Mr. T. Townshend. Do you know if the Canadians are desirous of having an Assembly to represent them in the Government of the Province?

M. De Lotbiniere. They are very desirous of it.

Mr. T. Townshend. Why then have they not made representations to that purpose?

M. De Lotbiniere. Because they understand, that if they were gratified with an Assembly, they would in consequence have the expenses of the Government to support, which, in the present state of the Province, would be much more than they can support.

Lord North. Did M. De Lotbiniere ever hear any material objections to the establishment of a Legislative Council?

M. De Lotbiniere. I never heard it particularly debated, nor any objections.

Mr. T. Townshend. Does he think the Canadians are not desirous of a more free Government than a Governor, with a Council, the members of which are appointed, removed, and suspended by him?

M. De Lotbiniere. They would certainly desire a freer Government.

Lord Beauchamp. But if some of the noblesse were admitted into that Council, would they not then be well satisfied?

M. De Lotbiniere. They might then be satisfied.

Lord North. Would the noblesse be desirous of an Assembly m which the Bourgeois were admitted to sit in common with themselves?

M. De Lotbiniere. I do not apprehend they would object to that, if it was the King's pleasure so to have it.

Mr. T. Townshend. Have they been displeased with the English law?

M. De Lotbiniere. While the circumstances of, lands have been left to the Canadian laws, they like the English judicature very well.

Dr. Marriott, his Majesty's Advocate General, was called in.

Mr. Mackworth. I desire to know of the gentleman at the bar, what would be the best establishment of laws in the Province of Quebec, in his opinion?

Mr. Marriott. It is difficult to say upon any subject, in this world, what is best for any men or set of men of speculation: that which succeeds best in public and private life is best; and therefore I cannot tell what will be best for the Canadians.

Mr. Mackworth. Does he think that the Canadians would chuse the system of English law, or the French law?

Mr. Marriott. I do not know a single Canadian. I never was in Canada

Mr. Mackworth. Does the gentleman think that the commerce of this country, and the Province, would be hurt by a revival of the French laws in cases of property?

Mr. Marriott. I cannot tell.

Mr. Mackworth. Does he know any thing of the state of Canada?

Mr. Marriott. What I know is from such papers as have been laid before me, by order of the King, in Council, and by information of other persons.

Captain Phipps. I desire to ask if he understands the French law?

Mr. Marriott. I find it very difficult to understand any law.

Captain Phipps. Does he know the power of the French King, under the constitution of the French laws?

Mr. Marriott. I do not well understand the constitution of France. I never was in France. It is a very hard thing for a foreigner to obtain an adequate idea of the constitution of another country. The constitution of one's own requires a great deal of close application and study: I wish I understood it better; and that many other People would study it more, and understand it better than I fear they do.

Captain Phipps. Does he understand the constitution of Ireland?

Mr. Marriott. No: I never was in Ireland.

Mr. Dempster. Does he think it expedient to give the Province of Quebec any part of the French constitution?

Mr. Marriott. The question is upon the word "expedient"

Mr. Dempster. I mean, will it be wise and prudent?

Mr. Marriott. By the words "expedient, wise, and prudent," I understand the question to mean, whether it will be politically wise and prudent. Expediency is ministerial language. It is a word of State: State expediency. It means that high policy, that great arcanum, the sublime of Government, extended almost beyond the reach of human wisdom. Few that can pry into this sort of knowledge. Fewer that can comprehend it. I am sure I do not.

Mr. Dempster. The gentleman, by the nature of his office, and greatly informed as he is from his connections with Government, and his own reading, must know much concerning the actual state of the Province of Quebec; I desire he will answer what sort of Government he would give to it?

Mr. Marriott. The giving laws to mankind is the perfection of all knowledge, human and divine. It is not the work of days, of months, of years, but of ages. For me to answer that gentleman's question, what sort of Government I would give to the Province, I must be the vainest of men.

Mr. Dempster. From such papers and informations as have been laid before the gentleman for his consideration, I desire to know, in general, what is his idea of a civil establishment for the Province of Quebec, the properest to be given it by the Legislature of this country?

Mr. Marriott. It depends upon a most extensive knowledge, infinite indeed, of the relations of men and things, times and circumstances; the positions of both countries; the manners and genius of the People; the wants of the Province; the views of the mother country; the conduct of the neighbouring Colonies; the state of the nation vis à vis, or respecting them and the designs of the rest of Europe. These relations change every moment; this vast political prospect is for ever doubtful and floating; it contains too many objects for my short vision and poor comprehension.—My answer therefore to the question (what is the properest establishment for the Province of Quebec, to be given by the Legislature of this country) is, I cannot tell.

Mr. W. Burke. There is an absurdity in this answer. The gentleman spoke of an infinite knowledge of men and things, times and circumstances, and yet he says lie cannot tell.

House.—Read the Minutes.

The Clerk read the Minutes—as Mr. Burke had represented them.

Mr. Marriott. They were not my words—It depends upon a most extensive knowledge, &c., &c., that is, the question depends—The words "it depends" were left out.—Repeats as above.

Mr. Baker. I would ask the gentleman at the bar if ever he has read any thing of the laws of France? I believe he has read a great deal.

Mr. Marriott. I have read a little of the French law.

Mr. Baker. Does he understand it?

Mr. Marriott. Not the style of it, nor its forms very well.

Mr. Baker. What does he mean by the style of it?

Mr. Marriott. There is in every civilized country, in which a system of civil laws is established, a law language—as there are in every art and science words and phrases peculiar to them, only understood by the persons who practise those arts and sciences; I correct myself: not always understood perfectly even by them, for they frequently dispute about the force and meaning. The law therefore calls these arts, crafts, and mysteries. The French have a serious word for the style of law; they call it jargòn; we ludicrously use it jàrgøn. It is a cant word.

Mr. Baker. Did he ever see any system of the French law in Canada?

Mr. Marriott. I have read a collection of French laws, which contains, by way of abstract, the laws and usages of that Province, founded on the laws of the Prevôté of Paris: and it also contains several ordonnances of police and arrêts of the French King.

Mr. Baker. Does he understand them?

Mr. Marriott. Some part of them: the law language is difficult.

Mr. Baker. Is there not in that collection something concerning the jus retractus?