creating dissension among nations. He never thought the National Assembly was imitated so well as in the debate then going on. M. Gazales could never utter a single sentence in that assembly without a roar.

Mr. M. A. Taylor spoke to order. He thought the discussion was carried forward to no good purpose. He said he revered and respected the character of his friend. They came to argue the question of the Quebec Bill: they were not discussing the English constitution, but whether, in fact, they ought to give the British constitution to Canada; and if they ought to give it, whether the present bill gave it. When he should be permitted to give his opinion, he should endeavour to shew that the bill did not give our constitution to that country. He said he must insist on the rule of order. They were then discussing whether it would be right to give Canada our own constitution; and, secondly, if it were right to give it, whether that bill had given it.

Mr. Burke submitted to the Committee whether he was or was not in order. The question was whether the bill was then to be read paragraph by paragraph. It was in a fair way in reasoning to see what experiments had been made on other countries. His right honourable friend had said that nobody had the least idea of borrowing any thing of the French revolution in the bill. Mr. Burke asked how his right honourable friend knew that? For any thing he knew, he (Mr. Burke) himself, might mean to insert some clause. If he were to be stopped, he asked why was it not in the beginning, and before he had fully declared the French revolution to be the work of folly and not of wisdom? It was the work of vice, and not of virtue. If the Committee would permit him to go on, he should endeavour to meet the most captious ideas of order. He declared he would not suffer friend nor foe to come between his assertion and his argument, and thereby to make him a railer. His honourable friend had said that although he did not do

it himself, he was probably, though unwittingly, the instrument of some other people's folly. He declared he had not brought forward this business from any views of his own. If they did not suffer the affair to be discussed; if they shewed a reluctance to it—

Here Mr. St. John called Mr. Burke to order, and said the discussion could not be brought forward with any regard to order. He really asked it as a favour of his right honourable friend, that he would fix a day on which he would bring on the discussion of the French constitution. He said he knew the English constitution; he admired it; he daily felt the blessings of it. He should be extremely sorry if any person in England should endeavour to persuade any man or body of men to alter the constitution of the country. If his right honourable friend had made the French revolution the subject of a distinct discussion, that would be bringing it on in a fair way. If his friend felt the mischiefs of the French constitution as applicable to the English constitution, let him appoint a day for that discussion. This he requested of his right honourable friend as a particular favour.

Mr. Martin was of opinion that the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Burke) was not irregular in speaking of the French constitution. He had formerly heard a right honourable gentleman say that the public had a right to the sentiments of public men on public measures, and therefore he hoped the right honourable gentleman would be permitted to go on.

Mr. Barke in reply said, he meant to take the sense of the Committee whether or not he was in order. He declared, he had not made any reflection, nor did he mean any on any one gentleman whatever. He was as fully convinced as he could be that no one gentleman in that House wanted to alter the constitution of England. The reason why, on the first regular opportunity that presented itself, he was anxious to make his reflections on the subject was,

because it was a matter of great public concern, and occasion called for his observations. As long as they held to the constitution, he should think it his duty to act with them; but he would not be the slave of any whim that might arise. On the contrary, he thought it his duty not to give any countenance to certain doctrines which were supposed to exist in this country, and which were intended fundamentally to subvert the constitution. They ought to consider well what they were doing.

Here there was a loud call of "Order!-Order!" and "Go on!-Go on!"

Mr. Burke said, there was such an enthusiasm for order that it was not easy to go on, but he was going to state what the result of the French constitution perfected was, and to shew that we ought not to adopt the principles of it. He might be asked, why state it, when no man meant to alter the English constitution? Why raise animosities where none existed? and why endeavour to stir up passions where all was quiet before? He confessed a thing might be orderly, and yet that it might be very improper to discuss it. Was there any reason for doing this, or did they think the country was in danger? He declared he was ready to answer that question. He was perfectly convinced that there was no immediate danger. He believed the body of the country was perfectly sound, although attempts were made to take the constitution from their heads by absurd theories. He firmly believed the English constitution was enthroned in the affections of their bosoms; that they cherished it as part of their nature; and that it was as inseparable from Englishmen as their souls and their bodies. Some ministers and others had, at times, apprehended danger even from a minority; and history had shewn that in this way a constitution had been overturned. The question, he said, would be, what had they to do with the French constitution? They had no right to have recourse to the proceedings of the National

Assembly, because the Government of this country had not yet recognised it. If they had, they would silence him. If the French revolutionists were to mind their own affairs, and had shewn no inclination to go abroad and to make proselytes in other countries, Mr. Burke declared, that neither he for one should have thought, nor any other member of the House had any right to meddle with them. If they were not as much disposed to gain proselytes as Lewis XIV. had been to make conquests, he should have thought it very improper and indisereet to have touched on the subject. He would quote the National Assembly itself, and a correspondent of his at Paris, who declared that he appeared as the ambassador of the whole human race

Mr. Anstruther, interrupting Mr. Burke, here spoke to order. He said his right honourable friend had transgressed something of what he looked upon to be the bounds of order in that House. It was a rule of order for members to confine themselves to the question in debate. When he stated this, he begged it to be understood, that if any minority in the country had any intentions to alter the constitution, there was no man more ready to take strong and decided measures to check that minority, and to crush that spirit than he should be—

Here Colonel Phipps called Mr. Anstruther to order, and said that a declaration of his attachment to the constitution, or of his gallantry in defence of it, was as much out of order as the right honourable gentleman, whom he was calling to order.

Mr. Anstruther replied, that if the honourable gentleman had condescended to hear him out, before he had called him to order, he would have saved himself some trouble. The honourable gentleman would recollect that he had said he had heard of a design in this country to overturn the constitution. If such a design really existed, it was the duty of the right honourable gentleman, who had stated it,

to bring forward some specific measure on the subject. It was disorderly in the right honourable gentleman to thrust that into a debate on the Quebec bill. If such a design really existed, it could not be debated on that day consistently with regularity. The question before the Committee was, whether the bill should be read, paragraph by paragraph. The right honourable gentleman had said, how did gentlemen know but that somebody, perhaps that right honourable gentleman himself, meant to propose something of the French revolution in the bill. Let them stop then till a clause or clauses of that sort were proposed; let them be silent till something like the principles of the French constitution appeared in the bill; and then any gentleman would have a right to argue the subject; but till then all the debate was foreign to the question. He should say nothing to the danger, how far it was proper, how far it was decent, how far it was prudent, and how far it was wise. Gentlemen were discussing the French constitution, without any question before them. The question was the Quebec constitution. The principle of the Quebec bill, if it had any principle, was something like the English constitution. The French constitution, for any thing we knew, might be good for them, and might be bad for us. It was neither fit nor prudent that that should be made a question of discussion in parliament. If any intention existed in any part of the country, to introduce the constitution of France, it should not be considered under the Quebec bill, but they should appoint a day for taking the subject into consideration, to stop, crush, and quell any machination of that sort, if any such existed in any minority.

Mr. Burke said, an objection had been taken against arguing the business, on the ground, that although it might be in order, yet the discussion might be attended with mischievous consequences. If some good were not to be obtained by it, he admitted, that it might be censurable to