rebels of Scotland, in the year 1746, were tried in Engiaud. Al particular privileges gave way to the public fafety; when that is endangered, even the Habeas Corpus act, the great palladium of English liberty has been fufpended. That the act propofed did not establish a military government, but a civil one, by which the former was greatly improved. It gave to the province a council, magiftrates and juftices, when in effe&t they had none before. This bill was warmly opposed, and all these reasons fully refuted; but a dead majority carried all before them. It is impoffible not to obferve the weakness, as well as the abfurdity of the ministerial arguments, used on this occafion, as well as the futility of the precedents brought to confirm them. There had been recent inftances of the impartiality of juries in the colonies in the cafe of Captain Preston and others, when verdicts had been given according to justice, according to the minifters own ideas of that matter, and there could be no reason of fearing juftice would not be executed, unless he was defigned to promote fome conduct which would give reafon for setting afide its ufual courfe. His fpeech fuggefted that he intended that fomething would be done, which he would call juftice, and which the colonists would have reafon to account unjust, and would be obliged in confcience to treat it as it deferved. He was therefore providing against a confequence he forefaw would happen, because he was determined it fhould happen. In this the old maxim was confirmed, "That the children of this world are wifer than the children of light." But there was no reafon for making provifion against an evil that never would have happened, unless the minifter himfelf had been the author of it. He appears to have been determined that blood should be shed, and fpeaks of it with with great coolnefs and indifference; and what bears the most unfavourable interpretation, he wanted to have thofe he intended fhould fhed it, fcreened from juftice if he poffibly could. The precedents which he mentions, are most unfavourable for his argument; for it is only fupporting one act of injuftice by another. For though many in a county may countenance fmuggling, yet it does not prove that all the county are fmugglers, and that an honeft jury cannot be found in fome counties in England. No man would fuppofe this unlefs he were a proficient in the practice of deceit himself. The cafe of the Scotch rebels is ftill more unfavourable for the cafe of the colonies, and that of the Jacobites are quite different. The colonies were acknowledging the fovereignty of the king, and petitioning most humbly for a redrefs of grievances; they wanted not to have the government changed, nor the revolution fet afide, but to have the old laws continued, and their ancient conftitution fecured against modern invafions of parliament. They were willing to continue in allegiance to the king, and defired no more than that protection which other fubjects of the empire enjoined; they claimed, and they prayed for no more than what all British fubjects claim as their just and legal right to poffefs. But this was not the cale of the Jacobites; their greatest grievance was the revolution itself, and their greatest eye-fore the Bruns. wick family that fupported it. They did not come to the throne with petitions, but attacked it with the fword in their hands; they aimed at the destruction of the fovereign, and intended to change the conftitution. Thefe Jacobite tribes moft voluntarily, and without any new oppreflion, or any new reafons of rebellion, but what will always be the fame to them, drew drew the fword against the King and the laws, and fought the life of his Majefty King George, to place a Popish Pretender upon the throne of these kingdoms. But the colonists were praying and befeeching both king and parliament to fupport the common liberties of the empire, which had been ratified by the revolution fettlement, and confirmed by all the fovereigns fince that time. The oppofition which the Americans made to new ftatutes is fupported by the conftitution itself, and without new laws fetting afide the old ones, they could not be made rebels.The violence of the miniftry drove them to refiftance, which was determined rebellion, to give fanction to the force that was intended to be used to make them fubmit to the new meafures of government. In thefe refpects the cafe of the colonies and the Jacobites were very different, and no arguments drawn from the one to the other can poffibly be of any force. The paffions, prejudices of interefted perfons may lead them to prevert the clearest reafon; but all difpaffionate and difinterefted men, who are under the government of right reafon and common fenfe, will judge' in another manner, and determine according to truth. Had the minifter fpoken the real fentiments of his mind, he would have declared that he wanted to have a military government in the colonies to inforce obedience to all the arbitrary measures that had been purfued: for his words could imply nothing lefs than that he intended to rule by the fword, and therefore wanted to have his agents fecured against law and justice. The last and most remarkable tranfaction of this year was the Quebec bill, which was called a bill for making more effectual provifion for the government of the province of Quebec in North America. This bill came down from the Houfe of Lords to the Commons Commons for their approbation, where it met with ftrong oppofition, and underwent feveral amendments. The miniftry expected that as the bill paffed the House of Lords fo eafily, that it would have met with no oppofition from the Commons; but in this they were mistaken. What embarraffed the minifter most in this particular cafe was, that the bill made a great noife without doors, and was altogether unpopular in its nature. It had an article concerning religion in it, which appeared to have a tendency to inflame the nation; and provided there had been as much zeal for the Proteftant religion, as in former times, the minister durst not have procceded fo faft with his favourite bill, nor would it have at all paffed. This bill took up a good deal of time, and met with a very warm oppofition. Many witneffes were examined to give as much colour as poffible to the fairness of the proceeding.Among these were General Carleton, Governor of Canada; Mr Hay, Chief Juftice of that province; Mr Mazeres, Curfitor Baron of the Exchequer, late Attorney General there, and Agent to the English inhabitants of Canada; Doctor Marriot, the King's Advocate General in England; Monf. Lolbiniere, a French gentleman of confiderable property in Canada. The principal objects of this bill were to afcertain the limits of that province, which were extend ed far beyond what had been fettled as fuch, by the King's proclamation of 1763.-To form a legislative council for all the affairs of that province, except taxation, which council fhould be appointed by the crown; the office to be held during pleasure; and his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects were entitled to a place in it. To establish the French laws, and a trial without jury, in civil cafes; and the English laws, with a trial by jury, in criminal ones.-To fecure to the |