the different modes of trial in different countries; the Civil Law Courts, the Courts of Common Law, and Chancery; their modes are all defective in discovering truth. Juries are like most other men and things; they have their excellent qualities, and they have their bad ones.

Mr. Mackworth. Does he think it will be a hardship upon the Canadians not to have Juries? Not to have their lives and properties tried by a Jury out of their own neighbourhood? Would it be their happiness or unhappiness?

Mr. Marriott. If I were a Canadian I could tell what would make me happy; if I were to go to Canada I could tell the same. As an Englishman, I say that Juries are a mode of trial which I like; they are very favourable to the property of the subject, and the natural liberties of mankind.

Mr. Dempster. Does Mr. Marriott think that the present Bill is calculated to give as much freedom to Canada as is expedient to give?

Mr. Marriott. Expedient to give them! I answered before to that question; it involves a thousand others.

Mr. C. Jenkinson. Does he think that the Canadians will not suffer greatly if the habeas corpus law is not introduced among them?

Mr. Marriott. I desire the question may be repeated; the merit of the habeas corpus law is a great constitutional question.

Question repeated.

Mr. Marriott. The idea of the suffering is the idea of the sufferer, and not of a third person; I cannot answer for the feelings of the Canadians.

Mr. C. Jenkinson. Cannot the gentleman conceive the pain of another person?

Mr. Marriott. No person has a true impression of the degree of pain or pleasure of another being; there is no complete medium' to convey the sensations; words will not do it. No person can tell what a man of probity and reflection, who wishes to judge without error, and to do his public duty in an arduous question, feels, when put upon the rack of opinion. No man in this place exactly knows how I feel, in. my particular and relative situation, by being so long kept at this bar, and called upon to answer every sort of question that can be imagined about all possible and probable things from such a variety of persons. Witnesses, by all the law I know in the world, are called every where only to speak to facts; to opinions, no where;—except in one court of religion, in the world.

Mr. C. Jenkinson. The gentleman then has, I find, some sort of idea of another man's suffering, although not an adequate and perfect one. Cannot he tell the House, supposing I were to give the gentleman who sits below me a slap on the face, what he would suffer? I mean, what would a person struck suffer when there are visible' signs of a violent blow? Suppose that the blood gushes out of the nose?

Mr. Marriott. The noses of some people bleed without pain. That gentleman might have a blow on the nose, and he might feel it. I should not. I mean, he would feel it if he were sober; if he were drunk he might not; he might take it all in good part; and as for the blood, swear it was all good claret.

A Member. Repeat the answer.

Mr. Marriott. If he were inebriated he might not feel. Mr. Chairman, I hope my answers are not improper. I desire to be serious. I am in earnest. The answer, I take it, by the law of all evidence, ought to be of the same colour with the question, and pointed to it.

Chairman. Right, certainly.

Colonel Barré. I would not desire to distress the learned gentleman at the bar. He is certainly under personal difficulties in his situation of office, and not being a member. But I see he bears his examination with much patience and good humour. We were all going to be very dull, and he has enlivened us. He has been asked above one hundred questions, and has parried them all: not one decisive answer. I did not expect he would have kept his ground so stoutly against numbers. I will now beg leave to try him. I undertake, Sir, to ask him one very easy question, which I think be may and will answer. What does he think is the King of Prussia’s religion?

Mr. Marriott. I have read some of his works; if the writings I mean are really his; although some people have doubted the title, Oeuvres du Philosophe de Sans Souci. His religion may be judged from them.

Colonel Barré. I desire to know, Sir, what he judges the King of Prussia's religion to be?

Mr. Marriott. From them? I believe his Majesty has no (formal) religion.

Colonel Barré. If the Province of Canada were to be ceded to his Prussian Majesty, what religion would he introduce into it?

Mr. Marriott. A soldier's religion.

Colonel Barré. What is a soldier's religion? Mr. Marriott. If I were a soldier, Sir, I would answer the words—my honor.

Colonel Barré. What is a lawyer’s religion?

Mr. Marriott. His honor too; not to give up his client. But I suppose the gentleman knows there are two orders of men in this country, the civilians, and the common lawyers. I am no common lawyer.—The religion of which?

Colonel Barré. Of both.

Mr. Marriott. The common lawyers must answer for themselves. I can readily answer for the civilians; they are ecclesiastical lawyers, and subscribe; they are of the religion of this country by law established.

Colonel Barré. I see, Sir, there is no hitting the gentleman at the bar. But I have read an opinion of some weight in a book here in my hand: it is so laid down, that I think the gentleman cannot escape answering to it. With the leave of the House, I will read it:—

"In order to judge politically of the expediency of suffering the Romish religion to remain an established religion of the State hi any part of your Majesty’s Dominions, the Romish religion, I mean its doctrines, not its ceremonies ought to be perfectly understood. The opinion of the royal author of the Memoires de Brandenburgh, seems to be conclusive on this head to every sovereign power, that the Protestant religion is best both for the Prince and the People; because there is in it no middle power to intervene and stand before the Prince against the People, nor before the People against the Prince."

The House now sees why I put the other question.

Colonel Barré. Did the gentleman ever read the Memoires de Brandenburgh? Is that which I have read the King of Prussia's opinion? Is that opinion in the Memoires de Brandenburgh?

Mr. Marriott. I have read a book with that title: but whether that book was his writing or whether, being his book, that was his opinion, (for many people write books, who are not of an opinion with their own book,) I do not know. There is something very like that opinion in the book.

Colonel Barré. The book, Sir, in which this opinion is recommended and adopted, ends with the name of the gentleman at the bar. He has subscribed to that opinion.—

Mr. Marriott. [Bowing with great respect round to the House, and laying his hand on his bosom.] I now subscribe to that opinion most seriously—and most sincerely.

Mr. Marriott. Was ordered to withdraw.

The House went into a debate, in the course of which Mr. Charles Fox and Mr. T. Townshend agreed with Mr. Edmund Burke, that it was wrong to have examined the King's Advocate General, and to force him to give an opinion to the House; and laid the blame on the Minister, and those persons who opposed the motion for the papers.

Mr. Baker moved, That General Murray be examined as a witness.

Notice being given, that the General was not in the House, the Sergeant was sent out for him, but he was gone home.

The Committee then reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday morning next, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider further of the said Bill.

Mr. Baker then moved, "That Lieutenant General Murray, late Governor of Canada, and present Governor of the town of Quebec, do attend the said Committee, on Monday next."