6's 0 0 D BOTTLED PORT, .MflDEIRA, Sherry. and Champaigne WINE, for Sale by J. & P. MACGOWAN. Sept. 29. 1832.

THE BRITISH AMERICAN,

SEPTEMBER 29, 1832.

We have received European Papers up to the 8th ult. three days later than our last, they contain nothing interesting of a political nature.

To the Editor of the British American.

Sir,

It is with extreme pleasure thatI witness in this Island throughout, the rapidity with which we advance towards perfection in the leading interest of our coun- try. [Agriculture] as also those improvements calcula- ted to encourage it. But there is something more ne- cessary, without which, no country however, happily provided for in other respects, cannot be said to enjoy her full share of prosperity, namely. good Roads and Bridges: these not only faci.itatc the labour of the traveller, but are highly important to every one, and not least to the Farmer. Every thing which the far- mer requires for the produce of his crop, and every step which he must take for the disposal of it, and of his cattle must be subject to the direct influences of easy or difficult communication, and the richest coun- try without easy means of communication. must yield the palm of fertility and value, to districts natu- rally steril but enjoying those advantages. Travelling upon the old lines of roads in this Island is pain and woe. and I have often suggested the idea, that the persons who laid them out, must have been actuated witha rooted hatred to the country. It is impossible to attribute it to any other cause except the rossest ignorance, to follow the tops of hills instea of the sides ofthem. and prefera constant ascent and descent to the level which the new line of roads now follow.

It happened Mr. Editor. that I was one of those il- liberalJurymen who travelled through the untrodden woods of'l'ownships 22, 3|, and 65, on the 13th Instant, for nearly 7 miles. and was much astonished that in so short a distance from the Capital to find such a conve- nient and valuable tract of land unsottled ; at this nio- mcnt tlmuglit I, it must be from an impolitic cause, that this land has not lon ago exhibited the “ bonnie acres and weell stocked farms.

The writer in the Royal Gazette, seems to have been in full possession ofthc facts of, and on what grounds the Jury returned their verdict. in the enormous sum of 2701. as the probable cost. and that we hdid nothing m0re than apportion that sum among the three Proprie- tors." There is nothing more easy Mr. Editor. than to be mistaken, and such must have been the case ofthis parish paid officer. I had nearly made up my mind

I to have treated his assertion with contempt, but recon-

sidering the respectibility and character ofmy brother Jurors, [one of whom is a worthy member of our pre- sent House of Assembly] I could not help answering a fool according to his own folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit; he also states, after making the following extract from the Act.—“ It is but just and reasonable that the proprietors should contribute to the formation

, of such roads." that we required our dictionary to_

learn the defination of the word Contribu te. thus treat- ing us as though we were men void of common sense ; and nearer the close of this writer's remarks. be ob- serves—“Juries are not to set themselves up as the re- dressers of past grievances ;" thus directly charging the jury with impure principles, of violating the trust reported in them,by endeavoring to make it appear that the jurors by tneir verdict had attempted to extract from the Proprietors of those lands a larger sum than they were entitled to pay. The day is past, Mr. Edi- tor. when this scurrilous writer had the opportunity of writingabuses against a liberal public. without the

‘ latter havmg the means of a reply, but since we have

your liberal impressions laid before us, it is now in our power to resent such iniquity. The following were the twelve Jurymen who attended. in giving publicity to which, it is presumed. their oath will (not to a dis- cerning public,) be in the least discoloured ; but on the contrary. that they have done. their duty to their King and country. and that the Proprietors possess the full advan e allowed in their verdict—Foreman J.S.M‘- Donald, sq, W. Crossbyplfipson, M. Dogherty, J.

THE BRITTISH AMERICAN

M‘Donald, S. Bovyer, D. M‘Ewen, J. Robinson, W. White, W. Dockendoti'. and W. Douse.

I must further assure this Parish-paid Oflicer, that his allowance ere long, must be discontinued, or there will be a noise in the new world. I am Sir, with mpch res- pect, a constant reader of your paper, and am nothin more or less than a Proprietor, Agent. Leaseholder an

a plain Farmer. ONE OF THE JURY. Leatherless Cottage, Sept. 28, 1832.

A REFORMER 0F FORTY YEARS SINCE.

THOMAS MUIR, the subject of the follow- ing account, in July 1793, landed inlreland, on his return from France—and after remaining in Ireland a few days, he crossed over to Port Patrick in Scotland, anxious to reach Edin- burgh to meet his accusers. He had scarcely however been an hour in Scotland, crc he was pounced on by the minions of the law, and car- ried straightway to thejailofStranracr,\vlierche was kept for several days, till a communication was made to the Crown Lawyers at Edinburgh, from whence a inessengcr-at-arms was imme- diately dispatched for him, and in his custody, as a prisoner, Mr. Muir was taken to Edinburgh early in August, 1793,

On the 30th of that month he was brought to the bar of the High Court of Justiciary—aftcr a lengthened trial of eighteen hours, found guilty ofscdition, and sentenced to transporta- tion for fourteen years.

A trial more important never occurred in this country. It created, at the time, uncom- mon interest. All classes of the community were affected by it. In Parliament, it gave rise to an interesting and solemn debate. It even at- tracted the attention of foreigners. And though forty years have now nearly elapsed since the trial itself occurred; and all the chief actors in it are dead and gone, we are persuaded that the short account and exposition ofit. which we have now resolved to submit to the consi. deration of the ublic, cannot be read, and especially by the overs ofrational Reform and Freedom, at this particular period, without feelings of astonishment, indignation, and regret.

Any person will at once perceive that Mr. Muir was tried and convicted, simply because he was a Reformer. This truly was “the head and front ofhis offending.” And now we think it may be of importance to look for a little at the character and constitution of the Court be- fore which he was tried.

(We omit in the mean time the pages respecting the Count. The system of permitting the Judge to pick 15 Jurymen out of 45. previously selected by some Clerk of the Court, needs no comment.)

It affords some consolation however to the friends of humanity, to know that the case of Mr. Muir did not escape the notice of a few virtuous and patriotic men, at that time in Par- liament. They too struggled for him, but in vain. On the 10th March,1704, our own dis- tinguished countryman, the Right Honourable William Adam—now the venerable Lord Chief commissioner of the Jury Court in Scotland-— made a splendid speech ofthrce hours duration, in the Heuse of Commons, in which he repro- bated the whole ofthe proceedings against Mr. Muir. And we have peculiar pleasure in sta- ting, that this is not the only occasion on which this amiable and excellent Judge appears to have exerted himself in the cause of the people. His Lordship once took the direct course of moving- an address to the Crown on behalf oer. Muir.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Fox.

It was opposed by the Lord Advocate. and by Mr. Pitt. And if any one will take the trouble to peruse the debates in Parliament at that

£1

fl period, he will find thatstronger language used by the greatest statesmen of the age. and Sheridan, especially) condemnatory these political Trials in Scotland, than ever uttered within the walls of Parliam even during the days of the immortal Hade We refer our readers to the Appendix to short abridgment of it.

On a divison the numbers were-— For the motion of Mr. Adam, - . 32 Against it, - - - - - - -

Majority against-the motion, - 139 April 15, 1794, the Earl of Landerdale after a speech ofnearly four hours. introdiic asimilar motion in the House of Lords, whi was seconded by the late Earl ofStanhope it met with a worse result, for it was negativ without a division. We beg our readers to remember, that ,1 this took place under the administration ofll Pitt. “ Aftorhc had once forsworn the or ofhis way, (i. e. his early zeal for Reform,) .. said to corruption‘ thou art my brother,‘ in called power or rather/place his god, the slab of a Reformer became a spectre to his eyes—c detcsted it as the wicked do the light—as (r rants do the history ofthcir own times, whit haunts their reposccven after the conscicnc has ceased to sting their souls. We must b pardoned for using this language. We know of no epithet too harsh for him. who was pro ' gate enough to thirst for the blood ofhis form! associates in reform, of the very men whom i own eloquence, and the protection of his lm~ station, had seduced into popular COIII‘SCS;:-- and not content with deserting them, to use the power which he had mounted on th ‘ hacks, for the purpose of their dcstructi When the Wars and the taxes, which we ow the lamentable policy of this rash states shall be forgotten, and the turmoils of this tious age shall live only in historical record when those vcnal crowds shall be no more, now subsist on the spoil ofthe myriads who: has undone; the passage of this great ora life which will excite the most lively emotion will be that where. his apostasics are enrolled 7 where the case of the African slaves and ofth v Irish catholics stand black in the sight; bu " inostofall will the heart shudder at his persei cutionspfthc Reformers, and at his attempts t naturallzc in England a system of proscriptio 3 which nothing but the trial by Jury, and b ‘ English Judges, could have prevented fro. sinking the whole land in infamy and blood.” Soon after the division in Parliament, tli sentence against Mr. Muir, was carried int farther execution. lie was shipped offto Bota 1’cs, reader. we grieve to state, tlla a man of his high talents and refined feeling was placed in chains—besidethe most atrocioi: crimmals,the refuse and dregs of the human race ;. and, in such company, he vras sent to eke out his cxrstcnce on the desolate shores of th remote Southern Ocean. And for what ?—-We will not trust ourselve ‘ to Say any thing more on that point. Read hr defence. . It is impOSSiblc to form any adequate conceal ' tion of the state in which Mr lVIuir’s feelin. must have been, when he left England. Tl! readerls left to fancy them ifhe can, for it do' ‘

q-

* Edinburgh Review,April.1810; p. no

It will be observed that Hardy. ’I‘ooke. and other ‘. Reformers were also tried in England in 1793—94 6 an 1? ' so anxious were the ministry to et a conviction against them, that the present Earl of Eldon, ' _ John Scott, Attorney General, spoke for upwards o'- eight hours against Hardy. Lord Erskine dashed hii.5 sophistry to pieces by such a torrent of manly e10 quence, that the Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty-

‘3