FRIDAY, June 10, 1774.

The Order of the Day being read,

Sir Charles Whitworth reported the amendments made to the Bill, by the Committee of the whole House.

And the House being informed, Thomas Penn, Esquire, who petitioned this House, upon the 31st day of May last, on behalf of himself, and of John Penn, Esquire, true and absolute Proprietaries of the Province of Pennsylvania, and the three lower Counties of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex, on Delaware, in America, praying to be heard by Counsel upon the matter of said Petition, and which Petition was then ordered to lie upon the table, until the Report should be received from the Committee, to whom the said Bill was committed, declined being now heard by Counsel upon the said Petition.

The amendments of the Committee, were then severally read and agreed to by the House, except that made on the motion of Mr. Burke, on the 6th instant, in relation to the Southern boundary of Canada, which was amended to read as follows, and then adopted:

"Bounded on the South by a line drawn from, the Bay of Chaleurs, along the high lands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the sea, to a point of forty-five degrees of Northern latitude, on the Eastern bank of the river Connecticut, keeping the same latitude, directly West, through the Lake Champlain, until, in the same latitude, it meets the river St. Lawrence; from thence, up the Eastern bank of the said river, to the Lake Ontario; thence through the Lake Ontario, and the river commonly called Niagara, along the Eastern, and Southeastern bank of Lake Erie, following the said bank, until the same shall be intersected by the Northern boundary granted by the charter of the Province of Pennsylvania, in case the same shall be so intersected; and from thence along the said Northern and Western boundaries of the said Province, until the said Western boundary strike the Ohio. But incase the said bank of the said lake shall not be found to be so intersected, then following the said bank, until it shall arrive at that point of the said bank which shall be nearest to the Northwest angle of the said Province of Pennsylvania; and thence, by a right line to the said Northwest angle of the said Province; and thence along the Western boundary of the said Province."

Mr. Mackworth moved, that a clause should be added to the Bill, "That in all trials relating to property and civil rights, where the value shall exceed a certain sum, either of the contending parties may demand a trial by Jury, constituted according to the laws of England, and that the issue between the parties shall be determined by the verdict of such Jury, and not otherwise." He recommended the clause as a security for the English, in Quebec, against the French laws.

Lord North opposed it. He recapitulated part of the evidence that had been produced at the bar, and said Governor Carleton had informed the House, that the Canadians had a dislike to the English laws in general; and it was his opinion, that giving the Canadians their old system of laws would be the only means of making them a happy People; that Mr. Hey, the Chief Justice, had said it was his opinion, that the Canadians, at first, might have been brought to like the English laws, but since they had been so indulged, they expected now nothing less than a repeal of the whole of the laws by which they are governed at present; and that the noblesse of the country thought trial by Jury was humiliating and degrading to them, as it subjected their property to the decision of barbers and tailors; that Mr. Maseres, had to be sure, said, that Juries, he believed would be liked under proper regulations, but the People of Canada did not choose to give their time and attendance for nothing; that Mons. Lotbiniere, on a question being put to him, whether he did not think the English laws the best for the Canadians in general? Said, "I make no doubt but your laws are good and wise, and make you a happy People, but I do not think they are suited to every climate." His Lordship afterwards entered much upon the subject of Juries, and said, the Canadians could have but a bad opinion of English Juries, when a Grand Jury there had presented the Roman Catholics as a nuisance; he said, the Canadians, in their petition to the Throne, had desired to have the whole of their ancient laws restored to them, which the Bill was meant to do; that in his opinion, the trial by Jury was not necessary there; and that, by what he had been informed, the French laws, were sufficient to protect property without it; that People had very industriously circulated a report that he had made a ministerial question of this; he would assure the House, upon his honor he had. not; that, after once fixing the Government of Quebec, in the hands of this nation, it was a matter of indifference to him what law or religion was established, so that it made the People happy; that the British merchants saying their property would not be secure without English laws, let gentlemen recollect that British merchants trade to all parts of the world, and think their property secure in Portugal or Spain, where they know the Roman Catholic religion is the religion of the land, and that the number of old or English subjects in Canada were so few in number, that the cries of one hundred and fifty thousand ought to be given way to in preference of three hundred and sixty.

Sergeant Glynn recapitulated the parts of the evidence which the noble Lord had so ingeniously selected; he said, the noble Lord had laid great stress on the imprudence of the Grand Jury presenting the Roman Catholics as a nuisance, and seemed to think, for that reason, they ought to have the trial by Jury taken away; did the noble Lord never recollect, that the British House of Commons had committed equally flagrant acts of injustice; and that, if the reason for abolishing held good in one point, it ought in the other; yet he sincerely hoped that the House would never be taken away; for, bad and corrupt as it was believed to be by ignorant People, it still remained some safeguard to the nation; he afterwards launched forth into the praise of Juries, and mentioned many particular circumstances where Juries had been found extremely beneficial to the welfare of the public; he afterwards stated the account of the seizing the papers of Mr. Wilkes, the general warrants, &c., &c. He said, all State causes would be carried as desired, was it not for Juries: he mentioned the affair of Hampden, concerning ship money, and concluded with saying, that the tenth day of June, 1774, would be handed down to posterity as a day when the members of a British House of Commons preferred Popery and French laws to the established religion and laws of their own country; and, at the same time, that trials by Jury, which their forefathers accounted a blessing, they deemed a curse.

Mr. Attorney General Thurlow said, he did not agree with the honorable and learned gentleman, that whoever was against the allowing a trial by Jury in that Bill thought the mode a curse; far from it; he had, himself, in many cases, often thought the trial by Jury a great blessing; yet it would be highly imprudent, unparliamentary, ridiculous, and absurd, to establish a clause at the end of the Bill, (as that must be,) which clause would entirely repeal that clause in the body of the Bill, which allows the Canadians all their ancient laws; for would any body say, that trial by Jury was one of their ancient customs, or assert that it was necessary; that, as for the petitioning Canadians, they only desired to have their ancient laws and customs restored to them and that he by no means thought an optional Jury any thing like an English Jury; that, by the former, any party that thought he could gain a preference in his trial over the other, would adopt it; and that it must be allowed, that where the option was liked by one, it would displease the other; besides, the evidences at the bar had declared, that the Canadians were averse to the form of an English Jury, especially in that part which obliges them to be unanimous in their verdict; and that, if you took away that part, in his opinion, you destroyed the whole; that he believed the learned gentleman had been wrong in giving praise to a Jury in the case of Mr. Hampden, for no Jury was consulted on that case.

Mr. Dunning said, that as to the learned gentleman mentioning that he by no means approved of optional Juries, had we not, every term, instances in the Court of Chancery, where it was in the power of the Lord Chancellor to appoint a Jury, if he thought proper? That, as to the es-