DEBATE ON THE CLAUSE FOR REVOKING FORMER ORDINANCES. .... DEBATE ON THE CLAUSE ALLOWING THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE DEBATE ON THE CLAUSE ENABLING THE CANADIANS TO HOLD THEIR POSSESSIONS; AND TO RESORT, IN MATTERS OF PRO- PERTY AND CIVIL RIGHTS, TO THE LAWS OF CANADA.-Mr. - DEBATE ON THE CLAUSE DEPRIVING THE CANADIANS OF THE ENGLISH TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CAUSES. Mr. Edmund Burke-Mr. Cavendish-Lord North-Lord John Cavendish DEBATE ON THE CLAUSE APPOINTING A LEGISLATIVE COUN- DEBATE ON MR. MACKWORTH'S MOTION FOR INTRODUCING A CLAUSE ESTABLISHING TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CAUSES, AT THE OPTION OF EITHER OF THE CONTENDING PARTIES.-Mr. Mackworth-Lord North-Mr. Serjeant Glynn-The Attorney General-Mr. Dunning-The Solicitor-General-Mr.Thomas Townshend, jun.-Mr. Ambler-Mr. Byng-Governor John- DEBATE ON A MOTION FOR MAKING TEMPORARY THAT PART Monday, May 13. DEBATE ON THE THIRD READING OF THE BILL.-Mr. Charles .... 240 DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, &c. &c. Thursday, May 26, 1774. On the order of the day, for the second reading of the Bill "for making more effectual provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec, in North America," Mr. Thomas Townshend, jun. (1) 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 administration, to know why the affairs 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 confusion-it may appear a little extraordinary that, upon 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 inaccuracy 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 Cambridge. Mr. Townshend, jun. was at this time member for Whitchurch. In 1782, 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 1800. B 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 bill. Sir, having been for some time in possession of the bill, as printed in another place, I might have taken the liberty of making a few observations upon it on a former day, if it had not been that the attention of the House was pre-engaged 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 officers 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 King's 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 board of trade; or whether, after all the opinions of those learned sages had been taken, it is the result of the deliberations of the ministry. Although I bow 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 banks of the Mississippi, and northward 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 to the English subject, and disagreeable and hateful to the Canadian; little did I think, that those subjects who had been invited by the Proclamation(1) 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 a 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 be governed as it was before. Sir, whether this is practicable at present I will not pretend to say; but if it be practicable, in my humble opinion, it is not very politic. If they are not to reap any benefit—and I think there is a benefit in going from the French to the English laws--will not men, with their inclinations French, with their constitution French, with their connection French, with everything French, except one man at their head who shall be a subject of Great Britainwill these people not wish, upon a future occasion, to recur 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 of Canada will tell you, that many are settling their debts and retiring to France, accompanied by a large part of the 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 government. Sir, this bill, besides, gives to the governor of Canada 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 (') For the Proclamation of 1763, see Appendix (A.) 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 be 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? If this is to be 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. We 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 carried. I think it fairer, therefore, before the proposal for going into a committee comes, to throw out the objections that strike me most, 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. Why not give it a limitation in point of time? Speak out! Do you mean that this shall be the permanent constitution of Canada ? If you do, the bill is right as it stands: if not, at what time will you alter it? If the Canadians are quiet, you will not alter it; but, if they are refractory, if they think that a |