found; but alterations in standing laws, or in long usage, ought never to be made without the most mature deliberation; and therefore declared he was very glad Lord Carteret had concluded without any motion, as that would give the Lords time to receive information from the Scotch judges before it would be necessary to receive or reject any proposal that should be made for any change in the laws of that country. He owned, too, that he had been of opinion that the first interlocutor* in the trial of Porteous had borne very hard upon him, thinking it had circumscribed him within much narrower bounds in making his defence than he found it did when he came to read and consider the evidence Captain Porteous in consequence of that interlocutor had been allowed to give: he therefore concluded with saying that, though he still thought that interlocutor very inaccurately penned, yet he did not retain the opinion he had at first conceived of the judges not having left all the scope to Captain Porteous's evidence that justice and equity required, or that the criminal himself could desire. So this day's debate was finished without anything being done, and even without anything being proposed to be done.

When the questions relating to points of Scotch law, and arising from circumstances contained in the trial of Porteous, were to be put to the Scotch judges, great disputes arose in the House about the manner in which the judges should be admitted. Some were for having the Scotch, like the English judges, brought by the King's writ upon the Woolsack; but my Lord Chancellor starting a difficulty whether the Crown had a legal right to summon them in this manner, that proposal was laid aside: the only remaining dispute then was, whether they should be heard, in the common way of all other examinations, at the bar, or have the distinction shown them of being brought to the table-a compliment that had been paid (as appeared on the journals) in some few instances. There was a long debate and a division on this question, but it was carried for the bar; however, Lord Isla

* An interlocutor is a decision of the Court on some preliminary or collateral circumstance. In this case the interlocutor was something in the nature of the finding of a grand jury, and was blamed-first for not stating the case as fairly towards Porteous as the facts required, and secondly because it seemed to restrict him as to the exculpatory evidence which he should be allowed to offer; and although he was eventually suffered to produce that evidence, the interlocutor was certainly objectionable.

and Lord Hervey had the satisfaction of seeing the Queen's lecture to the Duke of Newcastle had had so good an effect that he did not dare to vote with the majority, but was forced to sneak out with them in the minority. So the Scotch judges were called to the bar, and there interrogated.

The next day the Duke of Argyle moved the House that, as the law of England was so very doubtful in some points relating to the conduct of the soldiery, the judges might be asked how far an officer would be justified in using force when called in aid of the civil power by the civil magistrate; how far the officer was safe in obeying that authority; or if he was safe in refusing to obey it? When the House consented to these questions, and some more of the like nature, being put to the English judges, the Bishop of Salisbury, who had a mind to give the Scotch judges the trouble, and, as he thought, the disgrace, of being brought again to the bar of the House of Lords,* moved that these questions might also be put to the Scotch judges. Some other Lord (I have forgot whom) moved that the Scotch judges might deliver their opinion in writing. With this proposal Lord Isla closed, saying it would not then be necessary for them to appear, but to send their opinions to be read by the clerks; and Lord Hervey moved that, as there were only three of the Scotch judges in England, they might not be debarred of the same advantages the English judges had, of consulting the rest of their brethren on such important as well as doubtful points, but that they might have leave to go down into Scotland again, in order to consult their records as well as their brother judges, and to give the House the best information that could be had on these questions. The Bishop of Salisbury, who saw Lord Hervey's drift, opposed this motion, and said it would sound very odd for the House of Lords to send for the Scotch judges up from Scotland only to ask them questions relating to the Scotch law, and then to send them back again to Scotland to answer them. Lord Hervey replied, that there would be no inconsistency at all in this conduct, because the words of the order of the House by which the Scotch judges were sent for were, to inform the House

*This gives an invidious turn to what seems a natural and necessary inquiry. Could anything be more absurd than in this peculiarly Scotch case to have consulted the English Judges on the law of England, and not to have asked the Scotch judges the law of Scotland?

with regard to the trial of Porteous, which he supposed the Bishop had forgot; and as he concluded these judges, before they came, had taken the opinions of the other judges, and made themselves masters of the points in that trial which they were called to explain, and had in consequence of these steps given the House thorough satisfaction, so on this new point, for which they were not called, and for which, to be sure, they were not prepared, he hoped the same advantages would be allowed them by the House, and doubted not but in that case the same satisfaction would be given to the House. Lord Hervey's proposal for these reasons was agreed to, and the Scotch judges in two or three days after set out on their return to Scotland, getting their release and their quietus by this turn being given to a motion made by one who wished only to give them new trouble, and expose them to repeated disgrace; and for this service the three Scotch judges came next morning to St. James's to return Lord Hervey their thanks.

66

Lord Carteret came to Lord Hervey after the debate was over, and told him, "Well, my Lord, you have outwitted the Bishop." Lord Hervey said he had only convinced him. "You have convinced," replied Lord Carteret, "the Duke of Newcastle too." Lord Hervey smiled, and said he believed other people had convinced him. You saw," said Lord Carteret, "I found how it went, and made my retreat. While Lord Chancellor and the Duke of Newcastle went along with me, I thought I could deal with you: but when my Lord Chancellor came to find fault with the style of the judges instead of their conduct, and to say the interlocutor was only inaccurately penned, I found my Lord Isla and you had got the better of him and the Duke of Newcastle at St. James's; and when I felt how matters stood, I retired too." "But if this was your opinion," said Lord Hervey, "how came you not to let your friend Sherlock into the secret? why did not you tell him that half the pack and those hounds on whom you most depended, were drawn off, and the game escaped and safe, instead of leaving his Lordship there to bark and yelp by himself, and make the silly figure he has done?" "Oh!" said Lord Carteret, "he talks like a parson; and consequently is so used to talk to people that don't mind him, that I left him to find it out at his leisure, and shall have him again for all this whenever I want him.”

Such speeches require so little commenting upon that I never affront my readers so much as to add any reflections or explanations to things which speak their own sense so plainly that I could suggest nothing which would not be anticipated by their own imagination before I could mention them. After this affair of the judges was over, the Queen told Lord Hervey she should be glad to know the truth, but believed she should never come at it,-Whether the Scotch judges had been really to blame or not in the trial of Captain Porteous? "for between you and the Bishop of Salisbury," said she, "who each of you convince me by turns, I am as much in the dark as if I knew nothing at all of the matter: he comes and tells me they are all as black as devils; you, that they are as white as snow, and whoever speaks last I believe. I am like that judge you talk of so often in the play (Gripus,* I think you call him), that, after one side had spoke, begged t' other might hold their tongue, for fear of puzzling what was clear to him. I am Queen Gripus; and, since the more I hear the more I am puzzled, I am resolved I will hear no more about it; but, let them be in the right or the wrong, I own to you I am glad they are gone."

CHAPTER XXXII.

WHILST these Scotch affairs were going on in the House of Lords, a scheme was proposed by Sir John Bernard (one of the City Members in the Opposition) to reduce the interest of the National Debt [from four] to three per cent.-a proposal evidently so beneficial to the national interest, and that of the landed men, that it was at first received in the House with all the applause and satisfaction imaginable.

Sir Robert Walpole, for private and personal, and perhaps ministerial reasons, tried to stop it, but could not, and a Bill was ordered to be brought in to put the scheme in execution. Sir Robert had, I believe, two reasons for endeavouring to defeat this project: one, the envying Sir John Bernard the honour and popularity of doing what seemed more naturally the business of

*

Gripus, in Dryden's play, puzzled between the two Amphitryons.

the First Commissioner of the Treasury, and of him who was at the head of the management of the revenue; the other, the fear of disobliging the moneyed men in the House of Commons by giving in to a scheme that was at once to lop off a fourth part of their income. The first of these reasons it is easy to imagine he would own to nobody, and the last he could only own in private. He told the King and Queen that this scheme, if it took effect, would have very bad consequences; for, though it was not proposed by him, yet, as everybody would imagine it could not be carried through without his consent and acquiescence, so it would certainly make many of the moneyed men, who now served the Court for nothing, turn against them. Sir Robert Walpole told them, too, that though he confessed a saving of 500,000%. ayear, unappropriated and ready for any exigence or to spare the land for the current service, was a very desirable thing for the Government, yet, as that 500,000%. must come out of many people's pockets, so most of those who paid their quota to it would look upon the Government as the occasion of their being pinched to furnish it; that this would so vastly increase the disaffection in the nation, that he did not know what turn it might take or what consequences it might have; and as things of this nature should always be done gradually to be done safely, so it could never be the interest of any Government to stand the shock of doing them wantonly at a jerk, when the Government was not in immediate want of the money, and when it was at best only for public good, which nobody was ever thanked for, and when it would be evidently to the detriment and loss of so many particulars, of which (let who will be to blame) the Government always incurred all the clamour and the odium. These arguments and suggestions were sufficient to make the King and Queen zealous in desiring this project should be defeated; and as they were both of them extremely free in publicly declaring themselves against it, most people imagined their Majesties' reason for being so warm was their having a great deal of money in the funds, and their choosing the nation should. rather continue to pay four per cent. interest instead of three for a debt of near fifty millions than that they should receive three per cent. instead of four for their private treasure.

The arguments used against this proposal-considering it only in a national light-were so weak and so absurd that