the Commons in the courfe of four days, and was fent up to the Lords for their concurrence. The attainder again!t Algernoon Sydney and William Ruffel, commonly called Lord Ruffel, were allo made void by a fimilar procefs, in confequence of the recommendation of His Majefty to the Houfe, to take the fame into its confideration.

These were the grounds on which he would bring forward his motion with refpect to Mr. Muir, the proceedings against whom he pronounced to be of the most extraordinary, and, in his mind, the moft unjustifiable nature, that ever came before a Court of Juftice. In this unexampled trial, their Lordships must be furprized to hear, that the Lord Advocate was fuffered to bring forward every circumftance which he thought neceffary to criminate the Pannel, or, agreeably to the phrafeology of the English Courts, the Defendant; and though the moft prominent charges brought against the Pannel, on his trial, were not contained in the indictment, fill the Pannel, which, according to Law and Justice, ought to have availed himself of the circumitance, was not admitted to do fo, because the Lord Advocate gave as his reafon for omitting them, the most curious one he had ever heard; namely, that if he had inferted the whole of the charges, the indictment would have been fo voluminous, that the walls of the Court might have been hung with it.

What, he asked, would their Lordships fay to the Managers of the Impeachment, if they had omitted feveral of their most important charges againft Mr. Haftings, and afterwards attempted to prove him guilty of fuch? Surely their Lordships would not fuffer them to profit by their own negligence; becaufe, forfooth, they might have apologized for their remiffnefs, by faying, that the introduction of such charges in the articles of the Impeachment,would occafion them to extend to fuch a length, that they would cover the walls of the High Court of Parliament. Nothing, in his mind, could be more abfurd, or derogatory to the principles of law, or of common fenfe. But the principle, when attempted to be established on the Impeachment, was repelled by their Lordfhips, particularly in the inftance where Warren Haftings was charged by one of the Managers with having acted criminally in having received fix lacks of rupees from Kelleram. The production of this evidence was objected to by Mr. Law, the counsel for the prifoner, and by their Lordships afterwards in their own Houfe, becaufe fuch charge was not included in the indictment, or rather the Articles of Impeachment. On the 29th of April 1790, the Managers interrogated a witnefs, whether or not more oppreifion did not exist under the new inflitutions eftablished by Mr. Haftings, or the old forms that prevailed before his arrival in India. This question was alfo objected to by the Counfel for Mr. Haftings,

becaufe

ings, because the charge was not contained in the indictment; though he admitted that the word oppreffion was inferted in the Articles of Impeachment. Mr. Plomer contended, that the Managers could not come forward with any charge founded on general words, without fuch charge was ftated in full and precife terms in the indictment. Mr. Burke replied, by declaring, "That he "did not contend that any fuch proceeding fhould be tolerated;"" but ftill he infifted, "that the Managers for the House of Commons were not bound by the rules or forms of precedent, and "therefore were not juftified in fuch proceedings;" but when their Lordships met in their Chamber of Parliament, they wifely and properly adhered to the ftrict principles contained in Magna Charta, and refolved that the Managers were not competent to call witnefles to any charge not contained in the Articles of Impeachment.

His Lordship next called the attention of the Houfe to its further proceedings on the Impeachment, when the Managers attempted to implicate Mr. Haftings in the enormities of Deby Sing. Another effort to produce evidence against Mr. Haftings was made in May, 1790, on a circumftance not charged in the indictment; all of which would appear refifted by their Lordships in their Journals, pages 12, 55, 56, and 57, on the fame grounds that they objected, in the firft inftance, to hear witnelles against the prifoner. This was not only law, but was a maxim recognized in the eternal principles of justice. But this was contrary to the extraordinary doctrines maintained by the Lord Advocate and the Court of Jufticiary in Scotland. The Laws, his Lordfhip infifted, allow a man fifteen days notice, and a copy of his indictment, that he may produce evidence to rebut the charges against him; but in Scotland, Meff. Muir and Palmer were not allowed a day to prepare and exculpate themfelves from the charges made against them in the indictments. Thus far, he infifted, that the proceedings against Mr. Muir were unconftitutional and oppreffive. Befides, his Lordship contended, that he was entrapped in the moft fhameful and unwarrantable manner, by the exculpatory evidence not being given him before the day preceding his Trial. This, he faid, was the outline of a bufinefs that required their Lordships' moft ferious deliberation; but, for the prefent, he would not comment on the legality or illegality of the fentence of transportation.

The Noble Earl next called the attention of their Lordships to an oppreffed individual, Mr. Palmer, whofe integrity and virtues. muft excite their Lordships' to commiferate his fufferings, and feel the moft lively fenfations for his unfortunate fituation. This Gentleman was felected by the late Duke of Rutland, as a friend and a monitor. His claims on that Nobleman were deemed by

him great; and he offered him preferments in the church, which, for reafons best known to himfelf, he declined; but which few ecclefiaftics would be found not to accept. His Lordship adverted next to a circumftance which feemed to affect confiderably his auditory. He faid, that fuch was the amiable difpofition of Mr. Palmer, that a young gentleman, of the name of Ellis, his pupil, had accompanied him in all his misfortunes. Such was his attachment to that unfortunate gentleman, that he left his relations to accompany him on board the hulks, and was now immured with him in prifon. Nay more, he actually had determined on perfevering in his attachment, and intended to become a voluntary exile, and transport himself with his friend to Botany Bay! There was, his Lordship remarked, an informality in his Trial, that he believed no Noble Lord in the Houfe would venture to defend: he was tried by one name, and punished by another. Thus the perfon convicted was never indicted; and his challengers, when the Jury were impannelled, abfolutely refufed on the part of the Crown. If fuch was law, it was oppreffive; and if in Scotland it were admitted as fuch, it proved the melancholy fact, that in that country there is no more liberty at prefent, than exifted there during the arbitrary reign of the family of the Stuarts. If fuch measures were countenanced by their Lordships, any man was liable to be entrapped, and tranfported by the Laws of Scotland; but as he would not wish to imitate the example of the Court of Jufticiary, by condemning any man before he was heard, his Motion would extend no further, for the prefent, than that the Judges should be heard in their defence. His Lordship faid, that his only wish was to have the fentence of transportation fufpended until the bufinefs was thoroughly inveftigated; for it must give pain to their Lordships to hear of the death of this unfortunate exile, on his paffage, while they were debating whether he and Mr. Muir were, or were not, legally convicted. In acceding to this propofition, their Lordships would not depart from precedent, as in the cafe of Cornish and Algernoon Sydney, their Lordships had fet the attainder afide, in confequence of a fubfequent investigation into that oppreffive bufinefs. Earl Stanhope concluded by moving,

"That an humble Addrefs be prefented to His Majefty, reprefenting, that their Lordships have been informed of the Trial and Conviction of Thomas Muir, Efq. before the Court of Justiciary in Scotland, and intreating that His Majefty may be gracioufly pleafed to countermand the fentence of Transportation: And alfo to represent that the Houfe intends to proceed and examine into the Circumftances; and to befcech His Majefty, that the faid Thomas Muir be not tranfported until the Houfe has had fufficient time to make fuch Examination."

No. 3.

****

R

Lord

Lord Stanhope obferved, that if this Motion was agreed to, he would follow it up by three others; one of a fimilar effect with refpect to Mr. Palmer, and the others refpecting the Judges who prefided at their Trials.

Earl Mansfield declared, that he found it difficult to reply to his Lordfhips fpeech, which was as extraordinary as his Motion, and which was the most fingular that it ever had been his fate to hear fince he had a feat in Parliament. The Judges of the Court of Jufticiary, to which he the had honour to belong, would, he pledged himself, be ready to meet the queftion, let it come from whatever quarter it may. The Noble Lord who made the Motion, in the warmth of his zeal, ufed intemperate language in exclaiming againft the legality of the fentence. He admired his flights of fancy; but they were fuch as he would not attempt to reach. The Noble Earl had faid, that the fpeech of the Lord Advocate was highly blameable, when he afferted that all the charges against the Prifoner, if inferted in the indictment, would cover the walls of the Court. Lord Mansfield continued by obferving, that their Lordships would indeed be placed in a wretched condition, if they were to be tried by their. fpeeches, as reported, however impartial and accurate the report. A fpeech of three hours, delivered by the Lord Advocate, had been given in three columns of a news-paper, and this diftinguifhed by marks of artful mifrepresentation; while Muir's was given at confiderable length, though not half fo long in delivery. God forbid, he exclaimed, that any gentleman was to fuffer by the wretched trah that appeared in a news-paper, mangled and mutilated to ferve particular purposes. The matter, therefore, did not come before their Lordfhips in any fhape that juftified them in agreeing to the Motion made by the Noble Lord. There was no appeals from the Courts below in criminal cafes, and fo far he could not agree to the propofition before the Houfe. As to the legality of the evi dence, it was a matter to which he would make no reply; but thus much the Houfe must admit, that all the charges produced against Muir were proved, becaufe proved to the fatisfaction of a Jury; and their Lordships had no right whatever to refuse their verdict.

The Duke of Norfolk objected to the Motion, as being grounded on information fo loofe as a pamphlet. He agreed with the Noble Lord, that if the cafe was as ftated, it was a very hard one; and had his Motion been grounded on affidavits, he would have given his fupport; but as the bufinefs did not come before the Houfe, affifted by proper documents and affidavits, he did not fee how their Lordships could agree to the Motion. He was, however, happy to underftand that the bufinefs would be brought forward in another form.

Lard

Lord Lauderdale agreed with the Noble Earl who propofed the Addrefs to the Crown in fome of the principles he laid down; but could not coincide with him in opinion as to the manner of wording the prefent Motion. He faid, the Noble Earl had not brought it forward in the manner he could with, or in that form he had repeatedly urged him to adopt. He wondered not, indeed, at the general feeling which was excited, the public mind was interested in the difcuffion of the prefent Motion; nor was he furprized that the Nation fhould look with difguft at the proceedings of the High Court of Jufticiary with regard to these unfortunate fufferers: he did not, at the prefent, mean to take an enlarged view of the fubject; but though he fhould give it but a momentary confideration, he could not avoid giving it a ferious attention. The feelings of the public were ftrongly in favour of thofe exiles; and no impartial man, who reflected for a moment on their fituation, but pitied and condemned, He entertained very unpleafing fenfations, when he paufed or ruminated on this extraordinary proceeding; and though forry, yet he was obliged to allow, that the fame perfon for crofling the Tweed, if tried and found guilty in Scotland, for a fimilar offence with one he had committed in England, would be torn from his friends, and banished for twelve years; when in this country, the most severe punishment he would experience, would be twelve months imprifonment. But though he by no means meant to go into the merits of the question, or, at this peculiar period, to give it a full and conclufive difcuffion, he could not but obferve, that there was fomething peculiarly fevere with refpect to thefe gentlemen: the very publications which were the object of the Profecution were flipped from their pockets, and procured in this fhameful manner, were made the foundation of their Trial. The Noble Earl (Mansfield) has told the Houfe, that my Noble Friend's information has been derived from a polluted fource; the printed report of a partial pamphlet or newspaper. The Noble Earl is

wrong, if he fuppofes all the reports on thefe Trials are fimilar→ he could fhew the Noble Earl fome editions, which leaned clearly and entirely to one fide; but even they did not contradict the ftatement of his Noble Friend (Stanhope.) There were circumftances which attended thefe Trials, which he hesitated not to fay, were most dreadful in their nature, and which he contended, refected no fmall difgrace on the jurifprudence of Scotland; he alluded, he faid, to witneffes, who were produced against the Pannel, being threatened with imprifonment for life, if they did not difclofe every thing required by the Court of Jufticiary. He made fome allufion on a former night to this fubject; and he then told the Law Lords of this country, that they would have opportunities of defending the conduct of the Court of Jufticiary.

R 2

Не