion with it has, nevertheless,
occasioned me to turn -my thoughts much towards the sub-
ject. Now, suppose upon a trial respecting civil property,
you were to introduee ajury in all eases whatever, 1 do think
it might he attended with danger-ot\s consequences: but to
say you should exclude it in all cases would be equally
absurd. Let gentlemen consider what is the constitution of
Scotland, with respect to this question. The moment you
pass :1. particular line-»I am not speaking with prejudice
against the country in which I was horn; all things consi-
dered, I think I like it better than this, but that shall not
bias my judgment—~s.fter you pass a particular line, the
people have no civil rights, except that of voting for m<-ms
hers of parliament; no juries in cases of eivil propertyl
You go into a country abounding in scenes of Wretcheclncss,
calculated to call forth the eommisemtion of mankind. I
am convinced, that this arises alone from their being de~
privecl of trial by jury, and from their not being permitted to
vote for members of parliament, unless they possess a high
qualification; which, of course, cannot he the case with the
lower class of the people. Thus, they have no protection.
To sit as :1 juror gives a man respect in the community : it
makes him feel his rights; and it is this feeling which tends
above all others, to difiuse the love of liberty in its greatest
extent.–Notwithstanding all that has been said, I much
doubt whether it would be wise to leave this question to
be settled by the legislative council. VVhy, for the honour
of a, British assembly, will you leave it at the pleasure of
tho Crown? A learned gentleman has said, that we all
go upon the supposition that a jury cannot be ad-rnitted,
but that the thing is left open. VVas it left open, when the
bill first came into this House? The words inserted by the
noble lord have left it open. These Words were, that “ in
all matters of controversy relative to property and civil
rights, resort shall he had to the laws of Canada, as the rule

1774.] IP01; run GOVERNMENT or ewnnno. 283
for the decision of the same.” These words, few in theuu
solves but of great comfort to my mind, were not intro~
duced into the hill originally; and I say, that it is the
duty -of the House to follow up this concession further.
The greatest advantage I find in a jury is, in their ability
to resist the power of the Crown, to give what damages
they please, and to withstand the judge, if he should go
too far. For gentlemen to say, that trial by jury will he
introduced by the legislature of the country, while they
themselves leave it in suspense, is confessing, in fact, that
the thing is right, but that, coming from the House of
~Lords, they are ashamed of sending the bill back with
this amendment. l
Mr. Ealmu/ml BurIce.—I have heen waiting, Sir, for some
gentleman on the other side to rise; but finding, in this
last moment of our proceedings on this bill, that no one
appears inclined to do so, I wish to other a very few words;
feeling, at this late hour of the night, that what I may lose
in attention, I shall gain in partiality. I chiefly address
myself, Sir, to those honourable members who have just
come into the House and have not heard any part of the
debate, but who now come here with all the good humour
which an English dinner naturally produces. Though we
have not been so fortunzrte as to have the majority at the
beginning, I have no doubt that these gentlemen, having
eaten a good English dinner, which is the best thing for an
English constitution, will enable us to triumph in the end.
I should have been afraid of encountering such at body of
power and wisdom as presents itself on the other side of the
House, if I had not found that the noble lord and his two
great oracles of law and order, had all difl’ered in their
opinions. Finrling them thus at variance, I thought the
moment would be favourable to my view of the question,
and I proposed my amendment; to which tho noble lord
replied, that he did not disagree with the structure of the
clause-_that he might fall in with it at u future time, but
that he should certainly oppose it at present. A learned

28/1‘ DEBATES on rm: mm, [June 10,
gentleman said, that the view he took was extremely con-
sistent with that clause, and that the bill would he so foimed
as to leave its insertion possible; but my hopes were damped
again, when he told me, that if he did agree with this
clause, he ditl not agree with that form of judicature which
it proposed to establish. Thus, what comfort I got by the
clause, I lost by the constitution of the judicature that was
to follow. Then I found myself in my original despair;
but how comforted \vas I, when another learned gentleman
got up and said, that he was in hopes that the constitution
of the courts of Canada. would admit, ata future day, of the
introduction of an English trial by jury ; but that it was not
prudent to introduce it at present. Thus, what I had got by
law, I lost by prudence. I attended——it was my duty
to attencl–to this suggestion. The learned gentleman threw
out panegyrics upon juries— panegyrics upon juries in civil
causes-—-but thought it was not yet prudent to introduce
them universally, because the inclinations of the Canadians
are alien, their dispositions unsuited, to their estahlishmentl
The learned gentleman added, however, that he was in hopes
that, by degrees, they would like them; and, recollecting that
men get reconciled to most things by habit, I thought the
giving them this optional jury was the best way of leading
them into the habit of having juries. I approved of it
upon the maxim, that “half a loaf is better than no bread.”
The Canadians are now in possession of the practice of juries
without complaining. Has any one complained, either by
speech or on paper, that ajury, at the option of the parties,
is odious to the Canadians? Then, Sir, you are going to
take away by force the constitution of the people, of which
they are in actual possession, and against which they have
not made a single complaint. Observe! I do not prefer
optional juries; but I must, it seems, accept them, or go
without any.
I will now pass to the other part of the question–the
alleged hatred of the Canadians to serve on juries; their
inaptitude to the exercise of the functions. But a jury

1774,] non rm: covanmxnnr or QUEBEC. 285
may be fit for them, though they may‘ not ‘b’e fit for
jurymen. A love of justice must belong to the Cana-
dians, as well as to other people ; and I cannot believe that
trial by jury is an odious thing to men who are subject to
no undue prepossession against it. In a question upon
matter of fact, where evidence is taken upon oath, between
parties who are flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone, is there
any thing calculated so to prejudice mankind, as to make
them look upon the question of trial by jury as an
odious thing? VVhat is the reason that youcannot repose
confidence in the known reason of men, as well in that
country as in this ?—But it is said, the people of Canada are
averse to juries ! Have they complained of ajuryi’ VVe have
not one single syllable of complaint, which has been taken at
firsthand. Opinions inferred from conversations may be
very easily mistaken. They may have complained, very pro-
perly, that they. found the laws of the land all shaken; that
they found a new rule given them, by which their family
settleinénts were all de1’a11g‘ed ; ‘that they were deprived of
all share in the goverrnnent. But, Sir, as to the alleged
dislike of these people to the trial by jury, what does the
gentleman who filled the ofiice of Attorney~General in that
country with so much honour to hiniself tell you ?’ Did lie
point outithisfact? Did he ever give such evidence? ‘He
spoke flatly to the contrary. He constantly spoke of it,‘
not as a thing which ‘they disliked, but as one of which
they were ignorant.‘ Now, dislike and ignorance are very
different things. In their ignorance they confused the idea.
of ai grand jury with that of a petty jury, and esteemed the
law a tyranny. Even Mr.‘ Hey’s evidence had only a dubious
word. or two in‘ it.
_Havingicleared my way thus far, there remains nothing
but the evidence of at general ofliceizi He, to be sure,
spoke of the ignorance of the people of Canada: he told
us of their having no wish to be tried by juries; that
they preferred the rnode of trial by a judge, from custom,
habit, and education; and that they thonghtlit strange that

286 nnnnrns on THE mm. -_ [June 10,
the English residents should prefer to have their lives and
properties decided upon by”barl1ers’ and shoemakers. You
see, Sir, how much these people are to be‘ pitied whose au-
thority is thus quoted; how ignorant, how much deceived,
were those persons whoiconversed with this great officer!
how little they knew of the nature of that institution
which they condemned ! Their objection was chiefly an 0b~
jection of pride. Now, if that was a good reason to urge
against the institution there, it is :1. good reason against it
here. But the objections of the Canadians, so for as they
are solid and substantial, are easily removeable, without
injury to trial by jury. With regard to the objection,
that it is humiliating to be tried by a jury, it can only come
from those who are desirous of being above the law; who
are ambitious of lordingit over their brethren. ,’I‘o check
that disposition would be one of my reasons for giving a
jury; because giving a jury would be giving protection
to the majority of the people, against those whose pride and
arrogance make them say it is humiliating to submit to a
jury. I have no obgjection to all the authority which weight
of family, great name, and fixed property in the country
Icon confer. Tliese are always respectable. But how does
the establishment of triél by jury necessarily contradict the
feelings of ‘this class? Iirdoes not contradict their feelings
in this country. All the objections of the Cmmdizuis against
the measure therefore ought to vanish. ‘
The next objection urged against the establishment of
juries is, that they would be 21 hufrthen to the people.‘ Now,
that is an objection of another sort; but what sort of
objection is it? The learned gentleman has stated it with’
truth: he says, that no man is willing to be a juror, he-
causo he is‘e1 juror for the benefit of the community, not for
his own benefit. There is no one hut would’Wish to be
excused from discharging the duties of the office. In
many cases here, men must be forced to serve. Why not
do in Canada, as we do here? But, if a small allowance
were made, such a1 measure, I have no doubt, would recon-

1774.] FOR THE GOVERNMENT or ounnnc. 28’?
cile the Canadians :—~I would, however, rather try a little
longer, and see whether these two objections, that a jury
is oppressive to the poor and humiliating to the rich, cannot
be thoroughly removed without it.
Another thing I forgot to allude to. We are told, that
to require unanimity in a jury shocks the Canadians. The
learned gentleman gave a suflicient answer to this objection ;
but I shall beg leave to acid a few words more. He ohsrvecl,
that it was the very substance and character of a jury to be
unanimous. Truly, Sir, I know it is the substance and
character of a jury to he unanimous by our law; but if I
could be sufl’ered, in a great public cause, to give an opinion;
-I do not think that unanimity is absolutely necessary, but
that the majority of a. jury might do just as well. I believe
it would prove no inconvenience; because, oven in this
country, the majority of a jury always turns the scale. The
inconvenience is this,—the 1-est, finding they must yield,
trifle with their oath; they cannot he quite so strict with
their oath as I could wish them. I believe that, by the pay-
ment of a very small remuneration for the loss of time, all
objections to juries will vanish. One learned gentleman has
suggested, that compensation might be given to a jury to
the amount of three pounds: but let it be left to the judge,
jury, and counsel to adapt the payment to the nature of the
cause. Most blaxneable will they be, if they establish such
compensation as will make the expense eat out the suit.
Having said this, I would remark, with regard to what
the learned gentleman has charged against us about forcing
laws upon them, that all such accusations vanish into air:
they are not applieable to the case. We do not know that
they abhor ajury–that they abhor acollectivejury, in which
they themselves will bear a considerable Part4 If it he
p1’0pOSe¢l hereafter to give a jury to Canada, what will the
answer be P “ Dare I give what the parliament of England
has refused?” You never will have :1 jury, if you do not put
it into this bill: it is absolutely and clearly impossible.
How many years elapsed, before you thouglit of making

9388 nrcnnres on run BILL [June 10,
any constitution for Canada at all ! And now, instead of
making them free subjects of England, you sentence them
to French government forages. I meant only to offer a few
words upon the part of the Canadians, and leave them to
their misery. They are condemned slaves by the British
parliament. You only give them new masters. There is
an end of Canada.
Sir, having given up a hundred and fifty thousand of these
people, having deprived them of the principles of our consti-
tution, let us turn our attention to the three hundred and
sixty English families. It is asmall number;butl have heard,
that the English are not to he udged of by number but by
weight; and that one Englishman can heat two Frenchmen.
Let us not value that prejudice. I do not know that one
Englishman can beat two Frenchmen ; but I know that, in
this case, he ought to be more valuable than twenty Frenchs
men, if you estimate him as a freeman and the Frenchmen
as slaves. What can compensate an Englishman for the loss
of_ his laws? Do you propose to take away liberty from the
Englishman, because you will not give it to the French? I
would give it to theEnglishman, though ten thousand French-‘
men should take it against their will. .Two-thirds of the
whole trading interest of Canada are going to be deprived of
their liberties, and handed over to French law and French
juclicature. Is that just to Englishmen ? Surely,the English
merchants want the protection of our law more than the
noblesse l They have property always at sea; which, if it is
not protected by law, every one may catch who can. No
English merchant thinks himself armed to protect his
property, if he is not armed with English law. I claim
protection for the three hundred and sixty English families,
whom I do know, against the prejudices of the noblesse of
Canada, whom I do not know. I must put the House in
mind of what an honourable gentleman said in the course of
this dehate—that it was seldom that any improvement was
introduced into any country, which did not, at first, mili~
tate against the prejudices of the people. l/Vas all England

. .
1774.} Fort rm; eovnitumrmr or QUEBEC. 5289
pleased with the revolution? No. The wishes of the majority
were sacrificed to the reason of the better part, and the
interest of the whole; and we are now enjoying the beuc~
fits of that choice—benefits brought upon the ignorant
people, not by force, but with an easy hand. The Ca-
nadians are now struggling with their old prejudices in
favour of their former laws. A new establishment is proposed
to them; which throws them into some disorder, some con~
fusion–“ All the interim is like a phantasma and a hideous
dream.” The honourable gentlemen opposite, taking advan-
tage of this confusion, say-—VVe have got a basis ; let us sec
how much French law we can introduce! With a French
basis, there is not one good thing that you can introduce.
VVitli an English basis, there is not one bad thing tliat
you can introduce. Take the rule of the law of Canada
for the rule of the constitution of your courts, and it will be
the rule of all your proceedings : take it for the rule of your
judicature, and sooner or later, it will be the rule of your
legislature. How often have we had occasion in this House
to quote the practice of the courts below! how many lights
have we derived from the learned gentlemen pleading there !
how many lights have we derived from you, Sir! how many
from thejudicature of the up ‘ H – ‘ W] ‘ h ‘ ‘
per ousc. 1018 t oieisa
basis of I<‘renchjuclicature, of French law, the legislature will
never think of grafting upon it an English constitution.
With regard to state policy, which is the last point I
shall touch upon-—the preservation of their old prej udiccs,
their old laws, their old customs, by the bill, turns the
bzihanfe in fgvoui’ of jzlrance. The only difference is, they
W1 lave eorge tie Third for Lcwis_ the Sixteenth.
In order to make Canada a secure possession of the British
governrplent, you hlave only; to bilnd thlelaeople to you, by
giving em your aws. ive tiem ‘nwlish liberty—~¢rive
them an English constitution~—and then, fvhether they sgeak
French or English, whether they go to mass or attend our
own communion, you will render them valuable and useful
subjects of Great Britain. If you refuse to do this, the
U ,

290 DEBA‘l‘1’L$ on ‘l’I~TE mm. [June10,
consequence will be most injurious : Canada will become a
dangerous instrument in the hands of those who wish to
destroy English liberty in every part of our possessions.
The question being then put, that the said clause he read
a second time, the House divided-
‘l‘m.m<;ns. Mr. Maokworth . . . . . . YEAS {Mr Thomas Townshend, jun. . . } 40 Mr. Bradshaw . . . . . NOES {M12 Robinson . . . l 83 So it passed in the negativefi” Mr. Thomas Townshend, jun. —- I rise to move a clause, for making temporary that part of the bill, which relates to the legislative council. M. Lotbiniére certainly deserves the character given him by the noble lord, and I beg to refer the noble lord to his evidence, in which he stigmatizes the,hill as a plan of despotism. He says; that if it passes he will never return to Canada. Ii” the motion is agreed to, Ishall propose to fill up the blank with the words ‘f seven years.” _ Lpfd NortIt.-‘l‘hat this establishment is not to be con- sidered perpetual, is admitted in the bill itself. The only effect of any limitation is to weaken the authority of govern- ment. As soon as the Canadians shall be in a condition to receive an assembly, it will be right they should have one. They will naturally wish to get the government into their own hands. Though I would give the Canadians their laws; though I would give them their religion; I do not think it would be wise, at present, to give them an assembly. It is the opinion of‘ M. Lotbiniére, that the admission of Canadians into the legislative council will have the most salutary effect. His objection went upon (‘) “ I voted in the majority.”-—I-I. C. 1774.] FOB. THE GOVERNMENT on QUEBEC. Q91 the supposition, that no Canadians would be admitted into it. Mr. Thomas Townshend, jun.-——’.L‘he situation of the Canadians is really an extraordinary one. If they are so misled, so prejudiced, as not to wish for an institution so favourable to liberty, as we in this country conceive an assembly to be, you exclaini, do not force liberty upon them ! But, if their eyes are open to its advantages, and they begin to desire it, you then say, recollect they are Roman Cath0~ lies, born subjects of France, and, consequently, not to be trusted ! This is the first time I ever heard that experi- mental legislation ought not to be temporary. It‘, at the expiration of seven years, you find they are not in a situ- ation to enjoy the conferrecl benefit, you can then with- hold it. Mr. Stanley/.—The Canadians, if attached to the idea of a general assembly, will look upon this clause as a promise from the legislature, that they shall obtain it. Now, it would be very unwise, if you have a distrust and jealousy of their fidelity, to create such an impression. VVe should be contracting an engagement with the Canadians, which the constitution may not enable us to make good. The question was put, that this clause be read a second time; which passed in the negative. Mr. Dempster.—I rise to propose :1 clause, for establish— ing rules to be observed on the making of ordinances. La,- ziness and precipitation, ignorance and folly, eternally attend despotic governments. The people ought to know what ordinances are passed; and it would be well if the supreme court ofjustiee had a negative upon any cdict. Lord No1″th.——I cannot adopt the proposition of giving the power of a negative to the supreme court of justice. It is taken from a supposed practice on the part of the go- vernment of France. They say, that there should be a. power of negativing all edicts; but the people there do not claim a negative,‘ and the chief justice will be one of the legislative council. Tt is certainly right, that every matter U 2 Q92 DEEATES on Tim mu. [June 10, of importance should be placed upon the minutes, and that, in passing laws, they should not be passed at one sitting: that is of great consequence. But the legislative council is already very much limited; and such regulations will he much better made in another place. Parliament should not go further than merely lay down the principle. We should produce much embarrassment by taking upon our- selves the task of regulating the minuter details of legis- lation. A11. Dempstea-.—I will not insist upon any clause at this time of night, or in this advanced stage of the debate. The regulation proposed was not taken from the constitution of France: we have a precedent much nearer home, made last session of parliament, relative to the government of the East India Company. All orders were to be registered; till which they were to have no eiiect: the noble lord himself proposed that regulation. I did not expect — which is the case as this law now stands–that we should have delivered over the Canadians to his Majesty and his ministers, to he dealt with according to their pleasure, without its ever being in our power to relieve theni. I shall propose an amencl~ ment, on bringing up this clause, for the introduction of the law of habeas corpus, and of hail in cases of commitment. Lord Clare. -—- I submit, whether it would not he better to have this clause brought” up, and placed on the votes. The noble lord says, he does not object to the principle : if the Canadians do not see the clause, they may suppose that his objection lies against the principle. Mr. Dempster.-—If instructions are given to the governor, the Canadians will see, that there is no objection to the principle. The clause was brought up, and read the first, but not the second time. Mr. Dempsfe1′.——Aftcr the words “criminal law of Eng- land,” I propose that the words “ and of the English laws 1774.] 1-‘on THE (:OVERNMEN’1‘ on onnnrtc. 298 ofhabeas corpus and of bail in cases of commitmentfl be added. The question was then put, that the words “ and of the English laws of habeais corpus and of bail in cases of com~ mitment,” be inserted. The House divided:»—Yeas, 21; Nocs, 76. So it passed in the negativefll Mr. Dempstea-.’—I beg leave to propose, that the legisla- tive assembly have full power and authority to meet in open council. In all assemblies abroad, they debate in open council. Lord North.-—It is a great convenience in courts of juclicature, but not in legislative proceedings. VVhether they will admit witnesses must be left to themselves. In point of fact, I believe the honourable gentleman has been misinformed as to assemblies abroad. The motion was uegatived. ‘ Mr.Dem>/pster.-Whetl1e1~ the governor shall preside in
the legislative council, or Whether its edicts shall be brought
to him for his approbation, is not expressed in the bill. I
think it better that the governor should not be present.
Let him be presumed present, like his Majesty.
Lord North. –Whether the assembly should sit with or
without the governor, I cannot say; but he is to have the
The bill was ordered to be read the third time on Monday.
‘ Mahday, June 13.
The order of the day was read for the third reading of
the bill.
Mr. Charles F001.-I do not rise, Sir, to enter into a de-
bate on the merits of this bill, but to desire that the entry on
(‘) “ I voted against inserting these \verds.”–H. C.

294 ])E)3A’l‘ES on Tnn mm. [Jur|el3,
the journals of this House of the 5th of March, 1677, may
be read. [The said entry was accordingly read by the clerk,
and is as follows; — “ An engrossed hill from the Lords,
iutituled, ‘ An Act for the better payment of church-rates,
small tithes, and other church duties,’ resolved, that the bill
be rejected.”] I believe, Sir, I need not make any observations
upon the passage just read, to prove that the House of Com-
mons, at that time, considered bills relating to tithes as be-
longing exclusively to this House. Indeed, I do not know how
they could possibly regard them otherwise. We are now, Sir,
to consider, for the last time, whether this hill is so good st
bill—so congenial to the feelings and habits of those for
whose benefit it is alleged to he brought in _ that, for the
sake of passing it, we should give up one of the most
ancient, most important, I might say, most inalienable pri-
vileges of this House. I could not forbear saying thus
‘n1uch;’ for it has ever been my fortune to stand up in de-
fence of its privileges. I have always acted with pleasure
with those who said, that our glory depends upon our pri-
vileges: I have always difiiered from those who abandon
those privileges. In the course of this parliament, we have
given up privileges enough, and at the end of it, if we pass
this hill, we shall give up the only privilege not yet vio-
lated. I submit to the House, whether they will close this
parliament, with giving up the only privilege left.—~VVc
have sufiered every insult but this last. VVill you end this
parliament with submitting to that? Having said thnsmuch,
I will only add a few words, to show that this privilege is
undoubtedly acknowledged, not only with regard to tithes,
but as to all manner of dues that may be raised. If any
man can find out an argument, to prove that raising tithe is
not raising money, raising dues, 8:0. I should be glad to
hear him; but, assuming that to he impossible, I would
only submit, whether this privilege should. he given up at
this time, for the sake of such a bill as this, or for the
sake of any bill whatever. After having given up privi-
leges of various kinds, such as those of protection to juries,

1774.] non Tun (§0\7EltI\‘MI~lNT on QUEBEC. FZQ5
and of judgment upon elections ; after having suffered
poor printers to insult us with impunity, on the principle
that they were too eontemptihle to he resisted—are We
now to crown all, by considering the House of Lords as too
eontemptihle to he opposed, and to surrender to them a pri-
vilege, that \ve have carefiilly retained until this time?
Mr. C00per.—The House is certainly inueh obliged to
the honourable gentleman for his great care of its privileges,
upon this and every other occasion; but I can assure him,
that those privileges are left untouched and unaffected by
this hill. For the correctness of this assertion, I refer him to
the proceeding in the reign of King William; when the
Lords having sent down a hill for the more speedy and more
easy recovery of small tithes, the Commons, on the 9th of
F upon anylands, within the countries above described, or upon
any other lands, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by
us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to
remove themselves from such settlements.
And whereas great frauds and abuses have been committed in
the purchasing lands of the Indians, to the great prejudice of our
interests, and to the great dissatisfaction of the said Indians; in
order, therefore, to prevent such irregularities for the future, and
to the cnd that the Indians may be convinced of our justice and
determined resolution to remove all reasonable cause of discontent,
We do, with thc advice of our privy council, strictly enjoin and
require, that no private person do presume to make any purchase
from the said Indians of any lands reserved to the said Indians
within those parts of our colonies where we have thought proper
to allow settlement; but that, if at any time, any of the said
Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said lands, the same
shall be purchased only for us, in our name, at some public
meeting or assembly of the said Indians, to he held for that pur-
pose by the governor or commander-in-chief of our colony respec-
tively, within which they shall lie: and in case they shall lie
_within the limits of any proprietarios, conformable to such direc-
tions and instructions, as we or they shall think proper to give
for that purpose : and We do, by the advice of our privy council,
declare and enjoin, that the trade of the said Indians shall he free
and open to all our subjects whatever, provided that every person
who may incline to trade with the said Indians, do take out a
licence for carrying on such trade, from the governor o1’com-
mander-in-chief of any of our colonies respectively, where such
person shall reside, and also give security to observe such rogu-
lations as we shall at any time think fit, by ourselves or c0rnmis~
saries, to be appointed for this purpose, to direct and appoint for
the benefit of the said trade: and we do hereby authorize, enjoin,
and require the governors and commanders-in-chief of all our
colonies respectively, as well those under our immediate govern-
ment, as those under the government and direction of proprietaries,
to grant such licences without fee or reward, taking especial care
to insert therein a condition, that such licence shall he void, and
the security forfeited, in case the person, to whom the same is
granted, shall refuse or neglect to observe such regulations as We
shall think proper to prescribe as aforesaid.

And we do further expressly enjoin and require all oflicers
whatever, as well militélry as those employed in the management
and direction of Indian affairs within the territories reserved, as
aforesaid, for the use of the said Indians, to seize and apprehend
all persons whatever, who, standing charged with 1.1-essons, mis-
prisions of treasons, murders, or other felonies or misdemeuneurs,
shall fiy from justice and take refuge in the said territory, and to
send them under u proper guard to the colony where the crime
was committed of which they shall stand accused, in order to take
their trial for the same.
Given at om” Court of St. James’s, the 7th day of Oc-
tober, 1763, in the third year of our reign.
Prlmed by .1, L. Cox and Sons, 75, Great Queen Street,
Lincnlu‘s»lx|n Fields

Read less

Leave a Reply