which we can neither keep up the communication, or retain it for any time, and the difficulties and obstructions which have hitherto prevented our possessing it, by way of the Mississippi, are convincing proof of this. Neither is it in our power, with any force to be spared for that service, to ascend the river or cross the country by land to that settlement, if the Indians are at all disposed to obstruct their progress.* The settlements at the Illinois extend for many miles above the Kaskaski river along the Mississippi; the land is extremely fine, and capable of raising anything. Some of the present inhabitants may possibly incline to go home, and our traders will, I dare say, choose to purchase their rights; this may be a foundation for a valuable colony in that country, which, once established, would prove very beneficial to Great Britain, as well as a great check to the large cessions obtained of the natives. But to effect this, and every other purpose, their jealousies and dislike must be conquered, and they must be convinced by a series of good management and occasional generosity that their suspicions are groundless.-N. Y. Hist. Doc., vol. 8.

APPENDIX C.

SO MUCH OF THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE QUEBEC BILL AS RELATES TO THE BOUNDARIES.

Mr. T. Townshend, jun.-Although I bow very low to all great authorities, I must venture to mention one thing, that when I was calling for regulations for Canada, little did I think, that I was calling for regulations for a country much larger than Canada, a country "extending," in the words of the Bill, "southward to the banks of the River Ohio, westward to the banks of the Mississippi, and northward to the southern boundary of the territory granted to the Merchants' Adven

* The expeditions of Lord Dunmore and Colonel Boquet would seem to warrant different conclusion.

*

*

turers of England trading to Hudson s Bay." I say, Sir, that when I was calling for regulations for Canada, little did I think that I was calling for an arrangement which, I will venture to say, is oppressive to the English subject, and disagreeable and hateful to the Canadian. I know there prevails an opinion that the best thing you can do with this country is to make it a French colony, to keep the English out of it as much as possible, that they may not mix with the Canadians. * * * Now, for what purpose are they (the English settlers) to be placed under French laws, unless it is meant to be laid as a foundation that, for the future, French laws are to be the laws of America? If this is to be the case, Sir, that may be a good reason for extending French law to the whole of Illinois, and to all that is intermediate between Illinois and Canada. You have given up to Canada almost all that country which was the subject of dispute, and for which we went to war. We went to war calling it the Province of Virginia. You tell the French it was only a pretext for going to war; that you knew then, you know now, that it was a part of the Province of Canada. I should wish to know why Canada may not be reduced to some less limits; why not the same limits England and France have ever given it; why not within some bounds, a little less than that which is given to it here ?

* *

*

Lord North.— * * * The first thing objected to by the honourable gentleman is the very great extent of territory given to the Province. Why, he asks, is it so extensive? There are added undoubtedly to it two countries which were not in the original limits of Canada, as settled in the proclamation of 1763 one, the Labrador coast, the other, the country westward of the Ohio and Mississippi, and a few scattered posts to the west. Sir, the addition of Labrador coast has been made in consequence of information received from those best acquainted with Canada and the fishery upon that coast, who deem it absolutely necessary, for the preservation of that fishery, that the Labrador coast should no longer be

considered as a part of the government of Newfoundland but be annexed to that country. With respect to the other additions, these questions very fairly occur. It is well known that settlers are in the habit of going to the interior parts from time to time. Now, however undesirable, it is open to Parliament to consider whether it is fit there should be no government in the country, or, on the contrary, separate and distinct governments; or whether the scattered posts should be annexed to Canada. The House of Lords have thought proper to annex them to Canada; but when we consider that there must be some government, and that it is the desire of all those who trade from Canada to those countries, that there should be some government, my opinion is that if gentlemen will weigh the inconveniences of separate governments, they will think the least inconvenient method is to annex those spots, though few in population, great in extent of territory, rather than to leave them without government at all, or make them separate ones· Sir, the annexation likewise is the result of the desire of the Canadians and of those who trade to those settlements, who think they cannot trade with safety as long as they remain separate.

Mr. T. Townsend, jun.- * Near the Illinois and Fort du Cane, I am informed there are at this time upwards of five-and-twenty thousand British settlers.

Mr. Dunning.- * * * The first object of this Bill is to make out that to be Canada, which it was the struggle of this country to say was not Canada. Now, Sir, if this Province should ever be given back to its old masters—and I am not without an inclination to think that the best way would be to give it back to its old masters—if it should ever become right to give back Canada, with what consistency can its future negociator say to France, We will give you back Canada; not that Canada which you asserted to be Canada, but that stated in the proclamation, having discovered that we were mistaken in the extent of it, which error has been corrected by the highest authority in this country? Then, suppose Canada

thus extended should be given back to France, the English settled there will then have a line of frontier to an extent undefined by this Bill; for this country is bounded by the Ohio on the west-God knows where! I wish God alone may not know where. I wish any gentleman would tell us where. I observe in this description of frontier a studied ambiguity of phrase. I cannot tell what it means; but I conjecture that it means something bad. The Ohio is stated as a boundary confirmed by the Crown; but what act, what confirmation by the Crown has passed upon this subject? I know of no such act, of no such confirmation. I know, by the terms of the Charter, the colonists suppose, and I think they are well grounded in the supposition, that they are entitled to settle back as far as they please to the east (? West) to the sea, their natural boundary. They did not like a dif ferent barrier. I know some assert this right, and others content themselves with a less extensive claim. Whether so extensive a claim has been allowed, I know not; but I do understand, in point of fact, that there has been long subsisting a dispute about the western frontier, which was never discussed, still less decided; and when this Bill shall become a law, those colonists will then learn that this Parliament, at this hour, have decided this dispute without knowing what the dispute was, and without hearing the parties. Looking, Sir, at the map, I see the River Ohio takes its rise in a part of Pennsylvania, and runs through the Province of Virginia; that, supposing myself walking down the river, all the country to the right, which is at this moment a part of the Province of Virginia, has been lopped off from this part, and has become instead a part of Canada; for, we tell them, the instant they pass that river, which by the terms of the Charter they may pass, that matter is now for ever at rest; the moment, say we, you get beyond that river, you are in the condition in which this Bill professes to put Canada-the Indian finds himself out of the protection of that law under which he was bred. Sir, do we treat the proprietors of

Indiana well? Some of them are resident in this country I apprehend, at this very hour they are unapprised of this Bill to stop them. To decide upon questions without exactly knowing whether such questions are existing, is an obvious injustice. * * * I should be glad to learn what is the good intended to be effected by this extent of territory? The noble lord says it is to comprise a few straggling posts under some form of government. If I should admit the necessity of so comprising a few straggling posts, does it follow that this is a form of government fit to be established? Does it follow from any local reasons why Canada should be so extensive, or that the English settlers should be likewise involved? What objections are there to making more settlements? Whatever they are, they will be found trivial, compared to the consequence of involving this whole region in this form of government. * *

Attorney-General Thurlow.- * * The honourable gentlemen complain that the bounds of Canada extend a great way beyond what they were acknowledged to do formerly, and that it was peculiarly bad policy, as far as it regarded the French, to give the limits so great an extension. Now, the House will remember that the whole of Canada, as we allowed it to extend, was not included in the proclamation; that the bounds were not coequal with it as it stood then, and that it is not included in the present Act of Parliament, if that were material. But I will not, Sir, consider it as the Province that formerly belonged to France, nor as called by the same name; it is a new scheme of a constitution adapted for a part of the country, not that part only which was under French government, but embracing many other parts of great extent which were formerly not under French government, but were certainly occupied in different parts by French settlers, and French settlers only. The honorable gentlemen are mistaken if they suppose that the bounds described embrace in point of fact any English settlement. I know of no English settlement