Primary tabs
The Order of the Day being read, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, upon the Bill:
M˙ De Lotbiniere was called in, and examined in French.
Mr˙ T˙ Townshend. Are you of Canada?
M˙ De Lotbiniere. I am.
Mr˙ T˙ Townshend. Of the corps of nobility?
M˙ De Lotbiniere. Yes.
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 in 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 he 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 jargán. 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?
Mr˙ Marriott. I suppose the gentleman who puts the question means the rêtrait lignager. It is the right which a Lord of a fief or a manor, and the first original possessor of a grant from the Crown, has to receive some indemnifications from those persons who are called the arrier tenants, who hold under him. There is such a title as rêtrait lignager.
Mr˙ Baker. If the French civil laws were revived, or suffered to remain in Canada, would it not be a discouragement to the old British subjects to go and trade there, and make purchases of lands?
Mr˙ Marriott. If old British subjects were to go thither, the French civil law remaining in force, or being revived, they would go thither at their option, and of their own free will, as they now go to Jersey or Guernsey, where the French laws prevail. Or for another instance, if you please; if any person on speculation thought of going to buy an estate in Scotland, if he found that he did not like the Scotch law and inhabitants, he might do a better thing, keep his money in his pocket and stay at home; a thing much wanted in this country.
Mr˙ Dempster. On what terms do you think, in the state of things in Canada, an English merchant going to settle there, would hold any lands which he should purchase?
Mr˙ Marriott. On the same terms as the Canadians held them who convey the lands: or if the new settler takes them by grant from the Crown, he will then take them on the same terms as any other grantee would do; that is to say, on such terms as the granter shall please. All is voluntary on the part of the purchaser or grantee — he may take the lands, or he may leave them.
Mr˙ Dempster. Has he given no opinion upon the subject of Canada?
Mr˙ Marriott. I have.
Mr˙ Dempster. In what capacity, and to whom?
Mr˙ Marriott. As his Majesty' s Advocate General, to his Majesty, in Council, I drew up a plan of a code of laws.
Mr˙ Dempster. Will the gentleman be pleased to give the House some account of the plan?
Mr˙ Marriott. I had the honor of his Majesty' s commands in Council, together with my brethren in office, the Attorney and Solicitor General, to consider a great number of papers referred, and to call for such persons as could give me information upon the subject; and to prepare a plan of civil and criminal law for that Province: it was referred separately to each of us three, as being the law officers of the Crown. I drew up my plan accordingly.
Mr˙ Dempster. What was the plan?
Mr˙ Marriott. I drew my plan in the following method: after stating the principles of legislation, and representing what appeared to me to have been the late condition, and now, to be, and likely to be hereafter, the state of the Colony, I formed my plan under four heads; the Courts of Judicature; the Common Law of the Province; the Revenue; the Religion.
Mr˙ Dempster. To whom did he deliver that plan?
Mr˙ Marriott. To his Majesty in Council.
Mr˙ Dempster. As doubtless it was very extensive in point of knowledge and information, the House would be glad to know the contents?
Mr˙ Marriott. I stand here as his Majesty' s servant: my colleagues next to me in office, who have given their opinions as well as myself to his Majesty, are within the bar. When an advocate or counsellor gives his opinion, it is the property of his client. His Majesty is in possession of my opinion. If this House does me the high honor of being desirous to know my sentiments, such as they are, (and they are very free ones) the House will then address his Majesty to lay my opinion before the House. If the House will not agree to that address, my sentiments must remain deposited with his Majesty, in his great wisdom, where they now most happily rest.
Mr˙ Dempster. When somebody moved to have all the papers laid before the House, the motion was overruled, on the ground that we might have complete information at the bar. I fear we shall not have it where we wish it, and were bidden to expect it. What is the sum and conclusion of that opinion?
Mr˙ Marriott. In a question so extensive, and which involved every possible consideration of policy, and very
Mr˙ Dempster. Can the gentleman recollect any parts of the opinion which he gave?
Mr˙ Marriott. I answered before, that doubtless if this House will address his Majesty, they will have the whole of it before you: I have no objection, I am sure, for my part; but my memory will not serve me to repeat so extensive a work.
Mr˙ Dempster. Does it agree in substance, or part, with the Bill now depending before this House?
Mr˙ Marriott. I know nothing of such a Bill officially. A printed paper, with a title of a Bill relative to the Government of Quebec, was put into my hands only two days ago, by a friend accidentally. Not having the honor to be a member of this House, I cannot, according to the rules of it, take notice of any thing proposed within its walls. If the House were pleased to refer the Bill to me, I should desire to take it home, to read it with great care and deliberation. And if I were within the bar, as I am now without, I would give my opinion upon the Bill in my place as freely, and with as much courage, as any man upon this ground.
Mr˙ Dempster. The gentleman owns that he has had much information: I wish he would tell us what?
Mr˙ Marriott. The same as the House has already heard just now, and from some of the same persons.
Mr˙ Cavendish. If we cannot have the whole of his opinion, will he give us some of the very learned quotations in his book.
Mr˙ Marriott. So many compliments would naturally draw a positive answer from any person capable of feeling the flattery and giving an answer; but I do not know what the honorable gentleman thinks of me. It is not a little memory or a little time will serve to repeat all the quotations of civil and common law, and all the French and latin extracts which I have used. I have used a great many in dressing out my own thoughts. Quotations are commonly among authors but the mere ornaments, the fringe and trappings of a book. They only shew that the man who uses them, has read a great deal; but they do not prove how much he has thought, and whether well or ill; and they shew he has thought like other people who have thought and wrote before him. If I could possibly recollect and repeat this amass of the opinions and informations of other men, I must be very tedious, and appear very pedantic to the House. I question much whether a walking library would be tolerable in these walls. I cannot remember quotations.
Mr˙ W˙ Burke. Will the gentleman tell us how long he was composing his plan? (It must require great labour and study) and how many pages it contained?
Mr˙ Marriott. About three hundred closely written.
Mr˙ W˙ Burke. What was the time it took to compose it.
Mr˙ Marriott. I cannot exactly tell.
Mr˙ W˙ Burke. Was it several months?
Mr˙ Marriott. Ten or twelve months, at different intervals, to compose it. But if I am to speak to all the
Mr˙ W˙ Burke. I desire to know, Mr˙ Chairman, what was the name of the thing which he took up and laid down so often, and which he delivered in at last to his Majesty?
Mr˙ Marriott. I think Mr˙ Chairman, I remember the face of that gentleman who asks me the question, "what is that thing which I took up and laid down so often, and delivered in to his Majesty." I answer, when that gentleman was himself in office, he very well knew what sort of things are the opinions of Crown lawyers.
Mr˙ W˙ Burke. Mr˙ Chairman, the witness at the bar has behaved without any respect to the House. It was enough for the House to be insulted elsewhere. We are in an abject state. I say so, and others think so. We are very ill used. The upper House had used us ill. They shut us out, not for fear we should hear what they did, but for fear we should see they did nothing. They frame the Bill there, delay it by keeping it in their hands, and then send it down to us, and now we are to hurry through it without sufficient information; and nobody will own it. The doors are shut upon us; nobody will give us information. I said, the gentleman at the bar said he had a knowledge of men and things, and yet he said he could not tell. I am not guilty of any blunders, any Iricism. The Clerk mistook as well as I. The gentleman says, he does not know the constitution of France; he does not know the constitution of Ireland; he never was in Canada; the King is his client; he will not tell you what advice he has given the King; we have a right to be informed by him. The Minister told us we should be so; and now truly the witness will not give an answer to any thing, what his real opinion is. By the rules of this House, no witness at the bar is to answer any thing personally, touching a member. It is a disrespect to the House. The questions are to be put to the Chair by a member; and the Chair, which represents the House, is to put the questions to a witness. He is to return answers to the Chair, that is to the House. If an improper question is put, the House may overrule it. I always behave like a gentleman; I know the gentleman at the bar, though I am not intimate with him. He has taken fire at my expression; I did not mean to affront him. He would not tell us what it was he had delivered: he himself therefore forced me to call it "that thing" which he delivered. I had no other way to express it. I am ready every where to demand or give satisfaction, where there is an affront offered or received. I desire the gentleman may withdraw, and to know the sense of the House, whether I put an improper question, or the gentleman made an improper answer?
[Mr˙ Marriott was ordered to withdraw.]
Mr˙ Pulteney. It is certainly very irregular for a witness at the bar to answer any thing relating to a member, personally, who puts the question. It was always in my opinion wrong, considering that gentleman' s situation, to call him to be examined: but we were refused the perusal of his opinion, and the papers. The Attorney and Solicitor General here refused to tell us what were the opinions which were given in by them. I often have observed much debate and confusion occasioned in the House, when a witness of wit and abilities is examined. It should be remembered by both the persons, by the one who puts the question, and by the other who gives the answer, that the question is put by the House, and the answer is returned to the House. An attention to this would preserve reciprocal decorum.
Captain Phipps. I must observe to the Committee, that this examination is getting into a train which appears to me to be very improper. Sir, when men of great parts and abilities, and much wit, come to this bar, I cannot help condemning that kind of applause which is given them for exertions of that wit, though very unseasonable. I may have been guilty of joining in this encouragement
Lord North. I rise to answer the honorable gentleman who was so warm. He is angry that the gentleman will not tell you what his opinion was. He made a complete answer to his question. He said it was a deliberative opinion: that he made no decision. I do admit, that the answer of a witness, by the rules of this House, should not be any thing personal to the member questioning, however impertinent, rude, or absurd, the question may appear to him. The rank and station of the gentleman at the bar ought to be considered. The word "thing" is understood generally as a word of contempt. Nothing contemptible comes from the gentleman at the bar: such a word might naturally strike him: and his not being a member of this House, so as to know the rules of it, excuses him for shewing his spirit on the occasion, when he thought himself affronted. He is under the protection of the House, and no improper question ought to be asked. In that case he may demand the protection of the House, and so may every person who is examined at this bar.
Mr˙ Edmund Burke. I rise to apologize for the honorable gentleman next me. I am perfectly sure he did not mean to affront the gentleman at the bar. I know the gentleman there extremely well, his great abilities, learning, and character; he has distinguished himself by his writings and behaviour, and nobody here or any where else can treat him with contempt; but we should have been very glad to have had his information. I am sensible that he is in a very trying situation. His information is withheld. It is a distress upon him, and an insult upon us to refer us to him, when it was known beforehand that it was not likely that he should think himself at liberty to give us his opinion vivâ voce, after what he has written was refused us by others. It was, however, very natural for us to call for him. We had no other hope of obtaining any information of great authority. All the world knows that the King' s Advocate General, the Attorney and Solicitor General, from the nature of their very high offices, have the power of obtaining every sort of information. All is open to them in every department of Government. They can enter behind the veil. The sanctum sanctorum of State must be frequently and confidentially submitted to their view; but the curtain is drawn upon us, and the door is shut. How, then, are we to get information? I ask; shall we have it from the other Crown lawyers? The answer is, they stand upon their own ground, and take and narrow it when and where they please, as members within the bar; and the gentleman who proceeds in office, but who stands without the bar, necessarily suffers from a variety of torturing questions put to him on speculative points, which it must put any man under difficulties to answer, especially one in his station. I never should have concurred in the motion to examine him, if the former motion for the address for papers in general had not been overruled.
Mr˙ Marriott was again called in.
Chairman. Sir, you are to address yourself to the Chair.
Captain Phipps. Under what denomination are the papers which were delivered in by Mr˙ Marriott to the King?
Mr˙ Marriott. A Report.
Mr˙ Mackworth. I wish the gentleman would give a short account of the substance of that report, as concise as he pleases to make it.
Mr˙ Marriott. I thought I had before given an account of the contents, and of the plan. It is impossible to give a short account of a long affair.
Mr˙ Mackworth. In that report does he approve of Juries; does he like them; what does he think of them?
Mr˙ Marriott. I should choose to be tried by them. But I think of Juries as I do of every thing else in this world — every thing is imperfect. I have often considered
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 he 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 in 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.
House in Committee on the Bill
Mr. De Lotbiniere Examined
v1:194
v1:195
Dr. Marriott Examined
v1:196
v1:197
v1:198
little of law, I drew up my opinion with all that modesty and diffidence which became me. The danger of positiveness in speculative opinions is too obvious to every man of a right mind. The more I viewed the subject on every side, the more difficulties occurred to me. I weighed all facts and reasonings in a true balance, without bias to any man or any party, but found it hard, after the whole result of my inquiries, to fix decisively what the system of law ought to be for a People so remote from home, of whose manners and wants we know so little. My method of proceeding was, I collected all facts as represented to me, and as far as, other persons, who well knew the Colony by having been in it, were agreed in their reports made to the King' s Government. I then brought all the facts and probable reasonings together in one general point of view, for the assistance of my two colleagues in office, that they might form an easier decision on their part. I drew indeed my own conclusions, but they were not positive, but open to better reasonings. I therefore, through the whole, adopted the style and manner of that which Cicero calls the deliberativum genus dicendi; I submitted every thing to his Majesty' s wisdom in Council, aided by opinions and arguments of much higher authority than any which I could offer.
v1:199
time that I was thinking on the subject, the time was near two years. I took it up, laid it in my desk; took it up, and laid it in my desk again, that it might ripen in my mind. I saw my difficulties of coming to a decision increased. I dreaded being hasty or positive, and I thought no trouble too much on such a public subject, which appeared too much for the me of any man, and most certainly for any one man' s understanding.
Mr. Pulteney
Captain Phipps
v1:200
to a witness, but am sure the Committee sees, by this time, that if we proceed thus, the witness will have been called to the bar to very little purpose. Besides, Sir, there is a conduct, in witnesses that is not at all consistent with the dignity of this House. I therefore hope, that the witness, as well as any others that may come to this bar hereafter, would recollect, that although the House owes much to the situation of a witness, yet does the witness owe something to the dignity of the House.
Lord North
Mr. Edmund Burke
Mr. Marriot Called in Again
v1:201
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.
v1:202
House in Debate