the question" that the clauses of the Quebec bill be read paragraph by paragraph."

Mr. Fox said, "he was sincerely sorry to feel that he must support the motion, and the more so as his right honorable friend had made it necessary by bringing on, , in so irregular a manner, a discussion of a matter by no means connected with the Quebec bill, in a manner which he could not help thinking, extremely unfair, but which he must consider as a direct injustice to him. If the right honorable gentleman's argument over the way, with regard to order, was to obtain order, it was a mode of order that would go to stop every proceeding of that House, especially in committees. It was proper to debate the principle of a bill in the second reading of it, and referring to matter that might be analogous, much latitude would be required; the Quebec bill had been read a second time and was decided: If gentlemen, therefore, when a bill was in a committee, would come down and state in long speeches, general answers to all possible objections, to clauses that might be proposed, but were never meant to be proposed, debates might be drawn to any imaginable length, and the business of the House suspended at the pleasure of any one of its members. The argument which some gentlemen might possibly move, that the chairman leave the chair, was applicable to every clause, and to every stage of the bill in the committee; and if on that account every species of volunteer argument was to be held in order, it would be impossible for business to proceed. His right honorable friend, instead of debating the principle of the bill in any stage, which was usual, had come down, not to debate the clauses, but to fortify misrepresentations of what he had said in a former debate, which his right honorable friend did not even hear. Order and discretion in debate

12

debate had been said to be distinct; with him, Mr. Fox declared they never should be separate. Where the distinction lay he could not see, for he always conceived that order was founded on discretion. He was not in the habit of interrupting any gentleman on the point of order; because, unless the deviation from it was strong indeed, more time was often lost in calling to order, than by suffering gentlemen to proceed. But if he saw any discussion attempted to be introduced in a way not merely irregular, but unfair, he felt himself obliged to endeavour to stop it. Much had been said, on the present occasion, of the danger of theory, and the safety of practice. Now, what had been the conduct of the gentleman who looked on theory with abhorrence? Not to enter into a practical discussion of the bill clause by clause, and to examine whether it gave, what it professed to give, the British constitution to Canada; but having neglected to have done his duty, and attended the proper stage of debating the principle, to enter into a theoretical inquiry of what the principle ought to be, and a discussion of the constitution of another country, respecting which it was possible that he might differ from him. If this were not manifest eagerness to seek a difference of opinion; and anxiety to discover a cause of dispute, he knew not what was; since if they came to the clauses of the bill, he did not think there would be any difference of opinion, or at most but a very trifling one. If the right honorable gentleman's object had been to debate the Quebec bill, he would have debated it clause by clause, according to the established practice of the House. If his object had been to prevent danger apprehended to the British constitution, from the opinions of any man, or any set of men, he would have given notice of a particular day for that particular purpose, or taken

VOL. II,

U

taken any other occasion of doing it, rather than that on which his nearest and dearest friend had been grossly misrepresented and traduced. That at least was the course which he should himself have taken, and therefore what he naturally expected from another. The course which his right honorable friend had chosen to take, was I that which seemed to confirm the insinuation urged against him, that of having maintained republican principles as applicable to the British constitution, in a former debate on the bill. No such argument had ever been urged by him, nor any from which such an inference was fairly deducible. On the French Revolution he did indeed differ from his right honorable friend. Their opinions, he had no scruple to say, were as wide as the poles asunder; but what had a difference of opinion on that, which to the House was only matter of theoretical contemplation, to do with the discussion of a practical point, on which no such difference existed? On that Revolution, he adhered to his opinion, and never would retract one syllable of what he had said. He repeated, that he thought it, on the whole, one of the most glorious events in the history of mankind. But when he had on a former occasion mentioned France, he had mentioned the Revolution only, and not the constitution; the latter remained to be improved by experience, and accommodated to circumstances. The arbitrary system of government was done away; the new one had the good of the people for its object, and this was the point on which he rested. This opinion, Mr. Fox said, he wished the time might come to debate, if opinions of his were again to be made the subject of parliamentary discussion. He had no concealment of his opinions, but if any thing could make him shy of such a discussion, it would be the fixing a day to catechize him respecting his political creed, and

respecting

respecting opinions on which the House was neither going to act, nor called upon to act at all. He had been thus catechized in 1782, when a right honorable gentleman [Mr. DUNDAS] in the last stage of the then administration had said, " Admitting this administration to be bad, where are you to find a better? Will you admit, men into power, who say, that the representation of the people is inadequate, and whose principles would overturn the constitution ?" On that occasion, he had found an able defender in a right honorable gentleman, whom he could not expect to be his defender that day; but who had in 1782 demanded in manly and energetic tones, "if the House would bear to be told, that the country was incapable of furnishing an administration more worthy of trust, than that whose misconduct was admitted even by its advocates?" He might now have looked for a defender to another quarter, to the bench on which he sat, and been as much disappointed. Yet the catechizer on that occasion had soon after joined another ministry, and supported that very reform of the representation which he then deprecated as more dangerous to the constitution and the country than all the misfortunes of that administration. Were he to differ from his right honorable friend on points of history, on the constitution of Athens, or of Rome, was it necessary that the difference should be discussed in that House? Were he to praise the conduct of the elder BRUTUS, and to say, that the expulsion of the TARQUINS was a noble and patriotic act, would it thence be fair to argue, that he meditated the establishment of a consular government in this country? Were he to repeat the eloquent eulogium of CICERO on the taking off of CaSAR, would it thence be deducible, that he went with a knife about him for the purpose of killing some great man, or orator? Let those

who said, that to admire was to wish to imitate, shew that there was some similarity of circumstances. It lay on his right honorable friend to shew that this country was in the precise situation of France at the time of the French Revolution, before he had a right to meet his argument; and then with all the obloquy which might be heaped upon the declaration, he should be ready to say, that the French Revolution was, an object of imita tion for this country. Instead of seeking for differences of opinions on topics, happily for the country, entirely topics of speculation, let them come to matter of fact, and of practical application; let them come to the discussion of the bill before them, and see whether his objecjections to it were republican, and in what he should differ from his right honorable friend? He had been warned by high and most respectable authorities, that minute discussion of great events, without information, did no honor to the pen that wrote, or the tongue that spoke the words. If the committee should decide that his right honorable friend should pursue his argument on the French constitution, he would leave the House; and if some friend would send him word, when the clauses of the Quebec bill were to be discussed, he would return and debate them. And when he said this, he said, it from no unwillingness to listen to his right honorable friend: he always had heard him with pleasure, but not where no practical use could result from his argument. When the proper period of discussion came, feeble as his powers were, compared with those of his right honorable friend, whom he must call his master, for he had taught him every thing he knew in politics, (as he had declared on a former occasion, and he meant no compliment when he said so,) yet feeble as his powers comparatively were, he should be ready to maintain the principles

he