us of our money. That they have hitherto been of no use to Great Britain or to Austria is evident beyond a doubt; and therefore it is plain that they are retained only for the purpose of Hanover. . . .

"To dwell upon all the instances of partiality which have been shown, and the yearly visits which have been paid to that delightful country-to reckon up all the sums that have been spent to aggrandise and enrich it, would be an irksome and invidious task-invidious to those who are afraid to be told the truth, and irksome to those who are unwilling to hear of the dishonour and injuries of their country. I shall dwell no longer upon this unpleasing subject than to express my hope that we shall no longer suffer ourselves to be deceived and oppressed; that we shall at length perform our duty as representatives of the people; and, by refusing to ratify this contract, show that, however the interests of Hanover have been preferred by the Ministers, the Parliament pays no regard but to the interests of Great Britain."

To this spirited attack, Murray replied as follows:

"The motion now under our consideration is of such a new and extraordinary nature, and is such a direct attack on the first prerogatives of the Crown, that I should think myself very little deserving of the honour which His Majesty has been pleased to confer upon me, if I did not rise to oppose it. There are certain powers vested in the king, as there are certain privileges belonging to the people; and an infringement of either would lead to the overthrow of our happy constitution. As the guardians of the liberties of the people, we are bound to respect the royal prerogative. But if there be anything certain, it is this-that to the king alone it belongs, not only to declare war, but to determine how the war, when declared, shall be carried

on.

He is to direct what forces are to be raised; when armies are to march; when squadrons are to sail; when his commanders are to act, and when they are to keep upon the defensive. If this motion were carried, I should expect to see

a venerable member moving an address that a general engagement shall be immediately ordered in Flanders, although the mover has never been out of England, nor the 'division of a battle knows more than a spinster.'.

66 On every side the most happy effects have been produced by the method his Majesty has chosen for assisting the Queen of Hungary. I hope it will not be said that we ought to assist her with our own troops alone. To raise by recruiting at home the army which would be necessary must be injurious to our industry, and injurious to our Constitution. We must, therefore, have foreign troops in our pay; and where shall we find any to be preferred to the Hanoverians ?"

In conclusion :

"I will not say that upon no occasion would this House interfere with its advice as to the exercise of the prerogatives of the Crown. If wicked or incapable ministers were bringing disgrace on the British arms, degrading the national honour, and hazarding the national safety, we might be called upon to advise the king to change his measures and his advisers. But our allies have been effectually protected, and the interests of England, in every part of the world, have been vindicated. It is insinuated, indeed, that all our measures are scarcely calculated for the benefit of the Electorate of Hanover. This is an insinuation of a most dangerous nature, and it ought not to be resorted to for mere party purposes, because it tends not only to wean the affections of the people from the sovereign on the throne, but from the Protestant succession in the Hanoverian line, and to bring about a counter-revolution which would be fatal to religion and liberty. Whether the republican faction or Jacobitish faction, which are now united, shall prevail when the split comes, destruction alike awaits constitutional freedom. What ground is there for the danger? I do not pretend to be in the secrets of the Cabinet, and I am unable to dive into the hidden reasons of the human mind to analyse the true motives of action; but when the measures of the

M

Government are wisely calculated to promote the dignity and prosperity of England, and have actually produced the happy results which might have been expected from them, why should you say that their hidden and sole object is to enrich Hanover and add a few patches to its territory?"

The year 1745 was distinguished by the last Jacobite rebellion, that romantic episode of history which reads more like an old chivalric legend than a sober eighteenthcentury narrative. Prince Charles Edward at first seemed destined to recover the crown of his ancestors. After defeating the royal army at Prestonpans and capturing Carlisle, he pushed his way unopposed into the very heart of the kingdom, and halted not until he reached Derby. There his good fortune deserted him. Alarmed at the apathy of the people, and dreading lest they should be surrounded by superior forces, the Highland chiefs insisted on a retreat; and the baffled Prince, dispirited and ashamed, recrossed the Borders, pursued by the Duke of Cumberland.

Murray came of a Jacobite family, and had himself been accused of Jacobite sympathies; but his political prudence held him firm to the cause of the reigning sovereign, and it does not seem that any suspicion attached to him of collusion with the young Stuart prince. But when the rebellion was quenched in blood on Drummossie Moor, and the rebel lords were brought to trial on charges of high treason, he must have felt it a painful duty to conduct their prosecution. The only one of these cases which it is necessary to notice is that of Lord Lovat; and probably towards that cruel, treacherous, and tyrannical old man, whose whole life had been one of infamy, he felt no special tenderness or compassion. As Lord Lovat had not actually taken up

arms-withdrawing to his castle in Inverness-shire, while he sent his son and retainers to join the standard of Prince Charles Edward-he could not be proceeded against by the presentment of an English grand jury, but could be brought to trial only by impeachment. Upon Murray, as one of the managers appointed to conduct his prosecution before the Peers, fell no light or agreeable task; but he performed it with ability and moderation. The trial began on the 9th of March, 1746, and ended in a verdict of "Guilty." When the prisoner was asked if he could show any cause why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, he said :

"My Lords, I am very sorry I gave your Lordships so much trouble in my trial, and I give you a million of thanks for your being so good in your patience and attendance while it lasted. I thought myself much loaded by one Mr. Murray,* who, your Lordships know, was the bitterest witness there was against me. I have since suffered by another Mr. Murray, who, I must say with pleasure, is one known to his country, and whose eloquence and learning are much beyond what is to be expected by an ignorant man like me. I heard him with pleasure, though it was against me. I have the honour to be his relation, though, perhaps, he neither knows it nor values it. I wish that his being born in the North may not hinder him from the preferment that his merit entitles him to. Till that gentleman spoke, your Lordships were inclined to grant my earnest request, and allow me further time to bring up witnesses to prove my innocence; but, it seems, that has been overruled. All now that I have to say is a little in vindication of my own character."

Having attempted this Herculean labour-not with any surprising measure of success-he concluded: "I

* John Murray of Broughton, who had been secretary to Charles Edward, and one of his most trusted but not wariest advisers.

beg your Lordships' pardon for this long and rude discourse. I had great need of my cousin Murray's eloquence for half-an-hour, and then it would have been more agreeable."

It is not often that one hears of a prisoner undertaking to panegyrise the prosecuting counsel. I suppose it was the influence of blood, and of that fervid Scottish nationality, which finds so many unexpected ways of asserting itself. On the night before his execution he remembered his eloquent and accomplished cousin. "Mr. Solicitor," he said, "is a great man, and he will meet with high promotion if he is not too far north."

As Pitt was at this time in office (Paymaster of the Forces), Murray's Parliamentary life was tolerably free from disturbing influences; and it was not until the death of Frederick Prince of Wales, in 1751, that he was brought conspicuously before the public. In that year he had to conduct a Regency Bill through the Lower House. Shortly afterwards, the cry of favouritism was revived against him. In early life he had been closely acquainted with two gentlemen, his contemporaries at Westminster, named Fawcett and Stone, and with Dr. Johnson, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester. In the course of years the young men were separated by differences of pursuit and character. Fawcett became a provincial barrister and recorder of Newcastle; Stone was subgovernor to young Prince George. At a dinner given by the Dean of Durham, Fawcett was one of the company; and the conversation turning on the preferment of Dr. Johnson (who held a Durham prebend), he remarked that he was glad Johnson was so well off. remembered him a Jacobite several years ago, and then

He