tion of his books took place, he admitted the default; he threw himself on the Governor's mercy; and offered to surrender the whole of his estate, which, he said, he expected, would, together with the security, cover the full amount of the deficiency,-praying, at the same time, that, on so doing, he might be allowed to resign. To this the Governor assented. Mr. Buissinné surrendered his estate to the Sequestrator; and his resignation was accepted. Consequently, from that moment the case between him and the Government had closed. The property was sold; and, as Mr. Buissinné had anticipated, the proceeds, together with the security given, fully covered the deficiency in his accounts.

Buissinné, having thus surrendered all he possessed in the world, had no other dependence for the support of himself and family than what he derived from a private arrangement between himself and the Superintendent of the Government Press, for whom he translated the advertisements inserted in the Gazette,' and divided the profits of those transactions with him. No sooner, however, had Lord C. Somerset become acquainted with this arrangement than he made, for the first time, a Government appointment of it, and thus deprived the wretched man of his only means of support. Buissinné, feeling keenly the injustice and cruelty of this proceeding, and driven to despair, wrote a letter to a friend, in which he imprudently gave full scope to his resentment, and was not sparing of severe remarks on Lord Charles Somerset's own conduct. This soon spread, and kindled his Lordship's wrath against him to such a degree, that (notwithstanding its being Sabbath) the President and Members of the Court of Justice were summoned out of church, in order to meet at the President's house (Sir J. Truter's) for the purpose of taking forthwith this weighty matter into consideration. But whether they could not make it out to be sufficiently grave to warrant summary proceedings, or from whatever cause, they re-agitated the subject of Buissinné's default, and issued a decree of apprehension against him; in consequence of which, he was lodged in the common gaol, and his Majesty's Fiscal was directed to prosecute him. An indictment was forthwith made out charging him with defrauding the revenue, and with writing a libel against the Governor.

The first part of this indictment was no longer matter for prosecution. He had defaulted in his payments, but had not defrauded the revenue. His books were correct and in order. The official prosecutor admitted that there was no fraud; and this admission was entered on the proceedings. But even if fraud had existed, the deficiency having been made good, the claim of the public was satisfied; and the offence might be considered as partly atoned for by the loss of his appointments, and as finally cancelled by his compromise with the Government.

The latter point (libel) was abandoned by his Lordship himself,

-ostensibly in consideration of Buissinné's writing a letter of submission to him, but in reality because it was thought more expedient that the contents of the libellous letter alluded to should not be publicly read in Court. That letter was therefore destroyed, and consequently it is not even known whether the contents were in the eye of the law libellous or not.

وو

Thus, in fact, there was no legitimate ground whatever for the prosecution of Buissinné upon the charges set forth in the indictment, no legitimate ground for his imprisonment, and he ought in justice to have been discharged. But the worshipful Court of Justice directed its "Commissioners of First Instance to proceed to try the prisoner. He was accordingly put to the bar, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to three years' banishment from the colony, and to remain in prison until the time of his departure. From this sentence, the defendant appealed to the full Court. What followed this appeal it will scarcely be believed could have been the act of any Court calling itself a Court of Justice. By deciding on this appeal, the Court had only either to confirm the sentence appealed from, to mitigate, or to reverse it. But instead of this, actuated by what spirit it is difficult to define, the Court started an entirely new accusation, (the result of their private deliberations, and disclosed it to the public, and to the prisoner himself, only at the reading of the sentence,) wherein was introduced a crime not included in the indictment for which the prisoner had consequently not been tried -of which he had not even been suspected and which was in itself utterly false. This imputed crime, however, was of no less magnitude than that of perjury! and upon this groundless and base fiction of the Court (calling itself of Justice) they aggravated the original sentence in the following manner, as pronounced in Court, and promulgated in the Cape Government Gazette of Nov. 29, 1823, headed thus:

"The case of P. S. Buissinné, Esq., appellant to the full Court from a sentence given against him by two Commissioners of the Court of Justice on the 7th instant.

"The Court declares the prisoner guilty of embezzling the public money, aggravated by perjury, and consequently unworthy of holding any office under his Majesty's Government: condemns the prisoner to be banished from this colony and the territories and dependencies thereof for seven successive years, on pain of severer punishment, should he return within the same during that period: declares that his banishment shall only take effect after the prisoner's estate shall have been liquidated by the Sequestrator, and after the prisoner shall have rendered proper account of his administration as Receiver of Land Revenue, and shall have liquidated with his Majesty's Government, or shall have been relieved from so doing by Government: directs that the prisoner shall remain in confinement until he shall have complied herewith, and thereupon

be confined on Robben Island, or some other secure placé, until a fit opportunity occurs for his removal; the day of the prisoner's embarkation to be considered as the day of the prisoner's banishment; with condemnation of the prisoner in the costs."

The place of confinement here pointed out, Robben Island, is that where all the convicts are kept. The charge of perjury originated in what can hardly be considered otherwise than a wilful misconstruction of the following oath, quarterly taken by the Receiver of Land Revenue: he swears" I hereby make oath, that the above is a just, true, and full account of the receipts in this department, to the best of my knowledge and belief."-Now, all the books were perfectly correct, the money had been received as therein stated, but misapplied to the amount above-mentioned; this latter, therefore, alone constituted the offence, and there was, therefore, no particle of justifiable ground for this heavy charge, much less can the inflicting a punishment on account of it be justified, without trying its validity, and putting the accused upon his defence. What then shall be said of so scandalous a sentence? What shall be said of the conduct of Lord Charles Somerset, in confirming it? Mr. Buissinné noted a further appeal, but on account of some delay beyond the exact term prescribed, of which the Court of Appeals took advantage, the appeal was refused; and Lord Charles Somerset, who, as sole judge in the said Court, might have waived the objection, did, on the contrary, confirm the unwarrantable sentence of the Court of Justice, although he declared at the same time, in writing, when signing his fiat, that the charge of perjury (which is the ground of the aggravated sentence) could not be maintained, " because of this there is no record:" thus confirming the punishment, whilst he denied the ground on which it was awarded; and Mr. Buissinné remains to this day suffering under its consequences.

Case of Edwards.

The second case is that of William Edwards. This person was a stranger in the colony of the Cape, having arrived here from the Isle of France some time in 1823. After a short residence in the colony, he was authorized by the local government to act as notary public, which thereby assigned him a public character and station in the colony. In that capacity, he soon made himself conspicuous, and was extremely troublesome to several individuals, and particularly in those instances in which he could find an opportunity of addressing a public functionary. It seemed then to be his particular study how he could be most grossly insulting. In consequence of his extraordinary and generally offensive conduct, different conjectures as to his origin and former course of life were set afloat, according to the different feelings he had excited, none of them very flattering to him, but still all equally vague and unsupported by proof. But with Edwards's character, origin, or former course of life, we

have nothing to do on the present occasion. Let these be what they may, he was entitled, in common with every other British subject, to impartial justice, and to a fair and honest administration of the laws, whether he claimed their protection, or was considered to have rendered himself amenable to them.

Sometime in May 1824, two letters, addressed to Lord Charles Somerset, were delivered at the Government House by some person unknown. These letters were said to have been signed in the manner the notary Edwards usually signed his name, and the writing to resemble his; and therefore it was supposed that no one but himself could have been the author of them. The contents of these letters moreover were construed to be libellous; and, upon this supposition and this construction, Edwards was apprehended, put into gaol as a criminal, without any one being allowed to have access to him, or himself being permitted the use of pen, ink, or paper. In that state he remained for some time, when the " Act of Crime" or Indictment was, according to custom, read to him, by which he was charged with being the author of the said libel. This charge he peremptorily denied. After a convenient time he was put to the bar, to be tried upon the indictment. The trial lasted several days, during which Edwards indulged himself in venting his feelings against Lord Charles Somerset, of whose public and private character he drew a most hideous picture; and it certainly evinces the imbecility of the Court that it permitted such irrelevant matter to be spoken in its hearing, which nevertheless took up several hours in delivering. No attempt was made to prove the contents of the aforesaid letters to have been libellous; which made Edwards say, in his defence, that there was no corpus delicti. Nothing like proof was adduced to bring the writing, siguing, or the delivering of the said letters home to Edwards; and not only was nothing of the sort proved against the prisoner, but the Court absolutely refused to examine any witnesses at all, either for the prosecution or on behalf of the prisoner; yet without hesitation they nevertheless found him guilty! The reason of their refusal to examine witnesses is obvious. Had they admitted witnesses on the one side, they must have done so on the other; and Edwards might then have introduced, and probably substantiated, some parts of his speech before alluded to. It was, therefore, much the easiest and safest way to pronounce him guilty, without going through the forms of proving him to be so, or running the risk of his establishing his innocence. Indeed, at the trial, (but too late, according to the forms of the court,) Edwards's advocate asked leave to examine a witness, who should prove who the writer of the said letters was, and that he was not then in the colony, and consequently, that the prisoner at the bar was not the writer, as he stood charged to be. The admission of this witness was refused, although it was proposed, had he been admitted, to have Oriental Herald, Vol. 11.

Ꭰ

established, by his examination, the innocence of the prisoner. But the Court had made up their minds, and without further demur they returned a verdict of guilty. Not that the prisoner had been really proved so, or that a particle of the charges had been brought home to him, as already observed; but they founded their verdict upon some expression which he used in the warmth of argument, while speaking hypothetically, which the Court not distinguishing, or not comprehending, they considered to be a confession or admission of the crime alleged against him, notwithstanding that his formal denial was in writing before them; and having come to that conclusion, there remained only to pass the sentence. This they did with equal facility and severity; they sentenced him to seven years' transportation to Botany Bay-a punishment quite unknown to the Dutch laws, and which, therefore, ought not to have been tacked to the code, to be arbitrarily inflicted on a British subject; who, had he been tried in England for the same offence, and there proved guilty, could not have been subjected to such punishment: imprisonment and fine would have been the utmost which the law would have awarded. It is unheard of under any government but that of an arbitrary despot, that a man for a mere libel, were he even proved guilty of it, should be declared a felon, thrown into irons for a number of years, be carried beyond the seas, and rendered infamous for the remainder of his life. Who will not join in the wish that this sentence, so iniquitously awarded, could be transferred from the unfortunate prisoner to the judges who have awarded it!

This sentence having been confirmed by Lord Charles Somerset, the prisoner flattered himself for a considerable time that it would not be carried into execution. The Minerva transport, however, having touched at the Cape in her way to New South Wales, the prisoner was ordered to be taken on board. All the horrors of his situation then broke upon his mind, and in a fit of despair he attempted to commit suicide by cutting his throat. In this attempt he was not completely successful, and the wound was sewed up and dressed. A strait waistcoat was put on the wretched man, and in that state he was carried on board the transport and sent away.

It has been since ascertained that this Edwards was a convict who had escaped from Botany Bay. This proof of what was previously suspected by all good men in the colony-that he was a worthless and unprincipled vagabond,-may probably destroy all public sympathy for the individual victim; but ought this consideration in any degree to mitigate our abhorrence of the iniquity of his sentence? The Government had itself given him a status of respectability in the colony by appointing him (on whatever grounds) a notary public. Of his former life or character nothing whatever was known at the Cape at the time of his condemnation, and, even