The motion was seconded by

Mr. T. Townshend, who set forth the necessity of his attendance; and said, he could assign no other reason for his evidence being denied, unless it was that he himself had been imprudent enough to declare to the House, that General Murray coincided with Mr. Maseres; and said, he believed when the noble Lord gave his consent to hear him, and sent the Sergeant to look for him, he well knew he was not in the House.

Lord North rose in a terrible passion, and said, he cared not what the honorable gentleman thought of him; that he never paid any respect to what a passionate and prejudiced person said; that he knew the honorable gentleman had an ill opinion of him, and he was welcome to think so still. He said, had General Murray been in the House he would have heard him, but as he was not, summoning him for another day would greatly delay the business, and he should therefore oppose the motion.

Mr. T. Townshend rose, and in a spirited manner answered, that he would submit to the House which seemed most passionate; that he was certain General Murray's evidence was material; and as to prejudice, he desired nothing but that it might be remarked, he was prejudiced to hear General Murray, the noble Lord was prejudiced against hearing him. He then set forth, that, by this law, the fishery on the Labrador coast would be altered, which would affect the Newfoundland fishery; that as it was an affair of great consequence, Admiral Palliser would, be necessary to be examined; but as the noble Lord objected as to time, he would not move for his attendance, but only wish to refer the noble Lord to him for information.

Colonel Barré set forth how material it was to have General Murray's evidence, as he was at the taking of Quebec, was Governor of the Colony the first after it was taken, and remained Governor several years after, and therefore, consequently, knew the manners and customs of the Canadians; that, as he had been resident there at so critical a juncture, he must have seen how they liked the French laws, and how they liked the English laws.

Captain Phipps was likewise much for the General being heard, saying, that the evidence produced had been deficient in many points of information which he could have wished to have heard.

Mr. Charles Fox rose, and in the most sarcastic manner attacked Lord North, as to passion and prejudice. He said, the noble Lord always had two opinions; that most people's second opinion was best, but the noble Lord's second thought was generally the worst; that he was always very uniform in his conduct; for about half an hour before he gave leave for General Murray to be heard, but now he was against it. He said there had been no other objection started against the motion except want of time; that that was ridiculous, for the persons who brought in the Bill now, might have brought it in at the beginning of the session, or even last session; that they could not make an excuse, and say it was a case of such urgent necessity, that if the Bill did not pass in a day or two, the place would be entirely ruined, therefore the Bill must pass.

Lord North rose to explain himself, and said he had often been accused of having panegyrists in pay to write in favour of him in the newspapers; that he then would solemnly protest that he never had employed, or knew any person that ever did write in favour of him; that he did not wish for newspaper applause, as it was generally meant to serve some end; and as to panegyrics on him, he believed, if they only looked into the opposite scale, that which held abuse, they would find the account had been more than balanced.

Mr. Dempster, Governor Johnstone, Mr. Burke, Mr. Baker, Mr. Turner, &c, spoke in favour of the motion, and none but Lord North against it.

When the question was put, the House divided: Yeas, 36; Nays, 90.

So it passed in the Negative.

MONDAY, June 6, 1774.

The House again went into Committee of the Whole, upon the Bill.

Governor Johnstone, after stating his objections to the principle of the Bill, and to the extension of Canada,(which another member informed the House, was no less than 11,400,000 acres more than as claimed by France,) read a list of propositions, which, he said, appeared to him, to be contained in the Bill, amongst which were—

That a state of Slavery is better than a state of Freedom:

That the Popish Religion is better than the Protestant:

That Juries are unnecessary, and therefore to be disused:

That Monopolies are useful to Trade:

That French Laws and Commercial Regulations are preferable to English:

And that the Constitution which our ancestors had framed with so much wisdom, and established at the expense of so much blood and treasure: is to be destroyed by their wiser sons.

Mr. E. Burke spoke against the Bill; but confined himself to the point of ascertaining the limits of New York; and proposed the following to be the boundaries of Canada, against that Province, viz: by a line drawn from a point on the East side of Lake Champlain, in 45 degrees North latitude, and by a line drawn in that parallel West to the river St. Lawrence, and up that river to Lake Ontario, and across that lake to the river Niagara, and from Niagara across Lake Erie, to the Northwest point of the boundary of Pennsylvania, and down the West boundary of that Province, by a line drawn from thence till it strike the Ohio. After some debate this passed. The limits of Quebec were next carried along the Ohio to the Mississippi. Governor Johnstone spoke against the annexing the Illinois to Canada. There was another debate on annexing the coast of Labrador to Quebec. The objection was begun by Sir C. Sounders, who deduced from it the loss of the fishery to the Americans. Lord North gave an account of the sea cow and seal fishery on the Labrador coast, and shewed, that from the sedentary nature of it, it could not be conducted upon the same principles as the Newfoundland fishery.

Upon this clause the House divided: Yeas, 88; Nays, 49.

The Committee then reported progress; and it was,

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

TUESDAY, June 7, 1774.

The House, according to order, went into a Committee of the Whole, upon the Bill.

An objection was made to a part of the preamble of a clause, which says, It will be highly expedient to grant them the same laws, by which their lives and property have been heretofore governed, protected, and ordered.

Mr. Dempster and Mr. E. Burke objected to the word protected, as it was, in their opinion, not true, and was at the same time, paying the French too great a compliment.

Lord North, Lord Beauchamp, and Mr. Grey Cooper, insisted the word was proper, and that the law that governed, protected.

The next objection was made to the clause, which repeals all laws and ordinances passed by the Governor and Council, for the civil Government of Quebec, and the King's Proclamation, in 1763, so far as it relates to the Province of Quebec, from and after the first day of May, 1775.

A very strong debate ensued, in which Mr. Dunning spoke for near an hour and an half against it; he was supported by Mr. E. Burke, Captain Phipps, Mr. Howard, &,c. Lord North, Mr. Cornwall, Lord Clare, Mr. Rice, &c, &c, as strongly supported the clause.

And on the motion, that the clause shall stand, the Committee divided: Ayes, 91; Nays, 31.

The next objection was made to the clause, which settles that Tythes and Dues shall be paid to the Romish clergy.

A very strong debate here ensued, in which Mr. E. Burke, Mr. Baker, Mr. Dunning, Mr. W. Burke, Mr. C. Fox, Captain Phipps, &c, strongly opposed, not only the whole clause, but particularly an alteration proposed by Lord North, which was, "that his Majesty should have power to appropriate, when he thought proper, the said tythes unto the establishing a Protestant clergy."