Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

THE HILLS O' GALLOWA'.

Tune:"The Ley Rig."

AMANG the birks sae blythe an' gay I met my Julia hameward gaun, The linties chantit on the spray,

The lammies lowpit on the lawn. On ilka howm the sward was mawn, The braes wi' gowans buskit braw, An gloamin's plaid o' grey was thrawn Out owre the hills o' Gallowa'. Wi' music wild the woodlands rang,

An' fragrance wing'd alang the lea, As down we sat the flow'rs amang Upon the banks o' stately Dee. My Julia's arms incircled me,

An saftly slade the hours awa, Till dawin' coost a glimmaren e'e Upon the hills of Gallowa'.

It isna owsen, sheep, an' kye,

It isna goud, it isna gear,
This lifted e'e wad hae, quoth I,

The warl's drumlie gloom to chear; But gie to me my Julia dear,

Ye powers wha rowe this yirthen ba', An' O sae blythe through life I'll steer Amang the hills o' Gallowa'.

Whan gloamin' dauners up the hill,

An' our gudeman ca's hame the yows, Wi' her I'll trace the mossy rill

That owre the moor meand'ring rowes; Or tint amang the scroggie knows

My birken pipe I'll sweetly blaw, An' sing the streams, the straths an' howes, The hills an' dales o' Gallowa'. And when auld Scotland's heathy hills, Her rural nymphs an' jovial swains, Her flow'ry wilds an' wimplin' rills

Awake nae mair my canty strains; Whare friendship dwalls, and freedom reigns,

Whare heather blooms an' moor.cocks

[blocks in formation]

TAM's FAREWEEL.

Tune:-" Crazy Jean."

BONNIE Clouden, as ye wander,
Hills an' heughs, an' moors amang,
Ilka know an' green meander

Learn my sad, my doolfou' sang.
Braes o' breckan, hills o' heather,

Howms whare rowes the gowden wave, Blessfou' scenes, fareweel forever,

I maun seek an unco grave.

Sair I pled, tho' fate unfriendly

Stang'd my heart wi' waes and dools, That some faithfou' han' might kindly Lay't amang my native mools.

[blocks in formation]

THE MAID OF ISLAY.

RISING o'er the heaving billow

Evening gilds the ocean's swell,
While with thee, on grassy pillow,
Solitude! I love to dwell.

Lonely to the sea breeze blowing,
Oft I chant my lovelorn strain,
To the streamlet sweetly flowing,
Murmur oft a lover's pain.

'Twas for her, the maid of Islay!
Time flew o'er me wing'd with joy,
'Twas for her the cheering smile ay
Beam'd with rapture in my eye.
Not the tempest raving round me,
Lightning's flash or thunder's roll,
Not the ocean's rage could wound me,
While her image fill'd my soul.

Farewell, days of purest pleasure,
Long your loss my heart shall mourn ;
Farewell hours, of bliss the measure,
Bless that never can return.

M.

[blocks in formation]

Proceedings of Parliament.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Monday, March 10.

MR Whitbread presented an addition al article of impeachment against Lord Melville.

Tuesday, March 11.

The bill for compelling witnesses to give evidence, notwithstanding its subjecting them to a civil process, passed through a Committee. A proviso was introduced, on the motion of Lord Eldon, that the Court shall not repell an objection made by a witness to answer, where such objection is made specially, and no specific grounds stated, but shall decide on such objection according to the law as it appears to them; and that a witness shall not be compellable to answer as a defendant in a Court of Equi ty, on a bill being filed against him.

Friday, March 14.

SCOTS APPEAL. Mr Howison Moody, v. Thomas Coutts, Esq. Judgment was this day given in the long depending cause between the Heir at Law of the late Col. Craufurd, of Craufurdland, and Thomas Coutts, Esq. banker in London.-Col. Craufurd, by a testamentary deed, made in 1771, conveyed his estates to Sir Hew Crawfurd, Bart.; but, upon his death-bed, in 1793, he made another deed, conveying the same estates to Mr Coutts, and this last, deed contained a clause, "revoking and making void the deed of 1771, so far as it was a grant of the estate to Sir Hew Craufurd, but declaring it valid and sufficient to the extent of the powers of revocation and alteration thereby reserved, in order to make effectual the disposition to Mr Coutts." At Col. Craufurd's death, both these deeds were found subsisting and entire. The heir at law of the Colonel brought an action for setting aside the deed 1771, as revoked by the last deed, and the deed 1793, as made on death-bed. Mr Coutts, admitting that the last deed could not stand by itself, argued that the heir April 1806.

had no right or interest to challenge it being disinherited by the deed 1771. The heir answered, that the deed 1771 could be no bar, because it was revoked and made void by the terms of the clause above mentioned, in the deed 1793. To which Mr Coutts replied, 1st, The revocation was not complete, but qualified; and, 2dly, That the heir could not be allowed to approbate the deed 1793, so far as it was a revocation, and reprobate it, so far ss it was a disposition. The Court of Session, in 1795, decided in favour of Mr Coutts; but, upon an appeal, the House of Lords, expressing great doubts of the propriety of that decision, remitted the cause to the Court, to be reheard; this was in 1799. In February 1801, the Court adhered to their former decree, and there was a second appeal taken, upon which the present judgment proceeds.

Lord Eldon (the late Chancellor) spoke to all the points of law which had been agitated, and bestowed great commendations on the learning and industry of the Judges of the Court of Session, displayed in the different stages of this cause; but after the maturest deliberation, (and he never had bestowed so much almost upon any cause), he could not agree with the majority of the Judges. He said this appeared to him a cause depending on its own particular circumstances, and the decision could scarcely affect any other case, or overturn any rule established in law, or on which practice had been founded. The question came to this, whether any right to the estate remained in Sir Hew Craufurd, under the deed 1771, at the death of Col. Craufurd; he did not mean a substantial right, whereby Sir Hew could in any event take the estate, but such a right as could aid Mr Coutts, or be set up as a bar to the heir's challenge of the deed 1793, as for want of interest. This seemed to depend on the terms of the revoking clause in the last deed, and he could not conceive how a deed, revoked and declared absolutely void and null, so far as it purport

ed

ed to convey to Sir Hew, could leave even the shadow of right in him. The clause indeed declared the deed 1771 to be still effectual, so far as regarded the power of alteration and revocation, but that was doing nothing; it did not reserve a particle of right in Sir Hew as a disponee, to be opposed to the heir at law. It was true that the same clause declared, with what view that reservation was made, that it was to support the death-bed deed, and the intention was manifest; but a declaration of intention is not enough, unless it is formally and properly executed. The heir at law can be barred only by means of a disposition to a stranger, made in due time, and it must be a subsisting disposition at the death of the granter, by which, or under the cover of which, the estate may pass. Here the first disposition was put out of the heir's way by the revocation, and the second deed, being thus left unprotected, was open to the heir's challenge on the head of death-bed.As to the argument that the heir was approbating and reprobating the same deed, his Lordship said, there was nothing in it. The heir was taking nothing by the deed 1793, and was only referring to it as the evidence of a fact, and to evidence founded on by Mr Coutts himself. His Lordship said further, that Lord Thurlow and the late Lord Rosslyn were of the same opinion with him, and indeed they went further, for they were inclined to say, that independent of the special ground he went upon, the declaratory clause in the deed 1793, the attempt to keep up the deed 1771, in order to support the death-bed one, was unavailable as a fraud upon the law. On the whole, therefore, his Lordship moved to reverse the interlocutors of the Court of Sesșion, which was agreed to.

The Counsel who argued the cause the last in the House of Lords, on the part of the appellant, the heir at law, were the Lord Advocate (Hope), now, Lord Justice Clerk, and Mr Macconochie;-Counsel for Mr Coutts, Messrs Adam and Clerk.

[The heir at law in the above cause is the son of the Rev. James Howison Moody, one of the ministers of Perth, who married the only daughter of James Howison of Braehead Esq. in Mid Lothian, by his wife, the sister of the said

Col. Craufurd; and in consequence of the above decision in his favour, (by which he has acquired a very large property,) he will be obliged to use the surname and bear the arms of Craufurd of Craufurdland, in the shire of Ayr, along with the surname and arms of Howison of Braehead, in the county of Mid Lothian.]

Wednesday, March 19.

The declaratory bill respecting witnesses was passed, all the additional clauses being withdrawn. The bill now stands as it was brought in by Lord Erskine.

Monday, March 24.

Lord Melville attended in his place, and gave in his answer to the last article of impeachment. It stated, that he protested against the additional article, as a proceeding which was unprecedented, and contrary to the usage of Parliament; but, notwithstanding that, he felt it incumbent on himself, being thus called upon, to answer (saving all objections, and all his rights and privileges as a Peer of Parliament, &c.) that he was in no way guilty of the alledged crimes and misdemeanours, and that he was ready to prove so to the House.The answer was ordered to be sent by a message to the Commons.

Tuesday, March 25.

Mr Whitbread delivered at the Bar the replication of the Commons to Lord Melville's plea, in which they maintain that they are prepared to prove that he is guilty. On the motion of Lord Fitzwilliam, the 29th of April was fixed for the trial of Lord Melville.

Lord Grenville, after a handsome eulogium on the conduct of Admiral Duckworth in the late glorious action in the West Indies, moved the Thanks of the House to that Officer, to Admirals Cochrane and Louis, and to the other Officers, Seamen and Marines, engaged in the action off St Domingo; which was of course agreed to nem. diss.

The Duke of Norfolk wished to call the attention of the House to the services of Sir R. Calder, who had gained a victory with an inferior force, yet he had received no mark of approbation from the Legislature. His case he thought extremely hard.-Lord Romney

was

was of the same opinion. He thought highly of the merits of Sir R. Calder; he had enjoyed his friendship for many years, and he was still proud to call him his friend. Lord Grenville suggest ing the irregularity of the discussion, it was dropped.

Thursday, March 27.

Lord Grenville moved an address to his Majesty, praying that a suitable portion of Westminster Hall might be fitted up for the accommodation of the Commons at Lord Melville's trial. Ordered. His Lordship suggested, that when the answer to the address should be received, it would be necessary to adopt some regulations to prevent those delays, and that overwhelming expence to the party accused, which had attended a former trial in Westminster Hall. The trial should be continued without the intervention of a single day; the points on which the Lords formerly used to adjourn might be reserved, and the trial suffered to proceed.

Friday, March 28.

A message from the King intimated his Majesty's intention of settling a pension of 100ol. a-year for life on Adm. Sir John Duckworth.

SCOTCH APPEALS.

John Glassels, of Long Niddry, Esq. against the Earl of Wemyss. The judg. ment of the Court of Session was affirm. ed. W. Allan, merchant in Leith, against Cornelius de Voz of Hamburg, and Ramsay, Williamson, & Co. his agents. Judgment of the Court of Session affirmed, with costs. This was a question regarding Mr Allan's discharge under the bankrupt act, which the Court refused in the circumstances of the case, and which is now affirmed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Thursday, Feb. 27.

Mr Whitbread moved for returns of the several corps of volunteers, cavalry, infantry, and artillery, in Great Britain, specifying their state of discipline, and the fitness for general service of the respective corps. Ordered.

Lord H. Petty obtained leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the office of Treasurer of the Ordnance: the object of which was, he said, to give the public a

further security for the proper appropriation of monies voted for the public service in that department, by obliging the said Treasurer to hand over such balances as shall, from time to time, remain in his hands, into the Bank of England. The Noble Lord, at the same time, intimated his intention to carry the same principle to the departments of the Post Office, Excise, and every expenditure of public money. office connected with the receipt and

Friday, Feb. 28.

A bill was brought in to indemnify persons concerned in introducing foreign troops into this country. This measure had become necessary in consequence of 3000 recruits having enlisted in the German Legion when it was upon the Continent. An account was ordered of bullion, stores, and merchandise exported from Great Britain to India, from March 1793, to March 1803, with the sale and expenditure thereof.

Monday, March 3.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S APPOINTMENT. Mr Spencer Stanhope said, that his mind was free from all party motives, and that, under any Administration, he should have been ready to make his present motion. Had Lord Kenyon been appointed to a place in the Cabinet, such a measure would have been warmly opposed by the Rt. Hon. Secretary, and he should certainly have felt it his duty to support him. The present was a question of a great and important nature, and highly interesting to the public; and it was his opinion, that should the Chief Justice withdraw from his situation as a Cabinet Minister, the Administration would be stronger in the opinion and affections of the coun try. It was a principle of our common law, that no man should be at the same time a Judge and party in the same cause. In those prosecutions, which are conducted at the instance of the Privy Council, the Chief Justice, who is a member of the Cabinet, must be both a Judge and a party, unless he withdraw from it while such discussions are going forward. He concluded his speech, by moving, "That it is the opi nion of this House, that it is expedient that the functions of a Minister of the Crown be preserved distinct from those

of

of a Judge at Common Law :-That the Members of the Cabinet Council are the confidential Ministers and advi. sers of his Majesty :-That it is a prac tice peculiarly inexpedient, and tending to render the administration of justice less satisfactory, it not less pure, to unite in one person the offices of a Pri-' vy Councillor and of a Judge at Common Law."

Mr Canning said, he disdained any wish to abridge the Sovereign of his privilege to select the Members of his Council, or any personal disrepect towards the Noble Lord, the subject of the motion, for whose talents he had every respect; nor had the personal character of that Judge, or any other, any thing to do with the question. The independence of the Judges upon the Crown was settled by Act of Parliament; yet by conferring upon a Judge the post of a Cabinet Counsellor, that independence was done away, because he was appointed to a place from which he was removeable at the pleasure of the Crown. If this appointment was continued, all future Chief Justices of the King's Bench would consider their seats, not as independent of the Crown, but as a starting place for new prospects of preferment; aspiring Judges would view the Bench as only a new step on the ladder of Court favour, and, he hoped, an example so pernicious might be done away. It may be said, that no law authorities were quoted to prove the illegality of the appointment; but was it not sufficient to state, that it was contrary to the spirit of the constitution? and was it desirable, at such a crisis, to excite a general alarm and uneasiness in the country, for the sake of such an appointment? It was in such a case the province of the Legislature to interfere; and if no desirable point of expediency called for such an arrange ment, it would be desirable to do it away, and put an end to such apprehensions. He admitted the cases quoted of Lord Hardwicke having held the Chief Justice's place in the King's Bench after he was appointed Chancel lor; and that the present Lord Eldon did the same in the Common Pleas till a successor was appointed; but the only example, he believed, of a Chief Justice of the King's Bench holding a place in the Cabinet for a length of

time, was the late Lord Mansfield, at the latter end of the late reign, and the beginning of the present: but his retention of that situation was unknown and carefully concealed from Parliament; so much so, that when that Noble Lord acknowledged the fact in the House of Lords, the Earl of Shelburne expressed his astonishment at it, as a discovery entirely new; but he appealed to those who heard him, if the illustrious character and fame of Lord Mansfield would not have gone down to posterity much more respected, if he had not blended in his own character the Judge and the Cabinet Counsellor. He concluded by observing, that whatever were the qualifications of Lord Ellenborough for a Cabinet Counsellor, all the services he could render in that way were dearly purchased, by the surrender of a single hour of his services in the Court of King's Bench.

Νο

Mr Secretary Fox said, that he never did foresee, that a Cabinet Council, a Council of whom nothing could be found in the statute books, could ever be made the subject of a question of this nature, except it were upon personal grounds. If a question were started as to the introduction of an improper person into the Privy Council, it would be a fair subject of discussion; but that there should be a doubt, whether a person should do the duties that as Privy Counsellor he was bound and sworn to do, appeared to him a novelty. Council of this description was ever acknowledged by law, except the Privy Council. Every principle would have guided him to deny the doctrine of considering the Cabinet, as it was called, as a distinct and recognised body. Every man in the Privy. Council had a right to advise his Sovereign. His idea of a Cabinet was, that it was a body never recognised by Parliament, for very good reasons. It was a custom never recognised, but connived at, for convenience, to avoid the mischief of acknowledging it, which might be of no trivial nature. Any doubt that might have existed on this point, he hoped might be removed by this debate. The Hon. Gentleman had said, that nobody knew Lord Mansfield was a Cabinet Minister till he confessed it. In that he was certainly wrong but as to the difficulty and the impossibility of mak

ing

« ZurückWeiter »