its representative, had a direct and overwhelming preponderance. Yet, however unsuited such a Parliament would be for the present time, however uncongenial it might have been to the feelings of a Cobbett or Hunt-man, escaped from Spa Felds ten or twenty years afterwards, it undoubtedly well represented the conservative, semi-despotic feelings of the military settler, or United Empire loyalist, a kind of privileged being, whose very descendants were entitled to a free grant of two hundred acres of land. When the Separation Act was before the British Parliament, the public mind in England was to some not altogether inconsiderable extent contaminated by the spurious liberty-feeling of the French Revolution, and by the consequences of the American strike for independence. "The Rights of Man," as enunciated by Paine, had infected many among the lower orders in society, and not a few among the higher orders. Edmund Burke, Mr. Chancellor Pitt, and Charles Fox, were members of the British Parliament. By the Act, a provision for a Protestant Clergy, in both divisions of the province, was made, in addition to an allotment of lands already granted. The tenures in Lower Canada, which had been the subject of dispute, were to be settled by the local legislature. In Upper Canada the tenures were to be in free and common soccage. No taxes were to be imposed by the Imperial Parliament, unless such as were necessary 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