and dominion of the Governor; that Governor equally dependant on those in power here; that Council to be composed of Papists and Frenchmen; and this is the Government and the mode of legislation which British subjects and Englishmen are bound implicitly to obey. But what, are they to have in return? Oh! The criminal law of England is to be retained; that is, when they grossly offend against the laws of society, they are entitled to the superior lenity of those criminal laws; but when they do not offend, but demean themselves peaceably, or are in the fair and honest prosecution of their rights and properties, both one and the other are to be determined on, not by the fair and equitable laws of England, but by constitutions they cannot be supposed, nor ever will be able to understand. Suppose those laws were as intelligible as they are otherwise, would it not add to the misery of an Englishman, that he perfectly understood the full meaning and extent of a lettre de cachet? Is not this part of the constitutions of, Paris, on which the laws of Canada are framed? It may be objected, that being within the criminal jurisdiction, no such thing can possibly happen; but I contend for the contrary, as letters of this kind are issued upon a thousand occasions, in which no crimes are imputed to the person arrested and confined; motives of prudence, motives of convenience, of family regulation, &c, frequently give birth to steps of this nature. On the whole, if any thing were wanting to give me the worst opinion of this Bill, the trial by Jury in civil cases, and the habeas corpus law being omitted, would be motive strong enough with me to give it my strongest negative.

Mr. Attorney General Thurlow. Respecting the ill consequences that may flow from enlarging the Province of Quebec, in case of being forced by a future war to restore it, I cannot see that in the same light as my learned friend; because I think that the limits and importance of cessions are never dependant upon such arrangements as these, but upon the length of the sword; it is success in war that gives success in peace, and by no means the imaginary lines drawn by a State in its Colonies; nor have the limits now drawn any thing to do with old Canada; they take in countries never claimed by France; it is a new scheme, and by no means the restoration of those old limits the French once contended for.

With regard to the supposed cruelty of not giving the Canadians the same laws in every instance as we enjoy in England, I am so far from being of the same opinion, that I think you could not act more cruelly to that People, than to change at once their law of property, and give them our trial by Jury, which is necessarily giving our law of actions. I am clear it would so completely confound them, as to be more tyrannical than can be easily imagined. They would not understand the rule of their own actions; they would not know on what principles they stood possessed of their own property. In a word, you would give them the greatest curse, under the notions of a blessing. There is not a circumstance dearer to a man, nor one which he ought to be more jealous of, than to be tried in all points bylaws to which he has been used, and whose principles are known to him.

He condemned in very harsh terms the advisers of the proclamation, and the imperfect, improper manner in which it was drawn up. He denied however, that it contained any such assurance as that contended for by the gentlemen on the other side. He said, that no such encouragement should have been given; that it was impolitic to hold out any benefits to the natural born subjects of this country to emigrate thither from hence, or to go from the other Colonies; that to form settlements in North America, far distant from the sea, or from the neighbourhood of the great navigable rivers, was extremely improper; that as to the establishment of the French laws, relative to property, being not so proper as those of England, he was astonished to hear any gentleman object to them, as it would be in the. last degree cruel and unjust to force the laws of the conquerors on the conquered; that the uniform custom of all great and conquering nations had been against it; and, that therefore taking the present Bill as applying to French or English, it was perfectly right the former should receive every possible encouragement to become good subjects, and the latter meet with every possible obstruction from settling in that Province.

Colonel Barré said, that the Bill was every way complete; that its clauses perfectly corresponded with its principle; and that taking them unitedly, they were the most flagrant attack on the constitution that had hitherto been attempted. He next stated the probable number of English settlers and inhabitants; the situation of the Province at the time of the conquest; explained the terms of the Definitive Treaty of Peace; the King's Proclamation in October, 1763; and demonstrated how repugnant they were to the design and provisions of the present Bill. He entered pretty fully into several points before spoke to particularly relative to the French laws; and finished with observing—I cannot agree that there is any thing in the laws of England, in the trial by Jury, and the habeas corpus, that the Canadians would not very easily understand; and it is preposterous to suppose, that the superiority of good and just law, and freedom, should not be felt by People, because they had been used to arbitrary power. But why is the religion of France, as well as the law of France, to become the religion of all those People not Canadians, that pass out of one Colony into another? By this Act you establish the Roman Catholic religion where it never was established before, and you only permit the practice of your own; you do not so much as let them go hand in hand. For what purpose is the Illinois and the Ohio to be Roman Catholics? Why is that to be made the established religion of that vast country, in which are very many English settlers?

Lord John Cavendish objected to many of the principles laid down by Mr. Attorney. He said he did not contend for the total introduction of the English laws, particularly on a sudden, but that by blending them with their own, they might gradually conciliate the Canadians to them, and in the end be able to conquer all their present prejudices, so as to lead to the final establishment of the laws of this country. He added, that whatever compromise of this kind might be entered into on the present occasion; He could perceive no. possible good reason for withholding from them the extension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the trial by Jury.

Mr. Sergeant Glynn controverted most of the positions laid down by the Attorney General, particularly relative, to true construction of the Definitive Treaty, his Majesty's Proclamation, and the propriety of allowing the conquered to retain their own laws. He observed, that whatever contrary opinion might be maintained, it was his that all conquests, as soon as made, vested, in the King, Lords, and Commons; but that, until the two latter interfered, the King, as actual representative, of. the whole, was justified in making such regulations as he might think proper, so that they were not actually repugnant to the laws or constitution. The latter not being the case of the Proclamation, he thought the nation in every respect bound to fulfil every thing promised by that solemn engagement. He instanced likewise the cases of Wales, arid Ireland, as conquered countries, where our laws had been established; and enlarged, in a very able manner on the in any important and salutary effects that had arisen from our extending them to those countries.

Mr. Solicitor. General denied. the fact as stated by the learned Sergeant; insisted, that it was not till the reign of Henry the Eighth, that they were introduced into Wales, nor until that of James the First, that, they obtained in Ireland. He said, that among all the great or powerful nations we had an account of, the Romans and English were the only two who forced their laws on the conquered; that it was a most cruel and barbarous policy, and that the English laws, how much soever we might prize them, would be the greatest curse imaginable to the Canadians.

Mr. Charles Fox objected to the Bill, as being contrary to the established usage of Parliament. He said a provision was made in it for securing the tythes to the Romish clergy; that this was raising money on the subject, and that consequently its originating in the other House, was not only irregular; and informal, but directly repugnant to the custom and law of Parliament.

Mr. Dempster said, the impropriety of die Bill struck him, for it certainly was a Bill either to take away or impose a tax, and therefore should have originated in the Commons, but he should be glad of the Speakers opinion.