to them. 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 government, which will deprive all those who may hereafter be 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 the passing of this mischievous bill will be in vain; but I earnestly hope, that it will be rendered less mischievous, by the admission of the clause proposed by the honourable gentleman near me.

Edmund Burke.-Now, instead of making them free subjects of England, you sentence them to French government for ages. I meant only to offer a few words upon the part of the 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 these people, having deprived them of the principles of our constitution, let us turn our attention to three hundred and sixty English families. It is a small number; but I have heard, that the English are not to be judged of by number but by weight; and that one Englishman can beat two Frenchmen. Let us not value that prejudice. I do not know that one Englishman can beat two Frenchmen; but I know that, in this case, he ought to be more valuable than twenty Frenchmen, if you estimate him as a freeman and the Frenchmen as slaves. What can compensate an Englishman for the loss of his laws? Do you propose to take away liberty from the 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 whole 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 Englishmen? Surely, the English merchants want the protection of our law more than the noblesse! They have property

4

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 he is not armed with English law. I claim protection for the three hundred and sixty English families whom I do know, against the prejudices of the noblesse of Canada, whom I do not know. I must put the House in mind of what an honourable gentleman 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 reason of the better part, and the interest of the whole; and we are now enjoying the benefits of that choice-benefits 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 establishment is proposed to them, which throws them into some disorder, some confusion. "All the interim is like a phantasma 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 introduce! 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 we derived from the learned gentlemen pleading there! how many lights have we derived, 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.

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 the bill, turns the balance in favour of France. The only difference is, they will have George the Third for Lewis the 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, the House divided:

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 confirmed 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 the 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 abominable 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 account 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 amendments, do pass, the House divided :

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.