Mr. Maseres. If the lettres de cachet should not be in themselves illegal, I do not see how the Governor could be punished in the courts of law for making use of them, nor the Ministers of State for advising the King to sign them. The use of legal powers is in general no crime. Indeed if legal powers are employed to bad purposes, there is one method of proceeding against the persons concerned in such abuse of them, and but one, and that is by impeachment by this House, before the House of Lords. But this is an operose way of proceeding, and out of the common course of things. So that if the issuing lettres de cachet should not be absolutely illegal when this Bill shall be passed into an Act (and I am still inclined to think they will not be so,) the poor objects of them may linger a long time in prison, indeed one may say indefinitely, without any legal method of redress; therefore a short clause to establish the Habeas Corpus Act in the Province seems to be highly expedient.

Lord North. I would ask the witness one question more before I sit down. Does he think it probable that, if this Bill should pass into a law, such lettres de cachet would be made use of?

Mr. Maseres. I do not think it probable that they would be used.

Mr. Hey, Chief Justice, called in.

Mr. Mackworth. Does Mr. Hey think that the Canadians are well satisfied with the trial by Jury, in criminal matters?

Mr. Hey. They are well satisfied with it.

Mr. Mackworth. Would they not be also satisfied with the same trial in civil matters?

Mr. Hey. Under certain regulations they might: for instance, if the unanimity required in England was dispensed with, and a majority of two-thirds of a Jury of thirteen or fifteen was sufficient; and if they were allowed some compensation for the expense and trouble of attendance; also if the trial by that mode was optional in the parties; under these regulations, I apprehend, they would be very well satisfied with that mode of trial in civil as well as criminal cases. Half the year in Canada all business is stopped by the climate, which makes them much the busier the other half, and at that season they consequently find the attendance as jurymen a burden.

Mr. T. Townshend. Would they wish for and approve the other parts of the English law in civil matters?

Mr. Hey. They are very little acquainted with the English law, and from their ignorance of it, would be very much against its establishment. They are tenacious of their ancient laws and customs, and would esteem a total change a great injury to them.

Mr. Baker. Would they esteem the Habeas Corpus Act an injury?

Mr. Hey. I cannot imagine that any People would be so stupid as not to esteem it a benefit.

Mr. T. Townshend. Would not the Canadians think an Assembly also a great benefit?

Mr. Hey. Very far from it: they are too ignorant a People to understand the value of a free Government; they are exceedingly obedient: would obey the King's commands let it be what it may: if he ordered an Assembly to meet they would go, but they would not know what to do when they came there: the fact is, they are not capable of that Government: they do not expect it: it is contrary to all their ideas, to all their prejudices, to all their maxims: their idea of a House of Assembly is that of a House of riot and confusion, which meets only to impede public business, and to distress the Crown: all which is a system extremely contrary to the ideas and principles of the Canadians.

Mr. T. Townshend. Did Mr. Hey ever hear of a plan or representation of what Government would probably be successful in Canada?

Mr. Hey. There was a commission from his Majesty to Governor Carleton, the Attorney General, and myself, to draw up a report of that Government which would be most proper for Canada. In that deliberation I had the misfortune to differ in opinion from Governor Carleton; my ideas were, that the laws of Canada might be blended with those of England, so as to form a system perfectly adapted to the wants of the Canadians, and also to the principles of the polity of this country. I would have left the Canadians all their laws that in any degree concerned the transfer, possession, settlement, or mortgage of landed property. I would have secured them their religious toleration and security: but I proposed to give them the criminal law of England, and the civil law as far as it concerned the rights of moveable property, the modes of trial, &c. This was a mixture which 1 imagined would answer the purposes that were wanting.

Mr. Mackworth. Is Mr. Hey acquainted with the laws of Canada, by which, in matters of property, he must conduct himself in case this Bill passes.

Mr. Hey. Not as a system: only in the cases which have come before me from the Court of Common Pleas.

Mr. Baker. If this Bill passes, will there be any legal remedy for a man's being arbitrarily imprisoned?

Mr. Hey. That must depend very much on the constitution which his Majesty may be pleased to give to his Courts of Justice, which he is enabled to erect by this Bill. But if, as a Chief Justice, I knew of a man's imprisonment, I should be much induced, if I found no law for the purpose, to make one, to have the prisoner brought before me, that the cause of his commitment might be known.

The Committee then reported to the House.

Resolved, That this House will, to-morrow morning, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider further of the said Bill.

Ordered, That Major General Carleton, Governor of the Province of Quebec, William Hey, Esquire, Chief Justice of the said Province, Doctor James Marriott, his Majesty's Advocate General, and M. De Lotbiniere, Esquire, do attend the said Committee at the same time.

FRIDAY, June 3, 1774.

The House being informed that the Sheriffs of the City of London attended at the door, they were called in; and, at the Bar, presented to the House,

A Petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons, of the City of London, in Common Council assembled.

And then they withdrew.

And the said Petition was read;

To the Honorable the Commons of Great Britain, in Parliament assembled, the humble Petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons, of the City of London, in Common Council assembled, sheweth:

That your Petitioners are deeply concerned, and much alarmed, to find there is now a Bill depending before this honorable House, intituled, "An Act making more effectual provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec, in North America," which, in all civil cases, takes away the exercise of the English law, and that sacred part of it, the Trial by Jury, and substitutes in its stead the French law of Canada, whereby the freedom of the person, and security of the property of his Majesty's subjects, are rendered very precarious.

That if this Bill passes into a law, the Roman Catholic will be the only legal established religion, without any provision being made for the free exercise of the Protestant religion, which may prove greatly injurious and oppressive to his Majesty's Protestant subjects, who do now, or may hereafter reside in the said Province.

That the Legislative power is vested solely in persons appointed during pleasure, by the Crown, which is totally inconsistent with the liberty and principles of the English Constitution.

Your Petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the said Bill may not pass into a law.

Ordered, That the said Petition do lie upon the table.

The Order of the Day being read, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, upon the Bill:

M. De Lotbiniere was called in, and examined in French.

Mr. T. Townshend. Are you of Canada?

M. De Lotbiniere. I am.

Mr. T. Townshend. Of the corps of nobility?

M. De Lotbiniere. Yes.