BALLAhfYNE 
 
 <$>ncb«c %t\ 
 
 1774 
 
/ 
 
 *+1 a ^ATt" 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE LIBRARY 
 BY 
 
 Murray G. Ballantyne 
 
 MSGILL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 I 
 

MARBLE BUST OF GEORGE III. 
 
 On Place d'Armes Square, Montreal, 1775. 
 
I 
 
THE 
 
 QUEBEC ACT 
 
 1774 . 
 
 —BY— 
 
 Gerald E. Hart, 
 
 Ex President, Society for Historical Studies, Montreal. 
 
 Author of 
 
 The Fall of New France; Revolutionary Notes of 1837; 
 Treasuries of Bibliography or the Bibliographers 
 Paradise; Pre-Columbian America, Post- 
 Columbian America, and the Geogra¬ 
 phical Names thereof, etc., etc. 
 
 LIMITED EDITION. 
 
 MONTREAL 
 
 1891 
 
Gaxhttk Printing Company, 
 
 Montreal. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 It is not generally known that the French Canadians 
 had no political or religious status in Canada for fifteen 
 years after the Conquest. They were ruled and treated as 
 British subjects, and were rapidly becoming anglified, 
 when a Bill was introduced into the British House of Par¬ 
 liament granting thorn distinct privileges and giving them 
 a pretext by which they have ever since stood out as a dis¬ 
 tinctive French nationality. That they claim this latter to 
 be the case both their writings and speeches evince. 
 
 The Premier of Quebec, in a recent trip to Europe it is 
 said, electrified an audience at the Hall of the Jesuits in 
 Paris, by the assertion that:— 
 
 “ It was our clergy who made our country what it is. After the 
 conquest, or rather after the cession of Canada to England, when 
 most of the nobles left the Colony to return to France and the peo¬ 
 ple were left to themselves, what would have become of them had 
 they not had their priests to keep up their courage and point out 
 the star of the future? Our political institutions are secured, so to 
 speak, by the sweat of our brow; they had to be wrung from 
 England, etc., etc.” 
 
 This monograph will servo to show how this Bill was 
 brought about, how indignantly it was received by the 
 habitants , and how far the Premier’s assertions arc justified. 
 
(Revised and Reprinted from Canadiana, VoL II ., No. 10 .) 
 
 THE QUEBEC ACT. 
 
 Canada’s Transition State. 
 
 A paper by Mr. Gerald E. Hart read before the Society for 
 Historical Studies, Montreal, November, 1890. 
 
 u Voici le Pape du Canada et le Sot des Anglicans,”* were 
 the significant words appended to the small but handsome 
 marble bust of George the Third, the gift of the King to 
 the cit} T , now decorated with full papal insignia, mitre, 
 cross and rosary, the face further bedaubed with lamp black, 
 which met the oyes of the astounded citizens of Montreal as 
 they wended their way to their places of business on the 
 morning of the 1st May, 1775. 
 
 The motive was suspected and generally understood, so 
 that there was an evident lack of zeal attending the efforts 
 to discover the actual perpetrators; the authorities, no 
 doubt, realising that they were treading on dangerous 
 ground. Rewards were offered and much apparent indigna¬ 
 tion expressed, but the culprits remained undiscovered, and 
 so faithfully was the secret kept, an evidence of the deep 
 felt and universal approval, that to this day, like the letters 
 of Junius, the authors of this anti-Papal and anti-regal act 
 arc unknown. It was necessary that a martyr should 
 be made, and like the policeman who arrests the hind urchin 
 of the crowd, a young merchant, named Franks, who did 
 not denounce tho act as loudly as all others, and had the 
 
 * Bohold tho Popo of Canada and tho Fool of English men. Thanks to the 
 authorities of tho Natural History Society, a photographic facsimile of this 
 bust is given as tho frontispiece hereto. It stood upon a pedestal under a niche 
 or cover erected in tho Place d’Armcs Square. It was removed after 
 the insult and finally found a resting place in tho Natural History Society’s 
 Museum of this City. Tho Grand Jury in 1790 in their presentment, stated : 
 “ That the building situated upon the Place d’Armos under which His 
 Majesty’s bust was formally placed is a public nuisance, and ought to be pulled 
 down.” The Court granted the request and “ orders that tho same bo pulled down 
 accordingly.” 
 
6 
 
 hardihood to tell a new king’s councillor, Mr. Picottd de 
 Belestre, of the now rising Frcnch-Canadian nation, that it 
 was not customary to hang for so trivial an offence in 
 England, fell the victim and was committed to prison. This 
 was no doubt more for the insult to the councillor’s personal 
 dignity, than any well-grounded suspicion that Franks 
 was the perpetrator of the offence to the King, as 
 at that time a councillor could imprison without assign¬ 
 ing cause, especially undor the French law permitting 
 lettres de cachet , so that Mr. Franks was not aware of 
 the crime laid at his feet. The whole body of English 
 merchants offered to become his bail; but the Governor, 
 as soon as it reached his ears at Quebec, saw fit, without 
 enquiry of any kind, to release him within a week and to 
 severely reprimand Mr. Belestre for his officiousness. 
 
 History oft repeats itself and we have here a verification 
 of the adage, for the self-same cause occasioned this insult 
 to the King as in after years, 1849, the loss of the seat of 
 Government to Montreal; acts of sedition, unpardonable 
 in themselves, albeit justifiable as the expression or voico 
 of an indignant people in condemnation of the Government 
 for granting, or yielding to, French supremacy in an English 
 colony to the detriment of English rule. 
 
 No day in the annals of Canada since the conquest has 
 been invested with the constitutional importance of this 
 memorable May day of 1775. We may well call it “the 
 birthday of Canada’s autonomy,” for on this day the “ Que¬ 
 bec Act” was to come into force, the first Act of the British 
 Legislature having reference to Canada, the foundation of 
 our present political status and tho laws under which we 
 are governed. 
 
 It was this Act which had aroused the indignation of the 
 British population as well as that of a large number of the 
 French citizens of Montreal; from these latter, no doubt, the 
 insult had emanated, as the language used and subsequent 
 acts would imply, and well would it have been had this 
 childish treatment of the king’s effigy been the sole out- 
 
como of their wrath ; but unfortunately it was not destined 
 to end here, and much more serious consequences soon 
 followed. 
 
 To understand the political condition of the country, it 
 will be necessary to revert to 1760, when England assumed 
 the administration of affairs. 
 
 For the four years immediately following the conquest, 
 Canada remained under military jurisdiction, with Major 
 Gen. James Murray acting as governor in chief in immediate 
 succession to General Amherst, to whom the surrender of 
 the country was made. The French peasants accustomed 
 to military dominancy did not find his rule irksome, and as 
 he was largely guided in his legal decisions upon civil mat¬ 
 ters by the advice of the French advocates, notable among 
 whom was Francois Joseph Cugnet, a very able and talented 
 Canadian, who exercised for years afterwards immense in¬ 
 fluence with the British governors, his administration was 
 very popular with the French people. Cugnct’s influence 
 extended even beyond the limits of this province, his 
 opinion being sought by the English ministry in all ques¬ 
 tions affecting the old inhabitants. 
 
 In 1763, after the treaty of peace had been signed by 
 which the conquest of Canada for tho British Crown was 
 ratified, King George tho Third issued his royal proclama¬ 
 tion putting an end to the military regime and substituting 
 for it English laws and customs. The words used are :— 
 “That in the moantime, and until such assemblies “ (refer¬ 
 ring to a preceding section in which tho governor was au¬ 
 thorized to summon and call general assemblies of tho 
 peoplo)” could be called, all persons inhabiting in, or resort¬ 
 ing to His Majesty’s said colonies “ (referring to the distri¬ 
 buting of his American conquests into four colonies, Quebec, 
 East Florida, West Florida and Granada)” might confide in 
 His Majesty’s royal protection for tho enjoyment of the 
 benefit of tho laws of his realm of England.for the hear¬ 
 
 ing and determining of all causes, as well criminal as civil, 
 
8 
 
 according to law and equity, and, as near as may bo, agree¬ 
 ably to the laws of England.” 
 
 Governor Murray and his council of twelve, partly ap¬ 
 pointed by England and partly by himself, immediately 
 promulgated this proclamation and in his first or great or¬ 
 dinance dated 17th September, 1764, constituting the courts 
 of justice, these English laws, in abolition of the French law 
 in its entirety, were put into force with the solitary reserv¬ 
 ation “ that the French laws and customs should be allowed 
 and admitted in all causes in the said court (Common Pleas) 
 between the natives of the said province, in which the cause 
 of action arose before the first day of October, 1764.” A 
 Court of Chancery was further established with the Gov¬ 
 ernor as Chancellor, and two Masters, two examiners and 
 one registrar. Full effect was thus given to the king’s pro¬ 
 clamation, but Murray, under the all-powerful influence of 
 Cugnet and the French gentry soon upset the whole force 
 of the king’s edict by the resolution of council adopted the 
 following month : That in actions relative to the tenure 
 of lands and rights of inheritance, the laws and usages of 
 Canada should be observed as the rule of decision according 
 to equity, conformable to the former ordinance.” This was 
 never confirmed by the King, and as the Governor and 
 Council had no authority to pass such a resolution, it was 
 not only illegal but wholly ultra vires , nevertheless it was 
 acted upon and rendered “ confusion worse confounded” in 
 the decisions of the courts under the two systems of law 
 thus brought into force ; a constant cause of complaint to 
 the Crown in after years, and which ultimately largely 
 brought about the Canada Act of 1791. 
 
 Cieneral Murray, after the conquest resided in Quebec, 
 where he soon became on most intimate terms with the 
 trench gentry, all of whom had renounced their allegiance 
 to the Throne of France, had forfeited any titles of honor 
 they had received from the French King and had become 
 British subjects by taking the oath of fidelity. Son of Lord 
 
 
9 
 
 Elibarik and of an autocratic turn of mind he would not con¬ 
 descend to associate with the commoners from England who 
 came to settle in this country, man} T of whom felt the unjust 
 imperiousness of his nature and the pointed slights he gave 
 them. Nor need we express surprise, it was the natural 
 outgrowth of sycophancy and the aristocratic constitution 
 of society of that day; Murray therefore formed his associates 
 and friends largely from among the self-styled French no- 
 blosse, poor and ignoble as the majority were, notone of whom 
 were peers in fact but gentiy only, of whom there were one 
 hundred and fifty chiefly resident in Quebec; rather than 
 from the English population, chiefly merchants who fol¬ 
 lowed in the wake of the conquest, respectable and wealthy 
 as many of them were, intelligent and patriotic as they 
 proved themselves to be, tho progenitors of our race, but 
 unequal in social status to the aristocracy of England with 
 which Murray was allied. To properly appreciate this feel¬ 
 ing wo have only to remember tho power of the nobility 
 and the great divisions of society which existed in all 
 European countries antecedent to tho birth of democracy 
 by tho French Revolution. 
 
 Dissatisfied with his many acts of partiality to¬ 
 wards the Frcnch-Canadians and the introduction of the 
 French law in several of the ordinances which he and his 
 council made, the British population held indignation meet¬ 
 ings and petitioned the king for his dismissal; the London 
 merchants trading with Canada supported this in a remon¬ 
 strance and petition they laid before the Board of Trade and 
 Plantations, and tho result was Murray’s recall within two 
 years of his appointment as governor! He was succeeded 
 by Lieutenant-Colonel Irving as administrator, he being 
 the oldest councillor, but ho in turn was almost immediately 
 superseded by Brigadier General Sir Guy Carloton who was 
 appointed Lieutenant-Governor in 1766, and Governor-in- 
 Chief in 1768. He was no improvement on Murray, but far 
 more diplomatic and less imperious. He was politic enough 
 
10 
 
 not to 8bow his hand at all times and knew how “ to run 
 with the hare and hunt with the hounds.” Ho still retain¬ 
 ed the counsel of Cugnet which was ever unfavorable to 
 British interests, but fewer ordinances were passed than 
 under Murray favoring this law-maker’s opinions. 
 
 The best illustration of Carleton’s character may be 
 gathered from his reply to the King’s request for a report 
 from him upon the best system of laws for the colony. 
 Having in view the ignoble discomfiture of his predecessor 
 and his wreck upon a somewhat similar rock, he sailed around 
 it by an artful report, the concluding clause of which reads ; 
 — 11 That they (Governor and Council) cannot draw a 
 balance in favor of any one of these methods in pre¬ 
 ference of the other, nor find a new one preferable to them 
 all, being unequal to the task. We have no other merit 
 than that of giving some information of facts. Your Ma¬ 
 jesty is best able to decide.” 
 
 In 1773, Sir Guy visited England and while there he was 
 faced with two petitions to the King, ono from the British 
 residents in Canada stating that they numbered over 3,000 
 and asking that the King instruct the Governor to convene 
 the House of Assembly expressly granted to them by the 
 terms of the royal proclamation of 1703 and for which they 
 had waited ton long years, representing that the situation 
 and circumstances of the province required the same. 
 The memorial accompanying it intimated that ordinances 
 repugnant to British laws were constantly being passed, 
 so that the petitioners requested that an assembly subject 
 to the King’s pleasure (thus not objecting to Roman Catholic 
 representation if ho saw fit to have it) should bo convened. 
 
 The other petition was from the French gentry, advocates, 
 and othors, expressly adverso to any House of Assembly being 
 convened, but asking for an enlarged executive council to 
 assist tho Governor in which they were to have full repre¬ 
 sentation. * Also for the repeal of that part of the proclama- 
 
 * Hitherto they had been exoluded owing to their religion. 
 
11 
 
 tion of 17U3 in which tho English laws were made absolute 
 and further asking for the restoration of their laws, privi¬ 
 leges and customs, and tho extension of the boundaries of 
 tho province to its former (French) limits. They also asked 
 to be allowed to hold office under the Crown and entreated 
 for tho rights and privileges of citizens of England. The 
 petition was signed by sixty-five names, several of whom 
 were boys and lads at school, representing that they spoko 
 in the name of over one hundred thousand French-Cana- 
 dians resident in the country.* 
 
 More they could not ask for and more they could not 
 wish for, than they obtained in reply to this remarkable 
 petition. The rights and penalties of conquest were com¬ 
 pletely expunged and the vanquished were now tho victors. 
 Well may their politicians and writers of to-day proclaim, 
 4< We were ceded not conquered !” 
 
 Within a few months of the presentation of these peti¬ 
 tions, a bill from the House of Lords, where it had been 
 passed without a challenge, was introduced by the Govern¬ 
 ment in the Commons in the last days of the session of Par¬ 
 liament of 1774, when not over 130 membors out of 558 
 were present upon a division, entitled “An Act for regu¬ 
 lating the Government of the Province of Quebec,” better 
 known as u The Quebec Bill.” Hushed through both Houses 
 with undue haste, notwithstanding petitions and remon¬ 
 strances from the merchants of London concerned in the Can¬ 
 ada trade, and tho protests of Cursitor Baron Maseres, acting 
 on behalf of the British residents of the piovince, the bill was 
 passed, and received the King’s assent in tho lace of a further 
 very strong protest from the corporation of the city of Lon¬ 
 don. Thus became law tho famous “Quobeck Bill ” (14Georgo 
 III, chap. 83), and it was vory soon seen that tho French peti¬ 
 tion of sixty-live individuals had supplied the basis of its 
 provisions. The advice tended by Carloton to the King 
 
 * At this time the French Canadian population exceeded 150,000 as proved by 
 evidence in the proceedings ot tho Quebec Bill. For list of these names see p. t'l 
 appendix. 
 
12 
 
 may thus plainly be discerned, as no disavowal came from 
 him, and he returned to the country to enforce its pro¬ 
 visions. 
 
 By it the French civil law (and in consequence, the French 
 language), and Roman Catholic hierarchy were established 
 in Canada. 
 
 Tithes and all the other church dues were now made 
 legally collectable, which had not been the case since the con¬ 
 quest, fifteen years previous. Roman Catholic disabilities as 
 to tenure of office were removed. The clergy were permitted 
 to hold real estate, the source of the present mortmain by 
 which the burdens of taxation are more largely thrown on 
 the English or Protestant population. The limits of the pro¬ 
 vince were largely extended. In short by this bill, the whole 
 fabric of English dominancy in the province of Quebec was 
 for ever, at one fell blow, annihilated ; leaving but a British 
 protectorate as a result of the heroic conquests of Wolfe 
 and Amherst, to meet the groaning expense of which the 
 foundation of England’s public debt was largely laid. 
 
 Such a bill as this, it would be natural to infer, would 
 have made the hearts of his Canadian new subjects, as they 
 were called, rejoice. But not so; the peasantry in whose 
 name the bill had been procured and whom it was spe¬ 
 cially intended to benefit, mourned in sackcloth and ashes 
 the moment information as to its provisions reached them. 
 “ Are wo reverting to the old bygone days of French rule, 
 when we were as slaves in the land, subject to every whim 
 and order of our seigniors and priests ?” asked they of each 
 other? “If so, we repudiate the action of theso sixty-five 
 self-tcrmod representatives and will not accept the bill. We 
 have been quite satisfied with British institutions and treat¬ 
 ment during the past fifteen years, and wish for no change. 
 We have had liberty of action, and have materially bcnc- 
 fitted by the liberality in purchase of our products. We 
 have supported our priests and church voluntarily and have 
 received politeness which we were unaccustomed to, and 
 much better service in consequence.” 
 
13 
 
 These sentiments found expression in a petition of re¬ 
 monstrance forwarded by the British residents to the 
 King and Parliament asking for the repeal of the bill: 
 “And whereas an Act of Parliament has lately passed, 
 intituled, an Act for making more effectual provision for 
 the Government of the province of Quebec, which is said 
 to have been passed upon the principles of humanity and 
 justice, and at the pressing instance and request of tho new 
 subjects, signified to His Majesty by an humble petition 
 setting forth their dislike to the British laws and form 
 of Government, and praying in tho name of all the inhabi¬ 
 tants and citizens of the province, to have tho French 
 institutes in their stead and a total abolition of trials by 
 jury, together with a capacity of holding places of honor 
 and trust in common with His Majesty’s ancient (British) 
 subjects ; we crave leave to inform your honorable House, 
 that tho said petition was never imparted to the inhabitants 
 in general, that is, the freeholders, merchants and traders, 
 who are equally alarmed with us at the Canadian laws 
 being to take place, but was in a secret manner carried 
 about, and signed by a few of the seigniors, chevaliers, 
 advocates, and others in their confidence at the suggestions 
 and under the influence of the priests.” 
 
 To this petition one hundred and eighty-four representa¬ 
 tive names by committees from all over the country were 
 appended including many French; and it was stated it 
 would have received a much larger French acquiescence 
 by signatures wore it not that the act had been obtained 
 by their priests whose power they now approhonded would 
 be restored and with whom therefore they did not wish to 
 be on ill terms or offend. 
 
 In England likewise the bill was very hotly denounced 
 after it had passed, and innumerable pamphlets with inflam¬ 
 matory titles and cartoons, the popular mode of expression 
 of the day, were issued. But all to no avail; the bill like 
 the many other American bills of that day, equally as 
 
 
 j 
 

 
 14 
 
 erroneous and impolitic, had become law, and was not to he 
 altered by petitions, remonstrances or public denunciation. 
 
 Dr. Harriot, the King’s Advocate General of Great Bri¬ 
 tain, deprecated in his report to His Majesty in 1773 any 
 hasty measures in settling the constitution of Canada, “ be¬ 
 cause, if hasty and ill digested regulations should bo adopted 
 upon any mistaken notions of men and things, the evils 
 already felt, by your Majesty’s Government will increase 
 beyond the power of remedy.” 
 
 The Advocate General’s opinion was well founded, for it 
 was not long before further evils were soon felt by the en¬ 
 forcement of this Act. A Star-chamber legislature was 
 established, it retarded immigration, it stifled commerce, 
 agriculture, and the fisheries. The country was fast re¬ 
 verting to its primitive state; the few English settlers 
 were seriously contemplating emigrating, when Providenco 
 intervened and did for the country what its King and Gov¬ 
 ernment failed to do. The neighboring colonies revolted 
 and Canada was saved. Thousands of expatriated loyalists 
 found a refuge in the wilds of Canada and turned the abode 
 of the Indian, the Buffalo and the Beaver, into the shining 
 English Provinces of the Dominion which it is our glory to 
 acknowledge to day. The lily bespeckled banner of St. 
 George of 1774, which for the moment threatened to over¬ 
 spread tho territory acquired by the Conquest, has been 
 relegated to a very small portion of it, superseded by the 
 plain and unembellished banner of Great Britain, the em¬ 
 blem of freedom and enlightment which waves over six of 
 the seven provinces, the outcome of the welcome and 
 bloodless tory invasion which followed the Independence of 
 the United States. 
 
 The U. E. loyalists opened the door for that legislation 
 which was so essential to the salvation and prosperity of 
 Canada, the reversal of this Act of 1774, the paramount dis¬ 
 advantages of which had been so manifested as to obtain 
 appeals for its amendment or reversal from many even of 
 those who had sought its enactment, and which, so far as it 
 
applied to the new settled territory, was granted by the 
 British Parliament under the Canada Act of 1791. 
 
 Nevertheless, the Quebec Bill had its bright side in the 
 removal of the civil disabilities of the people arising from 
 their religion only, which does credit to Carloton and 
 Edmund Burke (the latter, in all other particulars, strongly 
 opposed the bill) with which liberality and justicenone will 
 disagree. The French inhabitants had taken the oath of 
 fidelity to the Crown and were fully entitled to all the pri¬ 
 vileges of British subjects. The pages of Canadian history 
 have been too much darkened by religious dissensions and 
 disabilities, and are so to-day, for the prosperity and wel¬ 
 fare of the country. It is a relic of barbarism, of that re¬ 
 grettable mediaeval period, the dark ages, that any body of 
 people should be ostracised from political preferment for 
 religious belief, a mere accident of birth, tbe heritage of 
 ancestry. But dangerous indeed is the doctrine that any 
 such religion should receive state recognition, especially 
 when contrary to the established faith of the Crown of the 
 country to which it owes allegiance, or possess privileges 
 not accorded to all other faiths, simply because it is nume¬ 
 rically the strongest. Such was the blunder of Carleton’s 
 advice and Lord North’s action; but this was a period of 
 blunders for which kingcraft was more responsible than 
 the elected ministry of the country; the spirit of coercion 
 was rampant, the antithesis of American legislation was to 
 be Canada’s, the “ Quebeck Bill” had emanated from the 
 king’s hand, advised and encouraged by the short-sighted 
 policy of the Governor, contrary to the written opinion and 
 views of the high law officers of the Crown, it was largely 
 owing to this exalted author ship that it prevailed. 
 
 On the opening of the American revolt, the French- 
 Canadian peasantry, uncertain of the benefits to accrue to 
 them under the Quebec Act in other regards than that of 
 the rescinding of their religious disabilities, were not long 
 in doubt as to the course they should adopt during the 
 American invasion which almost immediately followed the 
 
16 
 
 coming into force of this obnoxious bill on the 1st May, 1775. 
 Openly espousing the cause of the invaders, they rendered 
 the way easy for the conquest of Montreal, the whole of 
 Lower Canada, and the investiture of Quebec, many joining 
 the Provincials notwithstanding that Bishop Briand used all 
 the thunders of the church to prevent them, and tried in vain 
 to get them to join the British forces and remain loyal, but 
 they were independent and free men then and shewed it, 
 the clergy had not yet recovered its grip of former and 
 after days. 
 
 With a very small garrison and requiring soldiers to repel 
 the invaders, Carleton applied to the seigniors for help, the 
 friends for whom he had done so much. Quoting from an 
 author of the day, we will sec in his own language how far 
 the influence of the gentry over the people extended. “ M. 
 Taschercau, the seignior of Beauce, endeavored to enlist 
 the services of his censitaires bul was indignantly refused, 
 they adding that they did not now acknowledge his author¬ 
 ity over them, or that he had any right to command their 
 military service. Mr. La Corne, seignior of Terrebonne, 
 summoned his tenants, and received for answer: “ We have 
 now become subjects of England and do not look on ourselves 
 as Fronchmen in any respoct whatever.” Mr. La Corne, 
 unaccustomed to being disobeyed by his vassals, struck 
 some of those who spoke loudest; this provoked the people 
 to such a degree he had to beat a hasty retreat to Montreal, 
 threatening to return with an armed force to compel them. 
 The people hearing this forthwith armed themselves, some 
 with guns, others with clubs, and they all resolved to die 
 rather than submit to be commanded by their seigniors. 
 
 Mr. Deschambaud went over to his seigniory on the 
 River Richelieu and harangued the inhabitants in a similar 
 manner. Like consequences and refusal ensued. He drew 
 his sword; they surrounded him and beat him severely. 
 Fearing reprisals, they armed themselves to the number 
 of near 3,000 and marched from Fort Chambly to Fort St. 
 
w 
 
 Johns to face tho two regiments of regulars in garrison 
 there. General Carleton sent an officor to disavow the acts 
 of their seignior and requested them to disperse, stating 
 that all would be well if they would return to their homes. 
 This was immediately complied with. Mr. Cuthbert, an 
 English gentleman, who had purchased the seigniory of 
 Berthier, imitating the manners of tho French, summoned 
 his censitairos to assemble at his house and received 
 for answer, that if ho had anything to communicate 
 ho might come to them ; appointing a cross road as 
 tho place of mooting. Mr. Cuthbert came thithor and 
 made an immediate demand of their services, as their 
 seignior, to ropel the invader. They replied a that if that 
 was his business with them, ho had best retire to his own 
 homo and trouble them no more, for that not a man of them 
 would follow him. And as soon as he was gone they all 
 made oath on the cross round which they wore assembled, 
 that they never would take arms against the invaders; 
 that if one among them offered to join the Government, 
 they would directly burn his house and his barn, and de¬ 
 stroy his cattle; and that, if General Carleton should at¬ 
 tempt to compel them into service, they would repol force 
 by force.” 
 
 This happened in the latter end of July or tho beginning 
 of August, 17*75. 
 
 Afterwards, about the end of September, Mr. Lanaudiere, 
 seignior of another place, came to them from Montreal and 
 said that ho was employod by General Carleton to lead them 
 against the provincials—martial law having been declared 
 in tho interval—otherwise ho assured them that their lands 
 and houses should be laid waste and burnt. Upon his re¬ 
 turn in a few days to enforce his mission he, Mr. Tonnan- 
 cour, and sixteen others who accompanied him wero all 
 made prisoners by the inhabitants. 
 
 Warm debates ensued among them, whether or not they 
 
 should send Mr. Lanaudidre to the provincial (invaders) 
 
 2 
 
camp near St. Johns. It was at length agreed to set him 
 and his friends at liberty on his promise to obtain for them 
 General Carleton’s pardon for this outrage, and on his fur¬ 
 ther promise never to come again amongst them on a like 
 errand. 
 
 Violent as the proceedings of these people may appear, 
 and averse as they may seem to the service required of 
 them, they had intimated that if General Carleton would 
 promise by affixing a writing to that purport to the church 
 door, that he would use his influence and endeavors for the 
 repeal of the Quebec Bill and for restoring to them those 
 privileges of which they were deprived by its operation ; 
 m that case they all declared themselves ready to defend 
 the province for Government. “ But,” say they, “ as things 
 are now circumstanced, what have we to fight for ? We 
 have enjoyed very valuablo privileges since we became sub- 
 jocts of Great Britain; we had the royal promise for the 
 continuance of that enjoyment. On a sudden, without our 
 having done anything to merit such treatment, we arc de¬ 
 prived of those inestimable privileges, and reduced to our 
 former state of slavery. Tho people whom we arc desired 
 to regard as our enemies tell us they aro our real friends ; 
 and they give us convincing proofs of their sincerity. 
 
 1 hey are now in arms for our defence from our oppressors ; 
 and they make the repeal of the Quebec Bill one of 
 the, conditions on which they offer to lay them down. Which 
 party then ought we to assist? Certainly that one which 
 is fighting for tho restoration of that liberty to us, of which 
 wc have been wantonly and most cruelly deprived bv the 
 other.” J 
 
 It is further added “ this is not the language of that die- 
 ‘ tnct (Berthier) only; the samo is in the mouths of the 
 most ignorant peasants all over the province.” 
 
 Carleton promised but did not perform, and therefore did 
 not succeed, notwithstanding his proclamation of martial 
 law, in securing the services of any considerable number of 
 
f 
 
 
 11 ) 
 
 % 
 
 the French peasantry; on the other hand many openly 
 joined the forces of the provincials while the greater number 
 maintained a doubtful neutrality so long as the invaders re¬ 
 mained on Canadian soil. Well was it for England that 
 no Papineau arose among them at this time, as nothing 
 would then have prevented tho onward course of the pro¬ 
 vincials to the summit of Quebec Hill and the planting in 
 after days of the Stars and Stripes with a fourteenth star 
 for Canada, on the citadel flagstaff. 
 
 Reviewing the events of this period in tho light of the 
 present, it is difficult to comprehend the attitude of the 
 French-Canadians (tho tiers-^tat) towards their priesthood, 
 their gentry and their laws, all of which they held so dear 
 and cherished under French regime, in thus openly pro¬ 
 claiming their opposition to them and dissatisfaction 
 with any movement tending to restore, even partially, the 
 customs they formerly lived under. Fifteen years of liberty 
 outweighed one hundred and fifty years of tho former reli¬ 
 gious and military dominancy. 
 
 Evidently a plebiscite would have altered the destiny of 
 Canada, for an overwhelming majority would have declared 
 in favor of the adoption of the whole body of English cus¬ 
 toms and laws, and the English languago wouid in a gene¬ 
 ration or two have followed, as has actually taken place in 
 Louisiana, the sister French colony of America. 
 
 It is likewiso a strange anomaly to find England pursuing 
 so different a course in the treatment of her conquest of 
 Canada to that which she had universally adopted hitherto. 
 Dealing with such populous countries as Ireland and Wales 
 she enforced the adoption of her laws and customs. Con¬ 
 quering Now Netherland she not only made the Hollanders 
 replaco their laws by hers, but she added tho greater change 
 of transforming it into a new country by altering tho name 
 to Now York. In her other conquests made in this very 
 war, of Florida Dominica and other places in the West In¬ 
 dies, she substituted English, for the Spanish and French 
 laws and customs in use. 
 
 a 
 
20 
 
 Foreign languages likewise received no official recogni¬ 
 tion elsewhere as they did in Canada; while the Roman 
 Catholic religion wherever existent was proscribed as a 
 religion of state: tolerated in Maryland persecuted in Ireland, 
 but established in Canada! 
 
 Wherefore the concessions to Canada ? Wherefore so ra¬ 
 dical a change from precedent? Was it the reflex of that 
 little spark struck at Boston in 1773 by which the torch of 
 republicanism was set burning, and which the British Gov¬ 
 ernment feared might oxtend to so close a neighbor as Can¬ 
 ada, were they to meet the wishes of the English popula¬ 
 tion by establishing a House of Assembly at Quebec, the 
 political and fiscal policy of which might not be any more 
 in accord with British ideas, than those of the neighboring 
 colonies which wero now occasioning so much trouble and in 
 open revolt? Between the two stools Britain fell; the Que¬ 
 bec Bill was as obnoxious to the provincials as the stamp 
 act, and was as injurious to the British interests in Canada 
 as the latter was to its sovereignty in the American colo¬ 
 nies. Whatever was the cause the result has not been 
 beneficial to Canada or England, for instead of the homoge¬ 
 neous unity expected by the conquest, from which uuity 
 in language, laws and customs, there would be strength ; a 
 very disunited and complex dominion has ensued by the 
 growth of a “ nation within a nation ” solely attributable 
 to the mistaken policy of the Quebec Act. 
 
 
Meoal issued by the United States Government upon the Invasion of Canada. 
 Portraits—Washington and Franklin. 
 
 Stamp for use v noer the Stamp Act of 1765 repealed 1766, with its Location Ticket on back 
 Refused adoption by the Colonies ano which led to the American Revolution. 
 

 Foreign langua 
 
 rtU‘}i<rn of &tflU. 
 but established 
 W here W> re 
 • licalneUr 
 little bpaftk * .■ 
 rep'ibiKssmonv 
 eminent fv4 
 
 aoearti will *v U 
 
 fca the Xvtf*hi?* 
 
 
 -■;* Britain foil 
 tiaci&l* as 
 t intern' »i> •. 
 
 the Am* 
 
 .v-* result r 
 instead t 
 > .ost, from 
 r a would 
 
 let. 
 
Medal issued by the United States Government upon the Invasion of Canada. 
 Portraits—Washington and Franklin. 
 
 Stamp for use under the Stamp Act of 1765 repealed 1766 , with its Location Ticket on back. 
 
 REFU8ED ADOPTION BY THE COLONIES AND WHICH LED TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 
 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 1. List of Signatures attached to the French Petition 
 
 to the King, asking for the Quebeck Bill p. 22 
 
 2. Letter of the period, unpublished, from Mr. Joseph 
 
 Howard, a prominent merchant at Montreal, to 
 George Allsopp, Esq., at Quebec, then Dep. Com¬ 
 missary General, afterwards Member Legislative 
 Council, Judge Court of Appeals, etc., etc. p. 22 
 
 3. Extracts from the Debate in the House of Commons 
 
 at time of passing the Quebeck Bill, by Lord 
 North the Prime Minister, Mr. Edmund Burke 
 Leader of the Opposition, the Solicitor-General, 
 
 Mr. Townshend, Col. Barre, etc., etc. p. 25 
 
[Extract from Petition of French Residents.] 
 
 Nous esperons d'autant mieux ccttc grace quo nous pos- 
 sedons plus de dix douziemes dos seigneuries ot presque 
 toutes les terres en rotures. 
 
 Hertel Beaubassin, 
 
 J. Sanguinet, 
 
 La Corno, fils, 
 
 John Vienne, 
 
 St. Ours, 
 
 Le Palliau, 
 
 Landrieve, 
 
 Gordien de Ouisy,fils, 
 
 l)e Rotiville, 
 
 Pieote de Belestre, 
 
 l’eschaillon, 
 
 
 J. La Croix, 
 
 Pierre Fore tier, 
 
 Giasson, 
 
 L. Defoui, 
 
 Valles, 
 
 La Combe, 
 
 P. Pillett, 
 
 Ch. Sanguinet, 
 
 Laurent Du Charme, S. Chaboille, 
 
 Berthelot, 
 
 J. G. Bourassa, 
 
 Me/dere, 
 
 P. Panet, 
 
 St. Ange, 
 
 J. B. Blonde an, 
 
 La Corne, 
 
 Le Grand, 
 
 Quinson de St. Ours, 
 
 L. Baby, 
 
 Pouvret, 
 
 Hamelin, fils, 
 
 St. George du Pre, 
 
 Foucher, 
 
 Louvigny deMontigny Lamber St. Omer, 
 
 Sanguinet, 
 
 De Bonne, 
 
 Jean Crittal, 
 
 Gamelin. 
 
 Pierre Panet, fils, 
 
 
 [Copy of a Letter of the Period.] 
 
 Montreal, Dec’r 1765. 
 
 Dear Alsopp, 
 
 The Joyfull news of a recall of the G-being come 
 
 here confirm’d through so many channells, there now 
 
 cannot bo the least doubt.-our worthy Agients advice 
 
 ought to bo wrought on our minds viz: not to exult too 
 much, this I understand, to be while in suspence I mean 
 the stroke of the recall, but after that is sure we certainly 
 sho’d not conseal by our faces the real sentiments of our 
 

 
 23 
 
 hearts rejoiced and thankful that our Soverign has at last 
 heard the complaints of an oppressed people.— 
 
 I observe from your accounts as well as from othors, our 
 agient wishes for and wants matter, why sh’d it be want¬ 
 ing—let us now joyne hearts and hands to furnish him 
 with what we abound in here, begin with what you think, 
 proper, we will Joyne you to a man I mean when it comes 
 properly prepar’d & propos’d from you, you can always 
 depend on any little influence l have, let it then begin with, 
 or come first to your other friends with whom you have a 
 great deal to say and who tho’ wo differ in some triffling 
 affairs yet abhore equally Tyrany and Oprossion. 
 
 I say let it begin with them and I will Joyne, we now 
 ought to redouble our strokes and activity to Insure what 
 seems to be in so good a way! Dont you think it might be 
 urg’d with great propriety the situation wo are in here 
 
 with our Court of C-n P-s, can a man not only a 
 
 Stranger to our Constitution, but to our Language be a 
 proper Judge, a man bred up in France tho’ ho assumes the 
 name of a native of Groat Brittain be a Judge to English¬ 
 men, a man who even serv’d tho French King, conse¬ 
 quently must have taken oaths to him-think of a Sub¬ 
 
 ject doing this, a man who is asteem’d & thought at present, 
 by many to bo a Roman Catholick, who really was once of 
 
 the order of J-s, and who has been seen and known as 
 
 such and wearing their habbitts or dress at Douey in 
 
 France, but wo suppose discharg’d for want of capacity- 
 
 a man who in fact begun overy disturbance, in this unhappy 
 
 country, and in whom the G-r places his greatest 
 
 confidence and adds Powor to Power, to make Cyphers of 
 our Magistrates (were they weak enough to submit) and to 
 command the Country, but men of such education, with 
 such principles are the proper instruments and Tools for 
 Tyrants. 
 
 I hope Dear Alsopp you’l excuse my warmth on this 
 point, but is occurs to me now, and I see dayly the incon¬ 
 veniences from Cap-F. being a Judge - would it 
 
24 
 
 not be better to have an honest Englishman if we co’d not 
 obtain one bred to the Law for one of our Judges, but this 
 
 I submit to you.-has our friends at Quebec forgot the 
 
 iligall Rum Tax ? our pocketts keep us in mind, here, have 
 you forgott the attempt to Tax-The arbritary appro¬ 
 
 priating to his own Private ends the Kings Posts, the Influ¬ 
 ence he has over an ill chosen Councili who I am sorry to 
 say attempts too much to be our Legislature and forgets 
 by their ordinances that thoy are subject to the Law of 
 England. What ever faults they may have I am sure they 
 have not heads nor hearts to $mend, have we not just cause 
 to complain against that Toole of his and Sycophant the 
 Col-r muster up all you can, be asured his fall is cer¬ 
 
 tain, and wo can make him fall with more rapidity. 
 
 I sh’d be glad you wo’d send me an account of our adven¬ 
 ture. I hope wo shall gain by that trade. I had a girl 
 born last Friday week. My wife and the little one are 
 likely to do well. I am very sorry for Death of Mrs. 
 Gridly, my wife is daily asking after her, but does not 
 know that she is dead. 
 
 If you can change my Butter for Dry Goods, do it as 1 
 have more here of the same. I cannot give you moro In¬ 
 formation in regard to your Port Wine, then I am sure 
 that Mr. Finlay had the odd one. 
 
 My Ribb Joynes in complem’s with 
 Sr. Yr. Most obed’t & 
 
 Very hble servt, 
 
 Joseph Howard. 
 
 P-S*—Pray let us have none of your Insignificant nodds, 
 as you live so near Justice Fielden, lie’l certainly take 
 notice of you. 
 
 To 
 
 Mr. Geo. Alsopp, 
 Merch’t in 
 
 Quebec. 
 
EXTRACTS FROM SPEECHES 
 
 MADE IN THE 
 
 House of Commons during the Passage of the Bill. 
 
 Solicitor General Wedderburn :— I do not think in 
 the abstract or theory, the highest degree of liberty ought 
 to be granted to a country, situated as Canada is —not the 
 highest degree of political liberty. 
 
 The next clause was read, enabling His Majesty’s Cana¬ 
 dian subjects to hold and enjoy their property and posses¬ 
 sions, together with all customs and usages relative thereto, 
 and all other civil rights, etc. ; and that, in matters of* con¬ 
 troversy, relative to property and civil rights, resort 
 should be had to the laws of Canada for the decision. 
 
 Mr. Edmund Burke.—The question undor this clauso is 
 whether we shall take away all the law of England, at six 
 months or twelve months hence. 1 declare myself incapable 
 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 
 effect, and also went out. Mr. Cavendish spoke to the 
 same purpose, but would not go out. 
 
 Mr. Thomas Townshend.—The gentlemen opposite, who 
 are now sitting in sullen silence, as soon as they have ob¬ 
 tained a kind of licence to proceed, by the absence of those 
 honourable members who oppose them, will 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 Palmerston? Where 
 are the members of tho Board of Trade ? Why have thoy 
 gone from their opinions? Gentlemen who have signed 
 their names to a report should tell us why they now have 
 differed from that report. Is this all to be passed over in 
 sullen silence, and no answer to be given to any objec¬ 
 tion ? 
 
 Colonel Barre.—I do not rise to express any warmth. A 
 bill of greater magnitude never eamo before the House in 
 such a shape as this bill. It passed the House of Lords 
 without a single evidence in its favour. When 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 members of this House, were re¬ 
 quired to give it him ? The request made by my honorable 
 friend is a very proper one. If other gentlemen cannot 
 draw an answer, I cannot draw one. I can 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 ap¬ 
 peared 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.” Whoever made this asser¬ 
 tion has frankly broke his word, and will be as much re¬ 
 spected as a man ought to be, who makes a promise anddoes 
 not keep it. What single attempt has been made on our 
 
27 
 
 * 
 
 ■ 
 
 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 tho rest not 
 as material? Yes; but they should not be taken up at 
 1 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. Was 
 no boundary necessary, in their opinion, that they came un¬ 
 prepared ? 
 
 Lord North.—As to the boundary, I, for one, was very 
 well satisfied with it, as it stood in the bill. Several gentle¬ 
 men, speaking for particular provinces, entreated that other 
 boundaries might be taken; and there was that attention 
 paid to their doubts, that, provided they would settle a good 
 boundary, the friends of tho bill were willing to give way ; 
 in my opinion, the first boundary ought to have satisfied 
 everybody. As for the cause 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—is it so very violent, so very precipitate, to pro¬ 
 ceed with it before the committee rises to-night. I am for 
 proceeding at least through this clause before the commit¬ 
 tee breaks us. 
 
 The committee having gono 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 
 desired tho 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 o’clock. 
 
 Wednesday, June 8. 
 
 Tho House having rosolved itself into a committee of the 
 whole House on the bill, 
 
28 
 
 Mr. Edmund Burke 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 tho bill at 
 twelve o’clock, when the natural constitutions of gentlemen 
 were perfectly exhausted. When this bill was brought 
 down to us, the general voice of almost everyone 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 
 utterly unacquainted with the bill. I took it up with a de¬ 
 termination to come here, not only with my mind unpre¬ 
 judiced, but with a determination to avoid everything that 
 had any shadow of passion in it; and I appeal to the can¬ 
 dour, the direct justice, of parliament, whether the clause 
 fixing a boundary to such an extent of territory, or the 
 clauses settling tho laws and religion of such a province, 
 could be well debated, upon the numberless momentous 
 questions that arose, in less time that wo have given to 
 them. Tho privilege allowed in committees of the House 
 of speaking more than once, is a privilege founded upon 
 reason. An argument upon the principle of a measure may 
 be dispatched in the House at one speaking, as well as a 
 thousand ; but in the committee, where matters of detail 
 are gone into, it is necessary to speak more than once. Tho 
 noble lord, therefore, has no right to say that wo have in. 
 terposed 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 de¬ 
 lays, if they can be called delays, were absolutely neces¬ 
 sary. The committee ought to take care that no delays but 
 necessary ones should be allowed in this business—but the 
 necessary delay arising from a detail. Now, Sir, if an en¬ 
 tertainment should be given ten miles from London, and we 
 were to adjourn over this day and thereby make the busi- 
 
29 
 
 ness of the nation give way to such entertainment, what 
 would be tho opinion of the people? I do not censure the 
 House for entering into the innocontgaities of this life, pro 
 vided they give time enough for the discharge of moro im¬ 
 portant duties. If any youth, in the gallantry of his spirit, 
 calls gentlemen to such an entertainment, I would not say, 
 do not enjoy it ; but go and en joy it if you have taken care, 
 at the samo time, to provide for tho prosperity of your 
 country. But while I say this, 1 ask that the same indul¬ 
 gence which is given to those who ongage in scenes of joy 
 and dissipation should be given to those who have need of 
 lost to support their bodios to enable them to come here to 
 discharge their duty, I for one complain that 1 am preclud¬ 
 ed from doing my duty. I complain on the part of the 
 people of England, who have sent hero five hundred and 
 fifty eight men to represent their interests that they and I 
 are cruelly, wickedly 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 l C'Oluto. I had several 
 material amendments to propose to the clauses. I had an 
 equitablo clause with regard to revocation, etc. (He men¬ 
 tioned other alterations). I wished to have provided a re¬ 
 medy for tho objection that causes wero tried by persons 
 not fit to bo treated. My opinion is that the people of 
 Canada, with regard to tho civil law, have not expressed 
 their dislike of the trial by jury. These are some of tho 
 matters that I would have stated; but it would have been 
 impossible to have debated them at that hour of the night. 
 Having said this in defence of a conduct which may have 
 been a little unjustifiable, 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. 
 
30 
 
 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 proposi¬ 
 tions themselves which he threw out, as far as I understand 
 them, I shall certainly bo 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 rulos; to say, you shall proceed ac¬ 
 cording to Canadian customs, or according 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 not be in vain, and more likely to occasion confu¬ 
 sion, for the parliament of Great Britain to attempt to enter 
 into the particular laws by detail; to say, 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. What is 
 of infinite advantage, they will thus have tho law that they 
 understand. The laws and customs of Canada are the basis 
 of the law that they understand. If any ordinances are 
 mado varying that law they will be promulgated, and they 
 will understand them. For these reasons, I shall certainly 
 opposo any proposition for entering into a detail connected 
 with the English criminal or the Canadian civil law ; be¬ 
 cause I think that detail, these alterations, and those amend¬ 
 ments which are necessary can only be entered into and 
 settled with propriety by lawyers upon the spot. As to the 
 proceedings of last night, I shall remain satisfied in the 
 consciousness of the rectitude of my conduct; it is a very 
 sufficient regard, and it is the only regard I shall be likely 
 
lo 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 been. There are few bills that have 
 remained so long in the House as this has done; there have 
 been few propositions where there has not been a readiness 
 in the friends of the bill, to accept any suggestions, from 
 whatever quarter they might como. The honourable 
 gentleman says that we are to adjourn to-morrow 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-mor¬ 
 row ; but I sec no reason why, upon Friday, we may not 
 give this bill every attention. I accuse no person of de¬ 
 signed delay, but, at the same time, no person can accuso 
 me of having shut out any material amendments. Thoso 
 amendments may be proposed now; many could not be pro¬ 
 posed last night, and if they arc not proposed in the com¬ 
 mittee, there arc yet two stages when they may be pro¬ 
 posed. I was accused of a sullen silence last night; perhaps 
 I may be excused from expatiating upon a matter not re¬ 
 ally before us, but when the House is taken up with what 
 is not of importance to the bill, 1 trust that the candour of 
 the House will excuse me if I respect the time of the House 
 more than the justification of myself from any personal 
 charge. 
 
 Lord John Cavendish.—Though 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 Townshcnd. I must complain, sir, of the 
 slovenly manner in which the two clauses were carried 
 through the committee. I will venture to say, that two- 
 thirds of that majority never heard the debate. It consist¬ 
 ed of thoso gentlemen who take their meals regularly, and 
 who are now taking their dinners. They come in when 
 they havo dined, and are extremely clamorous, crying, go 
 on ! go on! I do not thank the noble lord for the candour 
 

 32 
 
 of Inst night; but I thank him for the candour of to-day, 
 in chalking out a method of going on for the future. I 
 likewise understand that the House is to adjourn for a day, 
 on account of a fete chawpetre ; and to be sure, the day that 
 follows the ninth of June is a day more proper for a fete 
 ckampetre , than for a committee of the House ef Commons 
 to bo sitting on so important a bill. But, at the same time, 
 L 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, for 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 havo been fixed on. 
 On the report of the bill, I shall propose a clause for rend¬ 
 ering it temporary, and if the noble lord will suffer it to 
 pass, ho never had at his lovoo a more humble suppliant for 
 a boon for himself, than i am for the Canadians. This bill 
 will make theCanadians the detestation of the English colo¬ 
 nies. 
 
 Mr. Dunning—The noble lord takes credit for his candour. 
 His candour consists in giving five days to the considera¬ 
 tion 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—ihat it is his intention to refer every 
 thing, in future, to that legislative council, to whom these 
 Canadians are to bo reforrod, but that it is far from his in¬ 
 tention to introduce trial by jury. Is that his candour? Is 
 that the concession for which we are not precluded thank¬ 
 ing him ? Thank ye, for nothing, would bo a true descrip¬ 
 tion of the thanks that are duo for his concession ; but un¬ 
 loss it bo the pleasure of the creatures created by this bill, 
 to counteract the pleasure of their Creator, can it be ex- 
 pocted this blessing will be produced? Will they counter¬ 
 act all tho purposes of the bill—all the pleasures of those 
 who made the bill? And is not, thon, the quostion con¬ 
 cluded, as far as tho committee havo to do with it ? In point 
 
of form it will be competent for the House to reject the pro¬ 
 vision and the Bill itself containing the provision; but that 
 this ought to bo done, goes a very little way, in my opinion, 
 to cause it to be done. My expectations are not better 
 founded upon the future pleasure of the House, than on the 
 future legislative council. 
 
 Colonel Barre.—This bill, Sir, originated with the House 
 of Lords. It is Popish from the beginning to the end. The 
 Lords are the Bomish priests, who will give His Majesty 
 absolution for breaking his promise given in the proclama- 
 tion of 1763. In this bill they have done like all other 
 priests—not considered separately the crimes with which 
 the bill abounded, but have bundled them all up together, 
 and, for despatch, given absolution for the whole at once. 
 When, however, the measuro 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 wore not granted. They asked for ovidence; 
 all the evidence was not granted. The first man who gov¬ 
 erned the colony you would not hear, though I stated the 
 reasons why ho ought to be called. The chief justice and 
 the attorney-general of Canada wore both examined; and 
 their testimony goes in the teeth of this bill. TIicd it is 
 decidedly opposite to the opinion of two of the most respect¬ 
 able men in the kingdom. When the noble lord was asked 
 for the papers containing those opinions he refused to give 
 them, alleging that the reports are very long; but the at¬ 
 torney and solicitor-general are both in the House, and I 
 wish to hear the abstract of their opinions given by them¬ 
 selves. This they could have done, but the House would 
 not let them. The advocate-general was cal Iod to the bar 
 upon which they said, we meant to create delay. The wit¬ 
 ness is so singular a man, that 1 cannot persuade myself to 
 be out of temper with him. He was mounted very high, 
 and pranced and pranced, and never moved from the place. 
 I noticed a few expressions not becoming him as a witness 
 
34 
 
 at the bar, but altogether singular from a man who tells you 
 ho had no memory to relate anything he had written, and 
 is at the same time known to be of so singular a memory 
 that, without the help of notes, he can sum up the largest 
 train of evidence, not thinking it worth while to take it 
 down upon paper. Some time ago we were given to under¬ 
 stand, that we were not to expect a general election. The re¬ 
 port now runs, that parliament is immediately to be dis¬ 
 solved ; and, in truth sir, after the passing of this bill, the 
 sooner it is dissolved the bettor. In its infancy it was a 
 very compliant one, and humoured the ministry in what I 
 called a strong measure. I mean the Middlesex election. 
 It continued to do so up to the middle of its existence; and, 
 upon its dissolution, people may say, as they did afterdeath 
 of King Charles, that by some papers found after its decease, 
 there is great reason to suspect that it died in the profession 
 of the Roman Catholic religion. 
 
 Mr. Edmund Burke.—There is one favour I admit to have 
 received from the noble lord. He has assured me, that 1 
 may propose those clauses of which I have spoken, but that 
 when they are proposed ho will certainly reject them. I 
 think the noble lord docs deserve my warmest acknowledg¬ 
 ments. That is a kind of favour which is paid immediately 
 on the receipt. Most assuredly I will never propose thorn. 
 
 Mr. Jenkinson—The honourable colonel tolls us that this 
 parliament is a Roman Catholic parliament, and very near 
 its end. I have always understood, that when a Catholic is 
 dying, ho is generally attended by a numbor of troublesome 
 people, disposed to put many troublesome questions to him. 
 Now, I hope that Catholic practice will not be followed in 
 our caso, but that ho will, at least, allow us to die in peace. 
 
 Governor Johnstouo.—I should not object to the clause, if 
 the hill was a temporary one. The English colonies have 
 flourished more than others; they have found out the secret 
 of carrying froedom to the distant parts of the empire. I 
 hope gentlemen will not come to the conclusion, becauso 
 
35 
 
 certain assemblies in America have recently been tumultu¬ 
 ous on a nice point, that therefore all assemblies are to be 
 discountenanced. T see throughout the whole, that the in¬ 
 terest of the governor, and the interest of the rocoivor- 
 genoral, are the predominant features of the bill; together 
 with surrounding our own colonies with aline of despotism. 
 As an Irishman said to me, in that nice metaphorical lan¬ 
 guage that belongs to his country, you aro coming round 
 and round, till, like water flowing in upon an island, en¬ 
 croaching upon it more and more, you will not leave a foot 
 of ground for the fowl of the air to rest upon. I fear you 
 will not leave a foot for liberty to rest upon. 
 
 Lord North.—In 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. With regard to the particu¬ 
 lar 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 for an assembly. But, in point 
 of fact, what came out in evidence. That there were in the 
 province at present one hundred and fifty thousand Boman 
 Catholic subjects, and about three hundred and sixty Pro¬ 
 testant families, whose numbers we will suppose to be 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 bo composed of Bo¬ 
 man Catholics. Now, I ask, is it safe for this country—for 
 wo must consider this country—to put the principal power 
 into the hands of an assembly of Boman Catholic new sub¬ 
 jects ? 1 agree with the honourable gentleman, that the 
 
 Boman Catholics may be honest, able, worthy, sensible men, 
 ontertaining 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 Boman Catholics. The 
 
honourable gentleman is of opinion, that more is to be 
 dreaded from the seigneurs than from those in the lower 
 ranks. Sure I am, that the seigneurs, who are the great 
 possessors of the lands, would be the persons who composed 
 the assembly, and some of them will, I hope, be admitted to 
 the Legislative Council; but then, the governor will choose 
 those on whose fidelity he has the greatest reason to rely. 
 They will be removeable by the King-in-Council, and will 
 not depend wholly upon the Roman Catholic electors, or 
 bo removcable at their pleasure. It is not at present expe¬ 
 dient to call an assembly. That is what the act says; 
 though it would be convenient that the Canadian laws 
 should be assimilated to those of this country, as far as the 
 laws of Great Britain admit, and that British subjects should 
 have something or other in their constitution preserved for 
 them, which they will probably lose when they cease to be 
 governed entirely by British laws. That it is desirable to 
 give the Canadians a constitution in every respect like the 
 constitution 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 be 
 beneficial for that country, and safe for this. But that time 
 is not yet come. 
 
 The clause was agreed to. After which the preamble of 
 the bill was read. 
 
 Mr. William Burke—I do not remember that I ever saw 
 the House of Commons in so sick a situation as it is at pre¬ 
 sent. (Cry of “ Order! order !!”) I say, Sir, that the par¬ 
 liament of Great Britain is in an unfortunate situation. 
 This is the worst bill that ever engaged the attention of a 
 British council. It is a bill to establish the Popish religion 
 —to establish despotism. There have been instances in 
 human affairs in which, for purposes of commerce, we have 
 established freedom, as far as we could, in a certain locality, 
 but to establish Popery, to establish despotism, in a con¬ 
 quered province, is what we have never done before. I am 
 
3 ? 
 
 
 * 
 
 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 forward very late in the ses¬ 
 sion; when men of great rank and property in this country 
 must be tired. There is Mr. Soame Jenyns. He is a lord 
 of trade, and possess 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 establishment of a Protestant clergy in 
 the province. I say, that by this bill he is not bound, but 
 may apply those revenues to any purposes, however extra¬ 
 vagant or profligate—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 pub¬ 
 lic 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 was justi¬ 
 fiable. The gentlemen who oppose 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 debateable 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 a bit about it. But whether he knew 
 there was or was not such a society (I don’t know which, 
 nor much care), I say, nothing but ignorance can justify 
 
 
38 
 
 the refusal of that motion of my honourable kinsman. 
 There will come an hour, when it will be necessary, when it 
 will bo proper, when it will be just, to testify that there 
 was some opposition made, some protest entered against 
 mad proceedings. 
 
 The preamble being agreed to, the House resumed. 
 
 Mr. Sergeant 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 be 
 given to the people of Canada, the one that is best calcu¬ 
 lated to promote the permanent happiness of the people who 
 are to be governed by it is the preferable plan, and the one 
 which it is the duty of the King to give them. Having 
 thus fill* 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, but let 
 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 be candid, T 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 formidable objections to it. The omis¬ 
 sion of this right of appeal to a jury in civil causes appeal's 
 to me an insuperable objection to the bill. To any predi¬ 
 lection of the Canadians for their ancient laws and cus¬ 
 toms, I should be inclined as much as any one to yield, as 
 far as I could do so with safety; but to carry my compli¬ 
 ance to the exclusion of the laws of England—to consent 
 
39 
 
 to substitute in their place the laws of Franco—and to add 
 to all this a form of legislature correspondent to that of the 
 kingdom whence those laws wore borrowed, is what I can 
 never consent to. And I own my objection to the measure 
 was strengthened when I was told, that there was a preju¬ 
 dice and predilection in these pooplo favourable to those 
 laws, and that it was considered good policy to 'avail our¬ 
 selves 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 pre¬ 
 judices 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 a secure possession to this country, will cause it 
 to remain forever a dangerous one. I have contemplated 
 with some horror the nursery thus established for men 
 reared up in irreconcileablo aversion to our laws and con¬ 
 stitution. When I was told by the noble lord, that they 
 were insensible to the value of those laws and held them in 
 contempt, wishing to bo bound by laws of their own mak¬ 
 ing—when I was told that they had no regard for civil 
 rights, I must confess that it operated with me in a con¬ 
 trary way, and I could not help thinking that it furnished 
 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 com¬ 
 mon safety is concerned in our refusal. 
 
 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 it is our duty to give them such 
 a 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 beforo an individual 
 appointed at the will of the governor, probably uneducated 
 in those laws, and, if educated, brought up to entertain 
 violent notions of law and justice. Such are the men by 
 whom you would have justice decided! And all this is 
 done because it is right to indulge the natural predilection 
 of the Canadians in favor of their ancient laws and usages! 
 Let me, Sir, in like manner, plead the law in favor of the 
 English merchants—in favor of the English inhabitants, if 
 it be cruel, if it bo oppressive, to obtrude upon the Cana¬ 
 dians this law, which they have been eleven years in oxer- 
 cise of, what should be said of those who take away the law 
 from the poor English subjects who reside there ? These 
 men have a predilection and liking for the laws of their own 
 country, and claim their privilege of being protected, ac¬ 
 cording to the usage and just principles of policy of their 
 ancestors. They have settled there in consequence of the 
 royal faith pledgod to them, that they should not be de¬ 
 prived of the law which they esteem so valuable, and that 
 none of their privileges should bo 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 jus¬ 
 tice by the principles of another law, to the exclusion of 
 juries, for the gratification of others, who prefer being placed 
 under a despotic form of government ? Is not the gratifi¬ 
 cation due to the natives of England rather than to the na¬ 
 tives of Canada ? 
 
 Mr. Sergeant Glynn.—There is, Sir, another considera¬ 
 tion which I will submit to the House. Every man born 
 in Canada since the conquest 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 government which we are about to transmit 
 
41 
 
 to thorn. Is it then wise, I ask, out of compassion to the 
 prejudices of those who have been born under the arbitrary 
 law of another country, to perpetuate a system of govern¬ 
 ment, which will deprive all those who may hereafter bo 
 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 tho passing of this mis¬ 
 chievous bill will be in vain ; but I earnestly hope, that it 
 will be rendered less mischievous, by the admission of tho 
 clause proposed by the honourable gentleman near mo. 
 
 Edmund Burke.—Now, instead of making them free sub¬ 
 jects of England, you sentence them to French government 
 for ages. I meant only to offer a few words upon the part 
 of tho 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 
 those people, having deprived them of the principles of our 
 constitution, lot us turn our attention to throe hundred and 
 sixty English families. It is a small number; but I have 
 heard, that tho English are not to be judged of by number 
 but by weight; and that one Englishman can beat two 
 Frenchmen. Lot us not value that prejudice. I do not 
 know that one Englishman can beat two Frenchmen; but 
 1 know that, in this case, ho ought to be more valuable than 
 twonty Frenchmen, if you estimate him as a freeman and 
 tho Frenchmen as slaves. What can compensate an Eng¬ 
 lishman for tho loss of his laws ? Do you propose to tako 
 away liberty from tho Englishman, because you will not 
 give it to the French ? I would give it to the Englishman, 
 though ten thousand Frenchmen should take it against their 
 will. Two-thirds of the wholo trading interest of Canada 
 are going to be deprived of their liberties, and handed over 
 to French law and French judicature. Is that just to Eng¬ 
 lishmen? Surely, the English merchants want the protec¬ 
 tion of our law more than the noblesse! They have property 
 
 4 
 

 
 mm ^ 
 
 
 42 
 
 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 ho is not armed with Eng¬ 
 lish law. I claim protection for the throe hundred and 
 sixty English families whom I do know, against the preju¬ 
 dices of the noblesse of Canada, whom I do not know. I 
 must put the House in mind of what an honourable gentle¬ 
 man said in the course of this debate—that it was seldom 
 that any improvement was introduced into any country, 
 which did not, at first, militate against the prejudices of 
 the people. Was all England pleased with the revolution ? 
 No. The wishes of the majority were sacrificed to the rea¬ 
 son of the better part, and the interest of the whole; and 
 we are now enjoying the benefits of that choice—benofits 
 brought upon the ignorant people, not by force, but with 
 an easy hand. The Canadians are struggling with their old 
 prejudices in favour of their former laws. A new establish¬ 
 ment is proposed to them, which throws them into some 
 disorder, some confusion. “ All the interim is like a phan¬ 
 tasma and a hideous dream.” The honourable gentlemen 
 opposite, taking advantage of this confusion, say : We have 
 got a basis; let us see how much French law we can intro¬ 
 duce ! With a French basis, there is not one good thing 
 that you can introduce. With an English basis, there is 
 not one bad thing that 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 wo derived from the learned 
 gentlemen pleading there! how many lights have we de¬ 
 rived, from you, Sir! how many from the judicature of 
 the upper House! Where there is a basis of French 
 judicature, of French law, the legislature will never 
 think of grafting upon it an English constitution. 
 
43 
 
 With regard to state policy, which is the last point I 
 shall touch upon—the preservation of their old prejudices, 
 their old laws, their old customs, by tho bill, turns the 
 balance in favour of Franco. The only difference is, they 
 will have George the Third for Lewis tho Sixteenth. In 
 order to make Canada a secure possession of the British 
 Government, you have only to bind the people to you, by 
 giving them your laws. Give them English liberty—give 
 them an English constitution—and then whether they 
 speak 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 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 possession. 
 
 The question being then put that the said clause be read 
 a second time, tho House divided: 
 
 Tellers. 
 
 Yeas. 
 
 Nays 
 
 ( Mr. Mackworth.^ 
 
 Mr. Thomas Townsend, Jr. ) 
 
 { Mr. Bradshaw. 
 
 Mr. Bobinson.) 
 
 40 
 
 83 
 
 So it passed in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Howard—I have considered it well, and I cannot 
 separate my idea of it from that of a money bill; in which 
 character, it is a violation of your privileges, which is con¬ 
 tinued by long usages and customs. It is, moreover, a bill 
 which goes to introduce tyranny and arbitrary power into 
 the colonies, to give a further establishment to popery, to 
 annul tho bill of toleration, and to destroy the act of habeas 
 corpus. For these reasons, I have opposed it, and I venture 
 to oppose it again. In short, I look upon it as a most abo- 
 minablo and detestable measure, which ought to be rejected. 
 
With respect to the other reason given by the honourable 
 gentleman, that it is a money bill, I think no treatment too 
 contemptuous can be applied to it. On that, and that ac¬ 
 count alone, you, Sir, should throw it over the table, and 
 somebody else should kick it out at the door. 
 
 The question being put, that the bill, with the amend¬ 
 ments, do pass, the House divided : 
 
 Tellers. 
 
 ( Mr. Bradshaw.^ 
 
 Yeas. -< r 56 
 
 ( Mr. Cooper.) 
 
 ( Mr. Howard. ) 
 
 Nays. < >20 
 
 ( Mr. Dempster.) 
 
 So it was resolved in the affirmative. The bill was then 
 passed. It received the royal assent on the 22nd, when 
 the Parliament was prorogued, and shortly after dissolved.