A LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND.

WHEN I preſumed to write to my countrymen laſt year, to rouſe their ſpirit againſt Mr. Fox's Eaſt-India bill, I had the happineſs to find my letter received not only with indulgence, but with a generous warmth of heart which I can never forget, but to the lateſt moment of my life ſhall moſt gratefully remem⯑ber. The fire of loyalty was kindled. It flew through our counties and our [2] boroughs. The King was addreſſed: the conſtitution was ſaved. I was proud to have been able thus ciere viros; prouder ſtill than of receiving the applauſe of the miniſter of the CROWN, which he was pleaſed to con⯑vey to me in a very handſome letter; upon which, however, I ſet a high value, conſidering not only the mi⯑niſter, but the man; and accordingly it ſhall be preſerved in the archives of my family.

I now feel myſelf called upon to to write to them again, upon a ſub⯑ject of leſs magnitude indeed, but of moſt intereſting concern. The crown is not in danger every day: GOD for⯑bid it ſhould.

[3] But what is the crown without ſub⯑jects? and what are ſubjects without a good adminiſtration of juſtice? A rage for innovation has gone forth; and that rage, ſeconded by avarice and inordinate love of power, in diffe⯑rent parties, according to their dif⯑ferent intereſts, hath lately threatened, and ſtill threatens, us with a violent ſhock to our civil judicature, by re⯑ducing the number of the lords of ſeſſion from fifteen to ten, that ten may have larger ſalaries. This "comes home to our buſineſs and boſoms." It is a very ſerious alarm indeed. As to the barons of Exchequer, I ſhall ſay nothing: It is but a modern court; and we are told a perſon of high of⯑fice in the law ſaid, they were not ſo much judges as revenue officers. [4] But the Court of Seſſion has a vaſt juriſ⯑diction. It was formed by James V. of Scotland, anno 1532, after the mo⯑del of the Parliament of Paris. It conſiſted originally of ſeven church⯑men, ſeven laymen, and a prelate as preſident. This was altered. They are now all laymen; and none can be appointed but who have been five years advocates or principal clerks of court, or ten years clerks to his ma⯑jeſty's ſignet; but advocates are almoſt always appointed. Their gowns are of purple cloth and crimſon velvet, very gracefully diſpoſed, and they ſtill retain the ſacerdotal badge of a cawl or pouch, which hangs on their ſhoulders, as a part of the gown, like that of the capuchins. Its juriſdic⯑tion is not only ſupreme, in Scotland, [5] over all cauſes civil and conſiſtorial, (that is to ſay, cauſes of the nature of the eccleſiaſtical cauſes in England, with this amazing difference, that they have a power to give a ſentence of divorce equivalent to an act of parliament) but has alſo a conſider⯑able extent in criminal caſes. And let me add, that it has acquired a kind of undefined arbitrary juriſdic⯑tion, called its nobile officium, for a full and bold account of which I re⯑fer you to Dr. Gilbert Stuart.

I cannot but complain of the ſecret and ſudden mode of framing and bringing forward this momentous bill.—What! ſhall the ſupreme civil court of a country be diminiſhed one third?—Shall an eſtabliſhment, ſanc⯑tified [6] by the acquieſcence of ages, be pulled to pieces without any commu⯑nication whatever with the ſubjects of that country, high or low; nay, without ever conſulting the bar, the faculty of advocates, that learned body who are guardians of the law—antiſ⯑tites juſtitiae. But ſcandal ſays, Mr. Henry Dundas has been applied to by ſome of the judges, who, after feaſting at Bayll's French tavern, and raiſing their ſpirits high with wine, have formed the lofty wiſh of reve⯑rently paying their court to Regina Pecunia;—and Mr. Henry Dundas (ſometimes called Harry the Ninth) very willing to oblige thoſe ſenators, and make them his devoted humble ſervants, has nodded aſſent. Egre⯑giam ſane loudem, et ſpolia ampla re⯑fertis. [7] But Mr. Dundas, not being ſure that the people of Scotland are yet entirely tame, has been too wiſe to commit himſelf in this deſperate buſineſs, but has only given inſtruc⯑tions; and then Mr. Ilay Campbell, the preſent lord advocate of Scotland, whom his brethren did the honour to elect their vice dean, riſes in the houſe of commons with this ſame pretty little bill, cut and dry, and thinks he may at once kill his five men, and in triumph call out, "Off with their heads!"—So much for Lords of Seſſion. But let him beware! he will find them "riſe with gaſhes on their crowns, to puſh him, and others too, perhaps, from their ſtools." Like the viſion in Mr. Glover's celebrated bal⯑lad of Hoſier's Ghoſt, "A ſad troop [8] will appear, all ſhrowded in dreary robes, as winding ſheets, and frown⯑ing on a hoſtile band."

But indeed, indeed, our country is at a miſerable ebb, when its great and good families are totally indifferent about every public concern, and have ſo little ſpirit, even as to their private concerns, that they never advance, like men, to the fountain head of go⯑vernment, but indolently or timidly ſuffer all to be done by ſome perſon or other who for the time is brought for⯑ward, or who puts himſelf forward, as a miniſter for Scotland. They are afraid to let their natural voice be heard by adminiſtration, but muſt convey their wiſhes through a ſpeak⯑ing trumpet, which, I will tell them, [9] may be pointed high or low, as he who holds it may think proper. But if the Stuarts, the Hamiltons, the Erſkines, the Craufurds, the Mont⯑gomeries, the Douglaſes, the Grahams, the Somervilles, the Cathcarts, the Kennedies, in ſhort, all the men of blood and of property, who ought to be men of conſequence, hang back, are we to be ſurprized that admini⯑ſtration appoints a locum tenens, an agent, or by whatever name he may be called; or that ſome able and ar⯑dent politician takes their place. I remember Archibald duke of Argyll —I remember Stuart Mackenzie—I remember Gilmour, all in their turn, bowed to, and bringing the people of Scotland to St. James's and the Treaſury, as a ſaleſman drives black [10] cattle to Smithfield. Poor dumb beaſts! why ſhould they not walk up themſelves, and bellow as they may incline?

Then came Mr. Henry Dundas, who has made a diſtinguiſhed figure at more markets than one—whether at Oxford market with Lord North, or Leadenhall market with Mr. Pitt.

There was a time when we were flattered there was to be no monopoly —when that TITUS, that Deliciae hu⯑mani generis, the Duke of Portland (I give his Grace as Mr. Burke gave him me, not having the good fortune to be known to him) when He pre⯑ſided. —O, then! all was to go well [11] with Scotland!—There was to be no go-between—nobody to keep back the individuals of that diſtant part of the iſland from fairly aſſerting their pretenſions, whether from birth, wealth, or merit. But, alas! we ſoon found there was only a change of Dundaſes. Inſtead of Mr. Henry Dundas, we got Sir Thomas Dundas; and now we have Mr. Henry Dundas again.

Mr. Dundas is of a great law race. The family of Arniſton has for four ſucceſſive generations been judges in our ſupreme civil court, and for theſe two laſt been at the head of it as Preſident.—A very extraordinary in⯑ſtance, in modern times, where it can be ſaid, per faſces numerat avos. Why then, O why! Mr. Dundas, [12] ſhould you attempt to injure this an⯑cient inſtitution? Are you not afraid that the ſhades of your anceſtors may diſturb your pillow? "Be not too bold," I intreat you! There are ſome things which we will bear, and ſome things which we will not bear. Think, O think of ‘"Vaulting Ambition, which o'erleaps itſelf!"’ Beſides, Sir, you are the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. We have placed you in the chair where LOCKHART ſat: we expect you will not betray us.

But, that I may now ſpeak to my countrymen in plain, and, I flatter myſelf, convincing argument, let us conſider the peculiar form and con⯑ſtitution of the Court of Seſſion. It [13] will hardly be believed, in England, that we have no juries in civil cauſes; ſtill more ſtrange will it ſeem, that we once had that ineſtimable privi⯑lege, and loſt it—nobody can tell how. But Lord Kames has proved it.—That a country ſhould, in the progreſs of civilization in every other reſpect, be⯑come more barbarous in its executive juriſprudence, is a wonderful and a diſgraceful phaenomenon. Nay, we have no grand jury in Scotland. There is no ſuch thing as finding a bill by the country: all criminal proſecutions are by information of the firſt crown lawyer, or by immediate indictment at the ſuit of private perſons, with his concurrence; ſo that there is neither the ſecurity againſt unjuſt proſecutions which the verdict of our peers would [14] afford, nor is there a certainty that crimes which ought to be proſecuted will be proſecuted. All is left to the will and pleaſure of His Majeſty's Ad⯑vocate, the Attorney-General of Scot⯑land, that anomalous perſonage whoſe ſtatus puzzles the Houſe of Commons; who is a lord, but yet not noble, and to-morrow may deſcend to be only the honourable, or aſcend to be the right honourable, gentleman.

The Lord Advocate of Scotland has the whole power of a grand jury in his perſon. The fat Mr. Edward Bright, of Malden, whoſe print is in all our inns to amuſe the weary tra⯑veller, is nothing to the learned lord. —He could button ſeven men in his [15] waiſtcoat; but the learned lord com⯑prehends hundreds: the grand juries of thirty counties are packed within his little circumference.

The Court of Seſſion then is not only a body of judges, but, like the Parliament of Paris, it is a ſtanding jury for all Scotland. And will it be ſeriouſly maintained, that fifteen is too large a number, when that is con⯑ſidered? My amiable and honourable friend Dempſter, that rara avis of the Scottiſh breed, who has ſat in parliament almoſt as long as our pre⯑ſent moſt gracious Sovereign has ſat upon the throne, and has ſhewn him⯑ſelf uniformly independent, uniformly benevolent, when I talked to him upon this ſubject, exclaimed, ‘Fif⯑teen [16] too few! I would rather have fifty. They talk of there being only twelve judges in England: I ſay there are twenty thouſand—the juries—by whom almoſt every thing is decided; and our fifteen Lords of Seſſion are all we have for a jury in civil cauſes.’—Nobly ſaid! There are twenty thouſand judges in England—judges of law as well as of fact—and I hope in GOD there ever ſhall be, notwithſtanding all that the old Conjuror or any of his pupils can do. While a Loft and a Towers can write, and a Lee and an Erſkine plead, that ſacred palla⯑dium will be preſerved.

If the Britiſh Parliament will give us a grand jury, and juries in civil [17] cauſes (for both of which, if I am ever thought worthy of being ſent into the Houſe of Commons as an independent gentleman, I ſhall cer⯑tainly move for leave to bring in a bill) I will anſwer for it that the people of Scotland (when deliberately conſulted—as they ought to be, in juſtice, in propriety, and in common decency) will cheerfully agree to have the number of the Lords of Seſſion diminiſhed, becauſe they would then have ſomething better than their an⯑cient ariſtocratical court. And with exultation I can tell, that, ſo far as the people of Scotland can—in the limited privilege of Juries which they have—they do now exerciſe their conſtitutional right in its full extent. We have a Smellie, who has, with a [18] calm but an undaunted ſpirit, pointed it out to his fellow citizens in a well written diſcourſe; and a few months ago William Spence, a young matroſs, for whom I was counſel, was indicted by the Lord Advocate for felonious fire-raiſing. He was proſecuted by his lordſhip in perſon, with all his addreſs; and the Lord Juſtice Clerk, the Vice Preſident, of the High Court of Juſticiary, gave a charge, with all his his ability, to find him guilty. But a reſpectable jury ac⯑quitted him; and, as I hope for mercy from the Judge of all the earth, had I been one of their number, I ſhould have been clear to join in the verdict. I will give up my own opinion to no human authority.

[19] In the preſent form and conſtitu⯑tion of the Court of Seſſion, there is occaſion for at leaſt the full number of judges which were at firſt ap⯑pointed, and which has remained un⯑diminiſhed now for two hundred and fifty three years. It is remarkable that when James V. inſtituted the court, the number of the judges was thought ſmall. Take the words of Buchanan Hiſt. lib. 14. cap. 32. ‘Joannes Dux Albinus, a pontifice Romano impetravit, ut ſumma pe⯑cuniae annua quanta ſatis eſſet ad paucorum judicum ſalarium ſolven⯑dum imperaretur eccleſiaſtico ordini univerſo, a ſinguliſque pro modò, cenſus exigeretur.’ He tells us, it was difficult to obtain money for ſa⯑laries even to thoſe few; ſo much [20] ſtronger then too was the love of mo⯑ney than the love of juſtice—and he ſternly delivers his opinion that the inſtitution did not produce the good that was expected from it: ‘Omnium civium bona quindecim hominum arbitrio ſunt commiſſa, quibus et perpetua eſt poteſtas, et imperium plane tyrannicum.’

The perpetua poteſtas is the griev⯑ance of a ſtanding jury; and the im⯑perium plane tyrannicum muſt, in the nature of things, reſide in a body of men who poſſeſs at once the province of judge and of jury; nay of common law judges and equity judges; who are both King's Bench and Chancery, and whoſe deciſions therefore may be a compound of law and of fact and of [21] equity, as its members may be dif⯑ferently moved.

It is this which makes it of infinite conſequence to us to preſerve all the judges we have, as long as the court retains the ſame conſtitution; for it has been found in practice, that, notwithſtanding the ſtaggering objec⯑tions to it in theory, this ſame court of fifteen has been ſo balanced and mixed, and tempered and mellowed, by the workings of various qualities, in the courſe of time, that upon the whole it has done very well.

There may, to be ſure, come a DOUGLAS CAUSE, which is too vaſt an object for the throw of ſuch a com⯑plicated die. Non noſtrum eſt tantas componere lites. That is not much; [22] becauſe for great cauſes we have an appeal to that auguſt tribunal, the Houſe of Lords. But, as the ex⯑pence of an appeal is more than the value of almoſt every cauſe that the court of ſeſſion decides, the right of appeal is nothing to the greateſt number of our ſuitors.—We are therefore concerned that Innovation ſhould be prevented, as we may fear, but cannot foreſee its effects, and as the imperium of the court would be ſtill more tyrannicum in ten than in fifteen, as ſpirits have more force as they are more compreſſed by diſtilla⯑tion.

Our anceſtors took care to have it ſolemnly ſtipulated in the 19th article of the Union, ‘That the Court of [23] Seſſion, or College of Juſtice, do, after the Union, and notwithſtand⯑ing thereof, remain in all time coming, within Scotland, as it is now conſtituted by the laws of that kingdom, and with the ſame au⯑thority and privileges as before the Union, ſubject nevertheleſs to ſuch regulations, for the better admini⯑ſtration of Juſtice, as ſhall be made by the Parliament of Great-Britain.’

Is it poſſible, think you, by any artifice of words, by any little quirk of any ſort, to explain away this ar⯑ticle, and to maintain that the ex⯑cepted power to make regulations for the better adminiſtration of juſtice, in a court which is to remain in all time coming as now conſtituted, ſhall be [24] underſtood to give a licence to deſtroy that very court itſelf, by changing its conſtitution? Is a court of ten the ſame with a court of fifteen? Is a two-legged animal the ſame with a four-legged animal? I know nobody who will gravely defend that propoſition, except one groteſque 'philoſopher, whom ludicrous fable repreſents as going about avowing his hunger, and wagging his tail, fain to become can⯑nibal, and eat his deceaſed brethren. It is clear, that the ſubſtance muſt be preſerved, though the accidents may be varied. The Court of Seſſion, the Quindecem Homines, muſt remain, unleſs by conſent of the people of Scot⯑land themſelves, though the proceed⯑ings of the court, the modes of admi⯑niſtrating juſtice by thoſe fifteen, may [25] be regulated occaſionally, as the Bri⯑tiſh Parliament, in its great wiſdom, ſhall ſee fit. If any man can enter⯑tain a doubt of this, if he is capable of having his underſtanding ſo per⯑verted, I cannot argue with him.

Is it a light matter then to infringe the Articles of the Union?—My coun⯑trymen, hear me! I accoſt you with a warning voice.—Have a care!—I my⯑ſelf do fairly acknowledge that I ve⯑nerate and love the ancient Hierarchy, though, like Whitefield, of whoſe pious and animated ſociety I had ſome ſhare, I can communicate with all ſincere Chriſtians. But you in gene⯑ral think differently, and your kirk, your Preſbyterian eſtabliſhment, ſtands juſt upon the ſame ground of ſecurity [26] that the Court of Seſſion does. No doubt it may be aboliſhed by univer⯑ſal conſent, or by conſent of a majo⯑rity of the people of Scotland; for that is my firm opinion of the import of the articles of the Union. But the Britiſh Parliament cannot aboliſh it; for the Britiſh Parliament ſits under thoſe very articles, and is limited by them. But, once yield the principle, were it in the ſmalleſt iota, and there is an end of your ſecurity.

I ſhall take leave to preſs upon you the apprehenſion of what I believe we ſhall all agree in reſiſting; I mean that, if the articles of Union ſhould be infringed, there might then moſt probably be a prodigious innovation in our land-tax. And this concerns [27] not Scotland alone.—My lords and gentlemen of the Engliſh counties, where the land-tax is low, on you I call. If Innovation is thus to ſtride at large, the equalizing ſyſtem may be extended: and let me tell you, it is not you that can prevent it. You are too few. It is to Scotland you owe your ſafety. Government at preſent dare not equalize the land-tax. Scot⯑land would riſe to a man, and aſſert the articles of the Union. But the praefervidum ingenium Scotorum may be ſubdued.—There is a melancholy gradation in the old ſong of Waly, waly, up the bank:

[28] Let not the Scottiſh ſpirit be bowed. Let LOWTHER come forth, and ſup⯑port us! We are his neighbours. Paries proximus ardet. We all know what HE can do: HE upon whom the thouſands of Whitehaven depend for three of the elements: HE whoſe ſoul is all great—whoſe reſentment is terrible; but whoſe liberality is boundleſs. I know that he is digni⯑fied, by having hoſts of enemies. But I have fixed his character in my mind upon no ſlight inquiry. I have traverſed Cumberland and Weſtmore⯑land: I have ſojourned at Carliſle and at Kendal: I know of the LONSDALE CLUB at Lancaſter.—LOWTHER! be kindly intreated!—‘Come over to Macedonia, and help us!’

[29] Innovation is, in my mind, a very perilous experiment. I reſpect the ancient Barons for their Nolumus leges Angliae mutari; and now that Dr. Johnſon is gone to a bettr world, I bow the intellectual knee to Lord Thurlow, who, with inflexible wiſ⯑dom, ſtops the tide of faſhionable reform. It was Johnſon who con⯑firmed me in my opinion of that mighty Sage of the law and the con⯑ſtitution. Before his promotion to the high office, for which he ſeems to have been formed on purpoſe, the Doctor ſaid of him, ‘I honour Thur⯑low, Sir.—Thurlow is a fine fellow! He fairly puts his mind to your's.’— Long, long may he put his mind againſt thoſe who would take even one ſtone out of that venerable [30] fabrick, which is the wonder of the world!

Miſtake me not, my countrymen, as if I had changed my opinion againſt the nominal and fictitious votes in our counties! Theſe are no part of our old conſtitution: They are modern tricks, invented by cunning lawyers, to cheat the real Freeholders. Theſe will, I hope—theſe ſhall be aboliſhed! While I would ſacredly guard the conſtitution, I would ſweep from it the cobwebs, with all their vermin.

Innovation frightens me, becauſe I never can be ſure what will come next. ‘Hitherto ſhalt thou come, but no further; and here ſhall thy proud waves be ſtayed!’ is not for [31] mortals to ſay. My Lord March⯑mont did me the honour of a viſit a few years ago, and made a remark, which ſtill vibrates in my ear: ‘Sir, this country has been governed by wiſe men; and we have had no notion what miſchief fools could do.’—At another time, talking of this very ſubject of leſſening the number of judges in Scotland, which has been formerly mooted, his lord⯑ſhip ſaid, ‘No. It muſt not be. Scotland is far from the ſun of government, and muſt be lighted by many luſtres!’—

The preſent attempt puts me in mind of one of the many good ſtories [32] which I have heard my father tell.— An Earl of Seaforth took it into his head that he would pull down Bran caſtle, the ancient ſeat of his family. The clan was alarmed. The caper⯑fey (the deer's head, the creſt of the Mackenzie's) was diſplayed. The brave Mackenzies took fire, aſſembled, and came to him in a body. ‘My lord, this ſhall not be! Wiſer men than you built this caſtle! You ſhall not demoliſh it!’—There was the true ſpirit of clanſhip: not a ſlaviſh ſubjection to an individual; but a voluntary attachment to their patriarchal father and lord—to the fa⯑mily —to the throne.

I abhor annihilation—and five of our judges ſhall not periſh, if I can [33] prevent it.—What, in the name of goodneſs, is the motive to this violent meaſure? Does the country com⯑plain that there are too many judges? No.—Do the judges themſelves complain? I truſt, No.—For what, I pray you, is the Court of Seſſion? Why, it is an aggregate of fourteen ſeparate and diſtinct ſubordinate courts, and one Court of Appeal. There are fourteen ordinary lords: Each of theſe has his own roll of cauſes, in one half of which his judgement is allowed to be final. The Court of Appeal is the whole body of thoſe Lord Ordinaries, with the Lord Preſident at their head; and this Court of Appeal ſits five days in the week to review judgments of the Ordinaries.—Now let us con⯑ſider [34] how buſineſs is done in this court, or, more properly ſpeaking, in theſe courts. It is done chiefly in writing, and moſt voluminous writing it is: there are minutes, repreſenta⯑tions, anſwers, replies, duplies, triplies, memorials hinc inde—cum multis aliis, que nunc perſcribere longum eſt; ſo that each proceſs (as the papers in a ſuit are called) makes a thick bundle, which is carried to the judge's houſe; and this he muſt peruſe, and after⯑wards put his interlocutor upon it in writing, and authenticate it by his ſubſcription. Now I know, and every man acquainted with the court knows, and it can be proved by all the mem⯑bers of the College of Juſtice, that it is with the utmoſt difficulty that even the fourteen judges whom we have, [35] can get through the buſineſs with reaſonable diſpatch. How is it poſ⯑ſible then that it can be done by a third fewer people, be they ever ſo laborious? Nine Dukes of Richmond could not do it.

I could ſee ſome meaning in dimi⯑niſhing the Court of Review, and let⯑ting only the ten ſenior judges, or perhaps the five ſenior judges, ſit in the Inner Houſe, that the Court of Review might move quicker, by be⯑ing leſs unwieldy, and the other judges might have more time to ripen and decide cauſes in the firſt inſtance, which is the moſt laborious part of the buſineſs. That I could under⯑ſtand, as coming within the power conceded, in the articles of Union, to [36] make regulations. But to make ‘the labourers few, when the harveſt truly is great,’ ſeems to me to be very ſtrange policy.

And here I have an argumentum ad homines. I will not believe that the Lords of Seſſion themſelves are ſo unconſcientious as to approve of this meaſure, though Rumour, with all her tongues, has wantonly ſaid they are for it. My argument is this:— There is not one of them who has not, again and again, ſaid, what I have juſt now ſtated, that the duty of his office is very great, and that in ſeſſion-time he is quite harraſſed, he has ſo much to do.—Will they then undertake to do more, that they may get a little more money? I hope not. [37] As it muſt be ſure that they are per⯑fectly innocent of ſo heavy a charge, I may put it in ſtrong words—‘Either they have been liars; or, They mean to be cheats.’ That is the in⯑famous charge which their approba⯑tion of leſſening their number, with⯑out leſſening or ſhortening the buſineſs of the court, would involve.—I beg ten thouſand pardons for even utter⯑ing ſuch coarſe epithets; but my in⯑dignation is rouſed, that any creature whatever ſhould have the audacity to impute to the judges of my coun⯑try ſo abominable an alternative.

Quid non mortalia pectora cogis auri ſacra fames? is an exclamation which keeps pace with mankind, from age to age. But, ſurely, we ought to [38] ſuppoſe judges have learnt better things, and have extirpated from their hallowed breaſts, ‘the root of all evil.’—How injurious is it to imagine they will be like ſome impu⯑dent ſluts, who, for more wages, will undertake to be both cookmaid and chambermaid—Delicate coalition! —The Lords of Seſſion are, or ſhould be, Gentlemen. Shall we make them a parcel of Scrubs?—‘Of a Monday I drive the coach; of a Tueſday I drive the plough; on a Wedneſday I follow the hounds; a Thurſday I dun the tenants; on Friday I go to market; on Saturday I draw warrants; and a Sunday I draw beer.’

Suppoſe it ſhould be thought right to increaſe the ſalaries of the Lords of [39] Seſſion; is there no way of doing it but making two-thirds of them devour the reſt, like Pharaoh's lean and fat kine? Is the ſtate ſo poor, that we muſt adopt a meaſure ſimilar to the barbarous permiſſion in China and Otaheite, to murder their children, leſt they ſhould not have food enough? Six thouſand pounds a year would make them up £1000 each; and cannot that miſerable ſum be ſpared off ſome corner of the ſine⯑cure eſtabliſhment? I perſuade my⯑ſelf that the people of Scotland them⯑ſelves would ſubmit to a cenſus, in order to ranſom their court. If the Judges are poor, let them hold out the Mendicant pouch, and receive our benevolence! I, for one, would cheer⯑fully pay my quota, rather than ſuffer [40] ſo dangerous an amputation to be botchingly performed upon our old judicial body.

But is it quite clear that there ſhould be an augmentation of their ſalaries? The Lord Preſident has already £1400 a year: every Ordinary Lord has better than ſix hundred gui⯑neas; and ſix of their number are alſo Lords of Juſticiary, of whom the Lord Juſtice Clerk has £400 a year, and each of the other five has £200 a year. Beſides, every one of thoſe ſix is allowed £300 a year for circuit expences; and now that they have obtained an act of Parliament, allow⯑ing them to ſtay only three days at each aſſize-town inſtead of ſix, as they were formerly obliged to do (while the [41] ſame allowance for expences is quietly continued) they have, upon my word, very comfortable proviſions. The Juſticiary gown is an excellent object of ambition, and an encouragement for laudable exertion to the Ordinary Lords. But even without that, they have a very decent premium from the ſtate, and may live very well in Scot⯑land, as judges ſhould live; ‘not in rioting and drunkenneſs,’ indeed, but in grave abſtraction, as becomes their office. Dr. South's pulpit joke, upon the wages of ſin being death— ‘Poor wages, that a man cannot live by’—will not, in my opinion, ap⯑ply to all offices. The ſtate, in many caſes, is only to help a man to live; not wholly to ſupport him. The ſtate ſhould enable him fully to de⯑fray [42] the additional expence occaſioned by the office which he holds: but he is a hungry hound indeed, who comes into an office of reſpect and experi⯑ence, ſuch as that of a judge, with nothing at all of his own, neither fa⯑mily eſtate, nor fortune acquired by practice. I own I ſhould think a man in ſuch circumſtances ought not to be made a judge: either his birth muſt be mean—his abilities ſmall— or his conduct imprudent.

Were there a difficulty to find men of merit willing to be made Lords of Seſſion, by reaſon of the ſalary being too ſmall, I could underſtand this procruſtian expedient: but let us at leaſt wait till that is the caſe, which, well Mr. Dundas knows, it is not as [43] yet, by any means. Will he tell me that the ſalary of that office is not ſufficiently conſiderable, for which Mr. Alexander Gordon, brother to the Earl of Aberdeen, uncle to the Duke of Gordon, and a man of good under⯑ſtanding, experience, and integrity, ſolicited for years, and—pudet haec opprobria! might perhaps have been ſoliciting ſtill, had not a political wave, in the tempeſt of laſt year, thrown him into port.—An office de⯑ſired by Mr. John Maclaurin (filius Colini fama ſuper aethera noti, and a ſon of no common talents).—An office which would be accepted by Mr. Wil⯑liam Nairne, our Vice-Dean, whoſe character truly exhibits a heaven-born judge.—An office which would com⯑fort, which would ſatisfy, Mr. George [44] Wallace, whoſe knowledge, applica⯑tion, and honeſty, none will deny; whom Lord Mansfield has praiſed, but not promoted. Laudatur et alget.

I could with pleaſure give a long liſt of my deſerving brethren. To us, it is not fair. It is unjuſt to leſſen the number of prizes after the lottery has begun drawing; after we, by an ex⯑penſive education, and much time and labour, have purchaſed our tickets, in the faith that our chance for a prize is to be what it ever has been. As for myſelf, I do moſt certainly believe that I am now writing from pure mo⯑tives, becauſe I have at preſent no wiſh for the ſerious and important office of a Lord of Seſſion. I have a confi⯑dence [45] (perhaps too great a confidence) in my abilities; and therefore will try my fortune, for ſome time at leaſt, in a wider ſphere. But this I declare, that though the ſituation ſeems to me too confined, I never thought the ſa⯑lary too ſmall.

Let us be cautious of augmenting the ſalaries of our judges. Judges, like men of genius and learning, nutriendi ſunt non ſaginandi.—A gown in Scotland ſhould not be too good a place, leſt it become altogether an object of political preferment. We have already ſeveral noble lords who are of the Faculty of Advocates, and who might perhaps condeſcend to take ſuch a loaf. Lord Salton might think it a ſnug thing. My couſin, [46] Lord Cathcart, might ſee it to be better than a regiment. Lord Stair might add it to his finances. Lord Caſſillis might chuſe it by way of otium cum dignitate.—And the gen⯑tlemen whom I have mentioned, with an Erſkine, a Blair, an Abercrombie, a Grant, a Cullen, and all the reſt who have honourably borne the heat of the day, might languiſh and die, without ever obtaining that rank to which they will in juſtice be entitled.

Take the Scottiſh Bench as it is now endowed—take it in a pecuniary view: It is a tontine for our ſons. In no country in Europe, but Scotland, is the profeſſion of the law an etat, a rank. Many a gentleman with us enters advocate merely to have a fea⯑ther [47] in his cap. The prime ſociety of Edinburgh, is lawyers. They give the tone, as, arbitri elegantiarum, they rule the theatre. They make balls for the ladies; and once (I ſup⯑poſe to ſhew the prodigious extent of their power) they let the nation know that they could proſcribe even a beau⯑tiful Ducheſs, the very ſoul of gay feſ⯑tivity. Black, law black, is the com⯑mon dreſs of the gentlemen of Edin⯑burgh, by choice, as at Geneva and Lucca, by an oeconomical regulation of the ſtate, a ſumptuary law: and hence, when Foote was amongſt us, he uſed to call black the Edinburgh hunt. It exalts our gentlemen to think they may be judges, as, by calculation, it has been found that there are two [48] vacancies for every three years. They are continually looking upwards.

I muſt ſpeak plain, and ſay, that I fear this crude ſcheme of diminiſhing the number of the Lords of Seſſion has ſomething in it more dangerous than you are aware of. ‘More is meant than meets the ear.’ A politician's luſt of power is exorbitant. If he can but have the ſupreme tri⯑bunal of Scotland of his own forming, what may he not do? To ſay nothing of our property, it is now very well underſtood that the whole political in⯑tereſt of Scotland is in the hands of the Lords of Seſſion; for they aſcer⯑tain the validity of all the votes, [49] whether in our counties or in our boroughs: and when we afterwards bring our conteſted elections before a committee of the Houſe of Commons, we have the mortification to find that Mr. Grenville's bill is to us, on the north of the Tweed, as if it were not. In vain do we plead, in vain do we preſs upon the committee, the abſurdi⯑ty, the groſs iniquity, of an interlocutor. A reſolute Caledonian Nominee tells them the caſe has been decided by the only competent court, which ſta⯑tutes have inveſted with the excluſive power of trying votes;—and honeſt John Bull believes this, and acqui⯑eſces, never conſidering that the great law of parliament, the inherent right of the Houſe of Commons to judge of the qualifications of its own mem⯑bers, [50] muſt ever be paramount to the juriſdiction of particular ſubordinate courts.—I am ſorry, Mr. George Byng, that I cannot appeal to you, at pre⯑ſent, as a Member of Parliament, for the truth of what I am maintaining: For though I differ from you, in my political creed, as far as the eaſt is from the weſt, I think you an uſeful and active watchman of the ſtate. And I am never unmindful of your civility to me, as a counſel, when you ſat Chairman of the Ayrſhire Com⯑mittee. But you may tell your friends who are in parliament; and Meſſieurs Dudley Long, Praed, Bankes, Dun⯑combe, and ſeveral more who were of that committee, will remember the piteous tale.

[51] I ſhould oppoſe any diminution whatever of the number of the Lords of Seſſion, becauſe it would make "the law's delay" be more grievouſly felt: but, above all, I diſlike this particular plot, to revive the Decemviri. It is ominous. In the words of Livy I will ſay, ‘Non placere nomen; periculoſum libertati eſſe.’

Who ſeconded the King's Advo⯑cate's motion for leave to bring in this bill—this odious bill of pains and penalties?—It was Sir Adam Fer⯑guſſon; a man who has vexed me not a little, by his political ſucceſs in our county, againſt my wiſhes. He is one whom Mr. Dundas has ſelected to hold up as an inſtance of the pleni⯑tude of his power.

[52] Do any of you want to be in⯑formed of Mr. Henry Dundas's power? I dare ſay not. Care is taken that its full extent ſhall be proclaimed as far as Orkney. Yet let us contemplate a ſtriking inſtance; it would make a picture for the exhi⯑bition, or a ſcene at Aſtley's. Be⯑hold him in your Metropolis, which the death of Sir Lawrence Dundas left open to him.—With his right hand he has moved the LORD PROVOST, Hunter Blair (gold chain and all) from his political baſe.—With his left, he has thruſt in as repreſentative of the citizens of Edinburgh—Whom?—a reſpectable merchant? No.—A proſ⯑perous tradeſman? No.—A Coutts, the father of the great eſtabliſhment in the Strand, London? No.—A Kerr, [53] whom Pelham loved? No.—A citizen of any ſort, good, bad, or indiffe⯑rent? No. No. No.—Whom then? Why Sir Adam Ferguſſon, advocate, the late member for the county of Ayr! Sir Adam Ferguſſon wrote a circular letter againſt peers interfering in our county election, and ſeveral very worthy gentlemen joined the ſtandard of independency, as they ima⯑gined, which he erected. Carrying them along with him, and yet "having his peers as well as we," he contrived to poſſeſs, for two par⯑liaments, the repreſentation of Ayr⯑ſhire, by means of thoſe ſuperiority votes, which that county has declared to be nominal and fictitious, while the REAL INTEREST was unrepreſented. Sir Adam Ferguſſon laſt year, as we are told, made overtures to the Earl [54] of Eglintoune, and formed a coalition with his lordſhip. That he was not elected, we know; that he voted for his former opponent, we know; and it is ſaid he ſupports the earl's friend for one parliament, and the earl is to make him member next parliament^* [55] —if he can. I have never heard his lordſhip ſay that this report is true: but if it is, the noble earl muſt not take it amiſs, if ſome of the beſt friends of his family ſhould diſdain what they think degrading to him, and feel obnoxious to themſelves. Amongſt thoſe friends, I myſelf am one of the warmeſt, both as an enthuſiaſt for an⯑cient feudal attachments, and as having the honour and happineſs to be mar⯑ried to his lordſhip's relation, a true Montgomerie, whom I eſteem, whom I love, after fifteen years, as on the day when ſhe gave me her hand.— But I have an objection to Sir Adam Ferguſſon, on account of a paltry money queſtion, which being now under the arbitration of three of our Lords of Seſſion, I forbear to exhibit [56] it, till the reſult is known.—Mr. Mac⯑adam, of Craigengillan, as able and as ſpirited a man as any in his Ma⯑jeſty's dominions, and Sir John Whitefoord, who is honour itſelf, both gentlemen of extenſive intereſt in Ayrſhire, have alſo objections to him, which they have ſtated to me, and will tell any body who thinks it worth while to aſk them.—In theſe circumſtances, the Houſe of Eglin⯑toune can hardly expect that the great county of Ayr, the Yorkſhire of Scotland, will be brought implicitly to wheel, and vote for ſir Adam Fer⯑guſſon, merely that a bargain, which ſhould never have been made, may be fulfilled. I myſelf have reaſon to hope, that many of the real free⯑holders of Ayrſhire will ſupport me [57] at the election for next parliament, againſt which I have declared myſelf a candidate. Colonel Montgomerie has had the great honour of being choſen by the real Freeholders. May I not have it in my turn? Ed anche Io ſon pittore. By the time this par⯑liament is over, he may be content to be ‘Vejanius, armis Herculis ad poſtem fixis.’—I ſhall certainly ſtand, upon the ſubſtantial intereſt of the gentle⯑men of landed property; and if, upon a fair trial, I ſhould not ſucceed in ‘that object of ambition, which I have moſt ardently at heart,’ I have reſources enough to prevent me from being diſcontented or fretful. Perhaps Sir Adam Ferguſſon may ſupport me. Why ſhould he not? I know of no objection the honourable baronet can [58] have to me, though I am ſorry that I have an objection to the honourable baronet. I have aſked his vote and intereſt by a letter. His anſwer has neither granted nor refuſed my appli⯑cation. He waves it on the common civil ground, that it is too ſoon to decide. In the mean time, I ſhall endeavour to deſerve the ſupport of the real freeholders, by exerting my⯑ſelf, as much as I poſſibly can, to ſerve either the county in general, or indi⯑viduals of it; and when a man does the beſt, he can, he may perhaps, have his reward. But this country-city member has led me off from Edinburgh, to which I now return; and I do ſay, that, if iſſuing an effec⯑tual congé d'elire, by which Sir Adam Ferguſſon is made member for the [59] capital of Scotland, be not power with a witneſs, I am at a loſs to conceive what power is.

As to all this power aſſumed by Mr. Dundas, I muſt ſay miror! But I certainly do not blame him. As Cato ſays, when his gallant ſon Marcus is brought in dead, ‘Who would not be that youth?’—The proverb ſays, ‘A living dog is better than a dead lion.’ What then muſt a living lion be? But under what genus, under what ſpecies, are they to be ranked, whoſe puſillanimity is the cauſe that this lion alone domineers in the foreſt? Our late and preſent ſituation brings to my remembrance ſome verſes in an old poem, which I have heard my father repeat: they are a kind of im⯑precation, [60] applicable to a coalition which in the laſt age took place in Scotland.

Yet I will do Mr. Dundas the juſtice to declare, that, large as his power is, he has not much abuſed it. He has, indeed, taken very good care of his relations! And why ſhould he not? Though, to be ſure, fleſh and blood muſt feel his having put his young nephew over the heads of I know not how many of us, as Soli⯑citor General. But I do not believe that he has been cruel, oppreſſive, or vindictive. I know but of two wrong [61] things that he has done. One was attacking Sir Lawrence Dundas in the county of Orkney, ‘in his own ma⯑nour, where he was a father to the people;’ as that hoſpitable, that ſplendid, that imperial baronet, ſaid to me, with tears in his eyes. The other was perſuading my honoured father, a venerable judge, in the de⯑cline of his life, to embark in county politicks, from which he had ceaſed for twenty years, and make a parcel of unſubſtantial votes, which he abhorred, in order to ſupport Sir Adam Fer⯑guſſon in Ayrſhire, againſt the old and the real intereſt of the county. But both theſe inſtances were the effects of politicks which I ſee to be poiſon to the mind. I have therefore no more objection to Mr. Dundas's [62] being ſole Protector of Scotland, than any other man, if we muſt be ſo ruled. Nay, I have an intereſt that he ſhould be the perſon. For there is an here⯑ditary friendſhip between our families. We were at college together. We have oft enjoyed

And I truſt to the generoſity of his feelings, that, as he knows he once did me a ſevere injury, which I have from my heart forgiven, he will be anxious to make me full amends, if ever it ſhall be in his power. The deſire of elevation is as keen in me as in him⯑ſelf; though I am not ſo well fitted for party exploits.

[63] As Nero wiſhed that the people of Rome had but one neck, that he might, if he pleaſed, cut them off at a ſingle ſtroke.—So a deep, an artful politician, will be deſirous to contract the body which he wiſhes to com⯑mand. It is eaſier driving four horſes in hand than ſix. Beſides, while there are fifteen judges, the danger that they may not be all tractable is propor⯑tionally multiplied, when compared with the number ten. There may be a proud, an eloquent Alemoor, who will watch like a dragon;—a ſturdy Elliock, who will not bend;— a firm Stonefield, who not only has a will of his own, but if one in high place, truſting that he is ſheltered in his ſituation, preſumes to be coarſely inſolent, can tell it him in [64] his ear, aye, and to his beard; —an honourable Rockville, who be⯑ing of higher rank than any of them, before he became a judge, will not ſtoop—will not truckle—will not be led—but will deliver his own ho⯑neſt good ſenſe with the mild dignity that becomes him.

It is very agreeable to conſider, that one bad judge cannot contami⯑nate a number who are good, yet, when we take the converſe of the propoſition, we ſhall find one good judge can prevent the evil of many bad ones. He can hold up truth and juſtice ſo conſpicuouſly, that bad judges have not hardineſs enough to turn aſide from them; and, if they ſhould, he can alarm the country. [65] When a man of probity and ſpirit, a Lord Newhall, whoſe character is ably drawn in proſe by the late Lord Preſident Arniſton, father of the Treaſurer of the Navy, and elegantly in verſe by Mr. Hamilton of Bangour —when ſuch a man ſits among our judges, ſhould they be diſpoſed to do wrong, he can make them hear and tremble. My honoured father told me, that Sir Walter Pringle "ſpoke as one having authority," even when he was at the bar. "He would cram a "deciſion down their throats."

Duncan Forbes of Culloden, when Lord Preſident of the Court, gave every day as a toaſt, at his table, ‘Here's to every Lord of Seſſion who does not deſerve to be hangedl’ [66] Lord Auchinleck and Lord Monboddo, both judges, but ſince his time, are my authority for this. I do not ſay that the toaſt was very delicate, or even quite decent; but it may give ſome notion what ſort of judges there may be. It is well known that Forbes, by the ſingle weight of his character, aſſiduouſly and boldly urged, made a very great alteration to the better upon the court, and ſhewed Unum Hominem pluris valuiſſe quam Civi⯑tatem.

A number of judges, taken from different parts of the country, diffuſes and divides that private and imper⯑ceptible influence which muſt ever be in a narrow country. One prejudice is checked and counterbalanced by [67] another. A judge from the north of the Tay is corrected by a judge from the ſouth of the Tay, and is again cor⯑rected by him, in his turn.—I ſolemnly declare, I mean no reflection againſt the Lords of Seſſion, farther than that they are not exempted from the frail⯑ties incident to man—that human nature is human nature every where, and in a narrow country is more liable than in a great country, to what I ſhall call—honeſt bias.

With a plauſible appearance, it has been propagated from company to company, that, were there fewer Lords of Seſſion, there would be more ſecurity from their reſponſibility; as diſgrace, which is light when ſhared amongſt a number, falls heavy upon [68] a few.—But againſt this you ſhall have an unanſwerable argument.— ‘If they are honeſt and honourable men, they will not be the leſs ſo that they are fifteen. If they are not, and mean to do wrong, a junto of ten can do it with more facility.’ Non meus hic ſermo eſt: I owe it to Lord Palmerſton, from whoſe con⯑verſation there is always ſomething to be borrowed. I humbly thank his lordſhip for it, and beg he may par⯑don my imperfect report of it. He gave it me at Lord Oſſory's. I cannot refrain from mentioning the place; becauſe I am very vain to fit at the table of FITZPATRICK: the reſpect for whoſe ancient and noble blood is not leſſened, but increaſed, by the character of its preſent repreſentative; [69] which, as I feel, is ſaying a great deal. I flatter myſelf FITZPATRICK was con⯑vinced. If he was—I'll anſwer for it, all the world ſhall not make him flinch.

And now, my countrymen, let me intreat you to aſſemble again in your counties, and boroughs, and corpora⯑tions, and publick bodies of every kind, and petition Parliament againſt diminiſhing the number of the Lords of Seſſion; unleſs Parliament will to⯑tally alter the judicial procedure of Scotland, upon ſome wiſe plan, after it has received your approbation. I would alſo have you to addreſs the KING againſt ſo alarming a meaſure. It is the glory of the reign of GEORGE III. that he has given inde⯑pendency [70] to his judges. His Majeſty will graciouſly liſten to what you humbly and honeſtly tell him, relative to what he has much at heart—the good adminiſtration of juſtice in his dominions.

Do not deſpond, and imagine that Engliſh Members of Parliament will be totally inattentive to what ſo much concerns you. My old claſſical com⯑panion, Wilkes, (with whom I pray you to excuſe my keeping company, he is ſo pleaſant) did indeed once tell me, when I aſked him to attend a Scottiſh conteſt in the Houſe of Com⯑mons, ‘No, no! Damn it! Not I! I'll have nothing to do with it! I care not which prevails! It is only Goth againſt Goth!’—But he is now [71] an older member of the great council of the nation, and I hope will not grudge to take a little trouble for you, by way of doing penance for his biting and ſcratching in the North Briton.

You may hope for aid from the Lord Rector of the univerſity of Glaſ⯑gow, Mr. Burke, who diſlikes and dreads reform in parliament; who ſpoke this very ſeſſion againſt it like an angel, and whoſe benignant heart will feel for your juſt anxiety. To Mr. Burke I was much obliged when he was in power; and it grieved me that he embraced, what in all ſince⯑rity I thought ſuch a meaſure as juſ⯑tified his removal from office;—for his intereſt is dear to me as my own. By his removal, the King's admini⯑ſtration [72] was deprived of the aſſiſtance of that affluent mind, which is ſo univerſally rich, that, as long as Bri⯑tiſh literature and Britiſh politicks ſhall endure, it will be ſaid of Edmund Burke, "Regum equabat opes animis."

You will be liſtened to by my gal⯑lant Colonel James Wortley Stuart, who, for ſterling good ſenſe, in⯑formation, diſcernment, honour and honeſty, and ſpirit, is not exceeded by any of them. As diminiſhing the number of our judges would diminiſh the influence of the Crown, he pro⯑bably will not like it.

You will be liſtened to by that brave Iriſhman, ^* Captain Macbride, the [73] couſin of my Wife, and the friend of my heart; a man whoſe valour has reſounded in ſo many parts of the ocean, and whoſe ſeat in parliament has not been purchaſed by bribery [74] of ſervility, but given him by a free election. He has come into the Houſe of Commons, borne upon the ſwelling boſoms of the worthy electors of Plymouth, who, knowing him beſt, are the beſt judges of his merit, and have been moſt eager to reward it, by a triumphant teſtimony, ſuch as heroes were honoured with in old Rome.

I think you may alſo depend upon Mr. Lee, with whom my intimacy has been chiefly formed ſince I made him dangle at the end of a rope, as Attor⯑ney General, in my Eaſt-India letter. —(What liberality of mind muſt he have!)—Though he is not ſuch a bigot as I am, and would be glad to have ſome reform in Parliament, yet I [75] dare ſay, when he is made acquainted with the ſtate of this caſe, he will manfully oppoſe the attempt. I love Mr. Lee exceedingly, though I believe there are not any two ſpecifick pro⯑poſitions, of any ſort, in which we exactly agree. But the general maſs of ſenſe and ſociality, literature and religion, in each of us, produces two given quantities, which unite and efferveſce wonderfully well. To his great reputation, as a barriſter, my voice can add nothing; but he has kindly enabled me to bear teſtimony to his private worth. I know few men I would go farther to ſerve, than Jack Lee.

Have confidence in Sir Matthew White Ridley; that ſtately, that pleaſ⯑ing [76] Northumbrian, who exhibits an inſtance of, what it is ſtrange ſhould be rare,—independent opulence!— He was a General in the late tumul⯑tuous parliament army. He fought, he encouraged, and he cheered,— with a ‘Fight on, my merry men all!’—till his wiſdom, and his tenderneſs for his country, prevailed over his pride; and he was the firſt to ſall back, and give the ſignal for retreat. If my ſanguine hope has not deceived me, Sir Matthew will be for us.

I even think it poſſible that you may be protected by the MAN—I will not ſay of the People—for I am too much in earneſt to fill my mouth with party cant: [77]

But I will ſay, the man of great, of extraordinary abilities,—of moſt ex⯑tenſive, of infinite political know⯑ledge —who can do much good, if he will; and we may hope he ſhall, when the adjuſtment of circumſtances above my reach will let him:— Yes, my friends, Mr. Fox may pro⯑tect you. His clear underſtanding can at once diſtinguiſh between a Re⯑form, which promiſes ſome beneficial conſequence, and a Demolition, which it is demonſtrated muſt be ruinous.

[78] And ſhall we be ſo unjuſt to the Miniſter of the CROWN, to the ſecond WILLIAM PITT, as to apprehend that HE will not hear us? HE who firſt took, HE who ſtill holds the reins of government, with the hearty concur⯑rence, the generous applauſe, of an admiring nation! HE whoſe noble⯑neſs of ſoul has ſo remarkably ſhewn how open he is to conviction! I can have no doubt that, when he has made himſelf maſter of the ſubject, ſees that the articles of the Union would be infringed, and knows how very unpopular this bill is—I can have no doubt that he will ſend for the Miniſter for Scotland, and tell him, in a deter⯑mined tone, ‘Dundas! Dundas for ſhame! Here is a rock upon which we might have ſplit, as Fox did [79] upon his India bill. I'll hear no more of this Court of Seſſion job! It is a monſtrous meaſure! Let it be quaſhed!’

GREAT SIR! forgive my thus pre⯑ſumptuouſly, thus raſhly, attempt⯑ing, for a moment, to forge your thunder! But I conjure you—in the name of GOD and the KING I con⯑jure you—to announce, in your own lofty language, that there ſhall be a ſtop put to this conſpiracy, which, I fear, might have the effect of ſpring⯑ing a mine that would blow up your adminiſtration. Believe me ſincere, when I now tell you, that, although I, with all deference, cannot join you in one point—a reform in parliament, —for the reaſons I have given,—ſuch [80] is my confidence in your talents and virtues, ſuch my ſenſe of the good you have done, and my hope of the good you are yet to do, that, though not bleſt with high heroick blood, but rather, I think, troubled with a na⯑tural timidity of perſonal danger, which it coſts me ſome philoſophy to overcome, I am-perſuaded I have ſo much real patriotiſm in my breaſt, that I ſhould not heſitate to draw my ſword in your defence. It is the ROYAL CAUSE. I tremble at the re⯑collection of that parliamentary anar⯑chy from which your magnanimity delivered us. A return of ſuch con⯑fuſion would be now a more dreadful calamity; we ſhould be forced, in wild diſmay, to exclaim, ‘Chaos is come again!’

[81] My countrymen! have I not heartened you ſomewhat, by pointing out to you ſo many eminent men, to whom we may fly for refuge, and obtain it?

Sir George Saville, whoſe name, though he be dead, is enough to rouſe every dormant ſpark of public ſpirit, had a political maxim which is ſtriking, and, I beleive, will be found true: He ſaid, that, in what⯑ever way any nation was governed for any conſiderable time, it ought to be governed in that manner. It was proved, by experience, that that kind of government was adapted to that people. If they maintained their free⯑dom, they ought to be free: if they ſubmitted to ſlavery, they ought to [82] be ſlaves^*. Do not, I beſeech you, my countrymen, allow preſcription to run againſt you! Do not let your equity of redemption be forecloſed!

What ſays our own Fletcher of Saltoun? ‘There is not, perhaps, [83] in human affairs, any thing ſo unaccountable, as the indignity and cruelty with which mankind ſuffer themſelves to be uſed, under pretence of Government.’

When Peter the Great, Czar of Muſcovy, was in England, he wiſhed to ſee the puniſhment of keel-hailing. He aſked the King to ſhew it him. ‘Sir, (ſaid he) I cannot, unleſs a man be found who deſerves it.’—‘That ſhall be no objection (ſaid the Czar). Take one of my fellows.’—The King of England nobly replied, ‘Know, Sir, that when a man, of any nation whatever, has ſet his foot upon Engliſh ground, he is a free-man: he is entitled to the pro⯑tection of the laws of this country.’

[84] The application of this illuſtrious anecdote, to the protection which the People of Scotland may expect from Engliſh Members of Parliament, is very obvious. We are now one peo⯑ple, though ‘a river here, there an ideal line,’ divides what once were only ſiſter kingdoms. Are not we then, on the north of the Tweed, to participate of Britiſh moderation in government, as well as thoſe on the ſouth of the Tweed? And are any deſpots of our own land to be per⯑mitted to oppreſs us? I hope not. —We may then ſay to the Engliſh Members, in the ſtrong language of Dr. Young, in one of his tragedies— "O guard us from ourſelves!"

It will be in vain to attempt hurry and evaſion, and cajoling;—it will [85] be in vain to employ what powers of lively ridicule our taſk-maſters poſſeſs, and to repreſent this alarm to be ſimi⯑lar to the abſurd hue-and-cry againſt the change of the ſtyle, which Hogarth ſo exquiſitely burleſques: ‘Give us our eleven days!’—‘Give us our five Lords of Seſſion!’—Believe me, it is no joke, and it cannot be made like a joke. A violation of the articles of the Union, and an extinction of one third of our judicial relief, which is, even now, inadequate to the wants of our country, are ſerious things; or elſe ‘there's nothing ſe⯑rious in mortality.’ Shall one of the troubles of life (which make the penſive Hamlet balance, whether one ought to throw off the burthen of it) be augmented by another? Shall [86] "the law's delay" be rendered ſtill more tedious, by ſtretching ‘the in⯑ſolence of office?’

In my zeal to prevent, what ap⯑pears to me a moſt pernicious innova⯑tion, I may have been ſomewhat in⯑temperate in my expreſſion. I hope allowance will be made for it. For, though agitated and indignant, I am free from rancour. I write for both ſides of the Tweed. Though my warning letter goes directly to Scot⯑land, I mean that it ſhould reverbe⯑rate on England. But it would hurt me very much, if, by any miſappre⯑henſion, it could poſſibly be thought that any extenſive ſeverity in this pam⯑phlet (for pauca macula there will ever be in all human inſtitutions) is point⯑ed [87] againſt the honourable judges who at preſent compoſe the Court of Seſſion, under the authority of which I have practiſed the law, lo! theſe nineteen years.

And therefore (though I can ſcarcely for a moment ſuppoſe it neceſſary) I do now, in moſt explicit terms, diſavow an intention ſo injurious. I have ar⯑gued hypothetically; and we all know that an hypotheſis, referable to a diſtant and imagined period, which I truſt ſhall never arrive, may be formed as ſtrongly, and even extravagantly, as imagination can figure.

But the permanency of the conſtitu⯑tion of the court, as fixed by article [88] 19 of the Treaty of Union, is not imaginary. For, in corrobaration of the paſſage which I have already tran⯑ſcribed, I beg leave to add, that, after ſpecifying the qualifications then requiſite for Lords of Seſſion, that ſame article of the Treaty ſays, ‘yet ſo as the qualifications made, or to be made, for capacitating perſons to be named Ordinary Lords of Seſ⯑ſion, may be altered by the Parlia⯑ment of Great-Britain.’ Does not this make it perfectly clear that the conſtitution of the court may not be altered? Exceptio firmat regulam, in caſibus non exceptis.

In a former part of this letter I ſuggeſted, as a regulation of improve⯑ment upon the adminiſtration of [89] juſtice in our unalterable Court of Seſſion, that the ten ſenior judges, or only the five ſenior judges, ſhould ſit in the inner houſe as the Court of Re⯑view. But it now occurs to me, that it is not always certain that the oldeſt judges will be the wiſeſt; and there⯑fore I would rather have them to ſit ſeven and ſeven alternately, with the Preſident (four with him, or a pre⯑ſiding judge in his room, to make a quorum) to review the ſeparate deci⯑ſions of the Ordinary Lords. Let the ſuitors have time to make their elec⯑tion of either of thoſe Courts of Seven. Let the Preſident deliver his opinion, but have no vote, unleſs where there happens to be an equality of voices. And as at preſent no decree is final, till after two conſecutive judgements [90] of the inner houſe, let there, for the ſecond judgement, be a privilege to obtain a new trial before the whole fifteen, as at preſent, upon cauſe ſhewn; and let the whole fifteen ſit one week in each month for rejecting or receiving ſuch applications, and deciding upon them. My ſuggeſtions are offered with great diffidence: but they are all legal: they do not in⯑fringe the ſacred conſtitution of the College of Juſtice.

I have one other circumſtance to communicate; but it is of the high⯑eſt value. I communicate it with a mixture of awe and fondneſs.—That Great Perſonage, who is allowed by all to have the beſt memory of any man born a Briton, and is known, by thoſe [91] who know him beſt, to have a very ſound underſtanding, and a very hu⯑mane heart, may probably recollect, that, in a converſation with one of the moſt zealous Royaliſts of the age, he was graciouſly pleaſed to give Ge⯑neral Paoli the juſt praiſe of ‘putting law into a people who were lawleſs.’

What barbarous oppreſſion, what political guilt would it be, in part to extinguiſh law amongſt a brave peo⯑ple, who have long enjoyed it, and who agreed to the abolition of their own government upon the faith of unalterable articles of Union, in con⯑ſequence of which they are now at a great diſtance from the ſeat of govern⯑ment, to which it is not eaſy for their voice to extend.

[92] This letter, haſtily written upon the ſpur of the occaſion, is already too long. Yet allow me, my friends and countrymen, while I with honeſt zeal maintain your cauſe—allow me to indulge a little more my own egotiſm and vanity. They are the indigenous plants of my mind: they diſtinguiſh it. I may prune their luxuriancy; but I muſt not entirely clear it of them; For then I ſhould be no longer "as I am;" and per⯑haps there might be ſomething not ſo good. Virtus laudata creſcit.—Sume ſuperbiam queſitam meritis. I laſt year claimed the credit of being no time-ſerver; I think I am giving pretty good proof that I am not ſo this year neither. Though ambitious, I am uncorrupted; and I envy not [93] high ſituations which are attained by the want of publick virtue, in men born without it; or by the proſtitu⯑tion of publick virtue, in men born with it. Though power and wealth, and magnificence, may at firſt dazzle, and are, I think, moſt deſireable; no wiſe man will, upon ſober reflection, envy a ſituation which he feels he could not enjoy. My Friend (my Maecenas Atavis edite regibus) Lord Mountſtuart, flattered me once very highly, without intending it.—‘I would do any thing for you (ſaid he) but bring you into parliament; for I could not be ſure but you might oppoſe me in ſomething the very next day.’—His lordſhip judged well. Though I ſhould conſider, with much attention, the opinion of ſuch [94] a friend—before taking my reſolution; —moſt certainly I ſhould oppoſe him, in any meaſure which I was ſatisfied ought to be oppoſed. I cannot exiſt with pleaſure, if I have not an honeſt independence of mind and of con⯑duct; for though no man loves good eating and drinking, ſimply conſidered, better than I do—I prefer the broiled blade-bone of mutton and humble port of "down-right Shippen," to all the luxury of all the ſtateſmen who play the political game all through.

It is my ſyſtem to regard, in a publick capacity—meaſures, and not men; in a private capacity—men, and not meaſures. I can diſcuſs topicks of literature, or any other topicks, with mitred St. Aſaph, [95] with Wyndham of Norfolk, with Capel Loft, with Dr. Kippis, with Dr. Price, with the Reverend Mr. John Palmer; yet there are points of government in ſome of them, and points of faith in others, as to which, had I any thing to do in the adminiſtration of this country, I ſhould ‘withſtand them to the face.’ I can drink, I can laugh, I can converſe in, per⯑fect good humour, with Whigs, with Republicans, with Diſſenters, with Independents, with Quakers, with Mo⯑ravians, with Jews. They can do me no harm. My mind is made up. My principles are fixed. But I would vote with Tories, and pray with a Dean and Chapter.

While I arraign what ſtrikes me as very wrong in Mr. Henry Dundas, [96] and the Lord Advocate, in their publick conduct, I am ready to meet them on friendly, but equal terms, in private. To the Lord Advocate I am moſt willing to allow all his me⯑rit. He has riſen to the head of our bar. No man, with us, ever puſhed the buſineſs of a lawyer to that ex⯑tent that he has done. He has made it a Peruvian profeſſion: yet he is free from the ſordidneſs which ſome⯑times attends thoſe who get a great deal of money by laborious employ⯑ment; upon every occaſion that I have known him tried, he was gene⯑rous. And he is a very friendly man. I ſhould be exceedingly ungrateful if I did not acknowledge it.

That Mr. Dundas and he ſhould think of attempting ſuch a bill as this, [97] muſt make us wonder, and, for a moment, ſhew us how weak the ableſt men are, upon ſome occaſions. I may, without offence, account for it, by uſing the very expreſſion of Mr. Dundas himſelf, when attacking, at the bar of the Houſe of Lords, a decree of the Court of Seſſion, in the caſe of a ſchoolmaſter, where I was counſel on the other ſide. I can ſwear to the phraſe.—‘They have been ſeized with ſome infatuation.’

I cannot allow myſelf to imagine that Mr. Dundas means to make poor Scotland the ſcape-goat to be ſacrificed on the altar of Reform; and to pleaſe the Miniſter with a ſmall one, becauſe he has been diſappointed of a great, he ſhall have a reform of the Court of [98] Seſſion, ſince he cannot have a Reform of Parliament (to which, by the bye, I did not know till t'other day that Mr. Dundas himſelf, notwithſtanding appearances, has always been a friend). —No, no. This cannot be! WILLIAM PITT would deſpiſe ſuch pitiful game. Aut Caeſar, aut nihil, is HIS motto.

We muſt go to the Aeneid for HIS prototype:

The ſuſpicion of ſuch a ſacrifice could be hatched only in Scotland, where, before the heretable juriſdic⯑tions were aboliſhed, a man was tried [99] for his life in the court of one of the chieftains. The jury were going to bring him in not guilty: but ſome⯑body whiſpered them, that ‘the young Laird had never ſeen an execution;’ upon which their verdict was—Death; and the man was hanged.—Though our young Miniſter has not yet ſeen a reform, I hope the Court of Seſſion ſhall be ſpared.

I exhort you, my friends and countrymen, in the words of my de⯑parted Goldſmith, who gave me many nootes atticae, and gave me a jewel of the fineſt water—the acquaintance of Sir Joſhua Reynolds;—I again exhort [100] you to ‘fly from petty tyrants to the Throne!’ Apply to the KING, the fountain of law, juſtice, and ju⯑riſdiction! your application will not be in vain.—My ingenious friend, Mr. Tyers, in his admirable Political Conferences, makes Lord Strafford (defending to Pym his attachment to Charles I.) expreſs the very thoughts in my breaſt.—‘In my higheſt flights, whilſt a commoner, my heart was never averſe to monarchy. I was then neither a Puritan nor an Ar⯑minian. The more opportunities I poſſeſs of knowing the King, the more ſtrongly am I attached to his perſon and authority. A King of England is not to be reduced to the inſignificance of a Doge of Venice. Since the murder of Buck⯑ingham, [101] who ruled, I confeſs, with a very high hand, the King has no favourite. He has taken upon him the taſk of being more his own Miniſter; and therefore you have not ſo much reaſon to appre⯑hend any violation of popular rights.’

My much reſpected great grandfa⯑ther, that "worthy gentleman" David Boſwell of Auchinleck ^*, a true heart [102] of oak, with a vigorous mind and a robuſt body, ſecured our male ſuc⯑ceſſion. [103] His uncle, though he had four daughters, the eldeſt of whom was married to Lord Cathcart (who would have been glad to have had our old rock) was feudal enough to give him the eſtate. That Laird uſed to ſay, ‘He never ſaw a man in his life that he did not think himſelf his maſter.’ I, pejor [104] avis, cannot ſay ſo much. But this I will ſay, that ‘I call no man maſter,’ without reſerve. When I have fixed my opinion upon an im⯑portant queſtion, I maintain it, as a point of conſcience, as a point of honour; and the SOVEREIGN himſelf would find me tenacem propoſiti, as I humbly, but firmly was, upon the ſubject of the American war. I am a Tory; but not a Slave.—I am poſſeſſed of an eſſay, dictated to me by Dr. Johnſon, on the diſtinction between a Whig and a Tory, in which it is ſhewn, by the wonderous powers of that illuſtrious mind, that there is but a ſhade of difference between a moderate Whig and a ſpirited Tory —between reaſonable men of each party. Much would I yield, rather [105] than ſhake the reverence due to Ma⯑jeſty by oppoſition: But there may come an enterpriſe of great moment, as to which it would be deeply culpa⯑ble to conceal my ſentiments—as to which I may think myſelf obliged to be a faithful, an intrepid, an inflex⯑ible monitor.

Let me conclude with eclat—with one of the fineſt paſſages of John Home's noble and elegant Tragedy of Douglas: