1791] CANADA ACT INTRODUCED. 313 the sense of the necessity of the presence of a prudent governor in the province would, no doubt, induce Dorchester to relinquish the wish to return home. In the following March, Dorchester was informed that the bill had been introduced into parliament, and he was asked to be present in London to assist in the adjustment of many unsettled points. He did not, however, sail for England until the 18th of August. Sir Alured Clarke was not sworn in until the 25th, having deferred taking up the administration before Dorchester was clear of the coast. When Dorchester arrived in England the Canada act had become law. On the 25th of February, 1791, a royal message was delivered to the house of commons, that it was the design to divide the province of Canada, and on the 7th of the following March Mr. Pitt introduced the bill. He trusted that it would remove the differences of opinion which had arisen between the old and new inhabitants: a remark which shews that the efforts made in London to advance the views of those claiming the establishment of a house of assembly had given them undue importance. Pitt conceived that the establishment of a house of assembly was a certain panacea for these grievances; for he proceeded to state that each province would have the right of enacting the laws desired in its own house of assembly. From the proceedings of that date it is easy to understand that those who had been clamorous for the assembly were desirous of its establishment only on condition of holding it in control. They were, however, soon made to understand that the division of the province, in connection with the character of the franchise, would, from their inferiority of number, place them in a constant minority. On the 23rd of March Mr. Adam Lymburner appeared before the house of commons on the part of the Englishspeaking inhabitants of the province; he claimed likewise to represent "the most respectable and intelligent of the French Canadians." Contemporary documents shew that in [Can. Arch., Q. 50.1, p. 13] * that respect he had but limited support. Mr. Lymburner spoke for some hours with ability, and his speech remains on record. He opposed the bill as it was presented to the house. He asked a total repeal of the Quebec act, a new constitution, and the retention of the boundaries of the province of Quebec as it was constituted, undivided into two provinces. He protested against the administration of the law, appealing to the records of the courts in proof of their failure to extend justice. He affirmed that the province had to a great extent suffered from the confusion which the Quebec act had introduced, and that it had "been exposed to the pernicious effects of uncertain and undefined laws, and to the arbitrary judgments of courts guided by no fixed principles or certain rules." No argument could be advanced why the act should be preserved, and he asked its entire repeal as extremely obnoxious to those he represented. Nor could he see reason for the "violent measure" of creating two distinct provinces. He argued that, if separated, they could never be re-united; a union, be it remarked, which was effected precisely half a century later. He pointed out that the upper province would be cut off from all communication. with Great Britain, as vessels could not ascend above Montreal. He might have more correctly stated Quebec; for at that time no ship drawing above eight feet of water could pass at low water over the shallows of lake Saint Peter, the depth of which to-day, artificially obtained, is twenty-nine feet, in a channel of 200 feet in width. He foresaw the difficulty which would arise in the imposition of duties on imports for the use of Upper Canada, collected at Quebec, which could not pass in unbroken bulk, for delivery in the settlements above the Lachine rapids. He pointed out that there was less reason for the division of the province, as Niagara would prove the limit of the province, that the country beyond could not become of importance for settlement, the falls of Niagara being "an unsurmountable bar to the transportation of such rude materials as the produce of the land." 1791] LYMBURNER'S ADDRESS. 315 Mr. Lymburner, in his argument, expressed what formed one of the main arguments with those who thought with him for the non-creation of two distinct provinces. He anticipated that the settlers in the new districts on the Saint Lawrence would be so occupied with the cultivation of their farms that they would find among themselves but few willing to represent them in the new legislature; and that for some years they would choose their representatives in Montreal and Quebec from those connected with them in business. The proceedings in the Upper Canada legislature after its establishment prove the fallacy of Mr. Lymburner's calculations. The U. E. loyalists comprised many men of such good education and with such knowledge of public life that those who in modern times write of them favourably in the United States point out the loss to the newly constituted nationality by the departure from among them of so many men of trained ability. Lymburner wisely pointed out the inadvisability of making the office of legislative council hereditary. The proposal was seen to be utterly inexpedient. Pitt really acted in accordance with this view, for though the clause was retained it was simply permissive. Mr. Lymburner briefly set forth the principles of the new constitution that he and others were desirous of seeing promulgated, viz.: repeal of the Quebec act in toto; a triennial house of assembly with the admission of Roman catholics; a legislative council, the members holding their places for life, subject to residence in the province and good behaviour; the criminal law of England; the commercial law and custom of England; the habeas corpus; the ancient law of Canada of marriage settlements, inheritance and dower for the districts of Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal, as then bounded; the common law of England for the other portion of the province; that juries should be granted in civil cases when demanded, unanimity on the part of nine out of the twelve jurors to establish the verdict; that the sheriffs should be nominated by the governor from a list furnished by the assembly; that judges should be unremovable by the governor; that the duties of office should be performed by such as were appointed to the position; power should also be given, on petition, to accept the surrender of the feudal grants and to make a re-grant of a seigniory on free and common socage. * Subsequently, on the 4th of April, Mr. Hussey presented a petition of the merchants engaged in the Canada trade against the proposed act, and moved that the bill be recommitted. The petition set forth that the measure would be injurious to the province, especially in the matter of commerce. The motion was supported at some length by Fox, who argued that the bill was not sufficiently liberal. On the 21st of April the matter came up in committee. Owing to the thin attendance, Sheridan suggested that the debate should be adjourned, but Pitt insisted that it should proceed. Powys and Hussey recommended adjournment. Mr. M. A. Taylor objected that the measure had received no attention on the question of its detail, and that the discussion had been turned upon the general principles of government. Fox claimed the right to follow in this tone of argument, however sorry he might be to differ from any of his friends in the opinions he expressed. It was during the debate on the Canada act that the memorable quarrel took place between Burke and Fox. A debate had been held a few days previously on the war in Russia, when it was foreseen, from the antagonism which had arisen in their opinions, that further difficulty between them must arise. An explanation has been given, whether true or not, that the king had made some remark favourable to Fox, * Mr. Lymburner was a native of Kilmarnock, Ayrshire. He had succeeded to the business of his brother John, who, in 1775, sailed from Quebec, the vessel having been lost with all on board. He was for many years a member of the executive council. Finally, he took up his residence in London, where he died on the 10th of January, 1836, at the age of 90. He lived to see the completion of the first Lachine canal, in 1823, and the Carillon-Grenville canals, with the Rideau navigation to Kingston, in 1832. The Welland canal had been completed in 1829. By these important works the district of Niagara, which he had described as the limit of civilization, had become the central part of Upper Canada; the province to its western limit at the Detroit river being well inhabited. 1791] BURKE'S SPEECH. 317 upon which he had been informed that Fox was in principle a republican. It has been supposed that Burke was urged to take part in the discussion in the expectation that Fox's imprudence of speech, during the debate, would lead to utterances on his part that would go far to establish the truth of the assertion. I repeat the statement as I have read it. Burke's whole speech turned upon the French revolution, of which he spoke in most bitter language. He occupied the attention of the house until the adjournment. On the reconsideration of the bill, on the 6th of May, Burke immediately rose. After again making a long attack on the revolution and the pernicious principles which it inculcated, he alluded to the loyalists who had fled from the American government, adding that there was no danger of their going back to their former homes. They had forsworn all the advantages of a more fertile soil and more southern latitude for what he was pleased to call "the bleak and barren regions of Canada." Burke was never a friend to Canada. There is not a sentence of his on record in favour of the province. With Fox he mourned the death of Montgomery, and regarded the successful defence of Quebec with disfavour. Was it because Canada remained loyal to the British crown, at the period when Burke's whole sympathies were with the revolted colonies, that the province received no favour at his hands? He gave scarcely any consideration to the provisions of the bill which was to assure the well-being of Canada. effort was limited to declaiming against the French revolution, declaring with what horror he regarded its progress, that its principles were to be detested, and were pregnant with every consequence that should be dreaded and abominated. His Fox's remarks were doubtless irritating to Burke. He pointed out that although nobody had said a word with regard to the French revolution, Burke had loaded that event with abuse. He might have so treated the Gentoo government or that of China, or the government of Turkey, or the laws of Confucius with equal appositeness. But every gentleman |