uard
from the Tower, to Westminster; he was brought to the bar, by virtue of
a Habeas Corpus, and the record of his former conviction and attainder
was at the same time removed there by Certiorari. These being read to
him, the prisoner prayed that counsel might be allowed him; and named
Mr. Ford and Mr. Jodrel, who were accordingly assigned to him as
counsel. A few days were granted to prepare the defence, and on the
twenty-fourth of the month the prisoner was again brought up; he
pleaded that he was not the person named in the record, who was
described as Charles Radcliffe, but maintained that he was the Earl of
Derwentwater. He also requested that the trial might be put off, that
two witnesses, one from Brussels, the other from St. Germains, might be
summoned. This was refused. The prisoner then challenged one of the
jury, but that challenge was overruled. During these proceedings the
lofty, arrogant manner, and the vehement language of Mr. Radcliffe drew
from his counsel the remark that he was disordered in his senses. The
judge, Mr. Justice Foster, who tried the case, bore his contemptuous
conduct with great forbearance. When brought into Court, to be
arraigned, he would neither hold up his hand, nor plead, insisting that
he was a subject of France, and appealing to the testimony of the
Neapolitan Minister, who happened to be in Court. But not one of these
objections was allowed, and the trial proceeded.

No fresh indictment was framed, and the point at issue related merely to
the identity of the prisoner. The award in Mr. Radcliffe's case was
agreeable to the precedent in the case of Sir Walter Raleigh, and
execution was awarded on his former offence, judgment not being again
pronounced, having been given on the former arraignment. This mode of
proceeding might be law, but no one after the lapse of thirty years, and
the frequent communications of the prisoner with the English Government,
can regard such a proceeding as _justice_: and, as in the case of Sir
Walter Raleigh, it brought odium upon the memory of James the First, so
it excited in the reign of George the Second almost universal
commiseration for the sufferer, and disgust at the course adopted.

The evidence in this case was far from being such as would be accepted
in the present day.

Two Northumberland men were sworn to the fact that the prisoner at the
bar was the younger brother of the Earl of Derwentwater, and that they
had seen him march out from