ecessary for the regulation of trade and commerce, to be levied
and to be disposed of by the legislature of each division of the former
Province of Quebec. On the 9th of April, 1791, the Separation Bill was
somewhat unexpectedly offered for the acceptance of the House of
Commons. Mr. Fox declared that he had not had time to read it, and felt
unwilling to express an opinion upon its merits. On a motion by Mr.
Hussey, "that the Bill be recommitted," Mr. Fox, however, remarked,
that many clauses were unexceptionable. The number of representatives,
in his opinion, were not sufficient. An assembly to consist of 16 or 30
members seemed to him to give a free constitution in appearance, while,
in fact, such a constitution was withheld. The goodness of a bill,
making the duration of Parliaments seven years, unless dissolved
previously by the Governor, might be considered doubtful. In Great
Britain, general elections were attended with inconveniences, but in
Canada, where, for many years, elections were not likely to be attended
with the consequences which ministers dreaded, he could not conceive
why they should make such assemblies, not annual or triennial, but
septennial. In a new country the representatives of the people would,
for the most part, be persons engaged in trade, who might be unable to
attend Parliament for seven consecutive years. The qualifications
necessary for electors in towns and counties were much too high. It
seemed to him that ministers intended to prevent the introduction of
popular government into Canada. While the number of the members of the
Assembly were limited, the numbers of the Council, although they could
not be less than seven members, were unlimited. He saw nothing so good
in hereditary powers or honours as to justify their introduction into a
country where they were unknown. They tended rather to make a good
constitution worse, than better. If a Council were wholly hereditary,
it could only be the tool of the King and the Governor, as the Governor
himself would only be the tool of the King. The accumulation of power,
confirmed by wealth, would be a perpetual source of oppression and
neglect to the mass of mankind. He did not understand the provision
made by the Bill for the Protestant clergy. By Protestant clergy, he
understood not only the clergy of the Church of England, but all
descriptions of Protestants. He totally disapproved of the clause which
enacted that, "whenever the King shall make