. He argued,
that it was the custom of all conquering states to leave the conquered
countries in the possession of their own laws. He remarked:--"Not
only are there instances of great states not considering themselves
warranted, by right of conquest, in forcing their laws upon the
conquered, but even countries that have scarcely any trace of public
laws and general systems, have had that good policy with regard to the
countries they have made themselves masters of. The very Mussulman, the
Ottoman, the Turks--the worst of all conquerors--in the countries they
subdued left the people in possession of their municipal laws. This is
the case in Wallachia; this is the case in Moldavia; this is the case
with all the great settlements in which the Turks have pushed their
arms." Wedderburne next showed the difference existing in the law of
succession in England and Canada, and argued, that it would be hard
upon all younger sons in that province to establish the right of
primogeniture on a sudden. He concluded by representing the people of
Canada as having, for several years past, been annually calling upon
government to let them know what really was to be the law of the
province. Charles Fox argued, that as the bill allowed the clergy of the
Church of Rome their dues and rights, which dues he understood to mean
the receiving of tithes, which were a tax upon the Canadians, it was to
all intents and purposes a money bill. This objection he conceived
fatal to the bill, inasmuch as the commons never permitted bills of that
nature to originate in the lords. Dunning now took up the same line of
argument, and as Lord North denied the conclusion to which these members
had suddenly come, the speaker was appealed to for his opinion. The
speaker replied, that he had seen bills that had originated in the lords
that, he thought, ought not to have been brought into the lower house,
but that he never presumed to judge upon them himself, and in this in
stance it would be very unbecoming in him to do so, therefore' he would
leave it for the house to determine as was thought right. The second
reading was carried by a majority of one hundred and five, against
twenty-nine; and on the 31st of May, when the house went into committee
on the bill, several amendments were negatived, with equally large
majorities. On this occasion petitions were presented against the
measure from Thomas Penn, on behalf of himself and of John Penn, Esq.,
true and absolute