But, after all, the most extraordinary answer to the impeachment was that made by William, Lord Nairn. It is true, he at once pleaded guilty, and asked for mercy; but having done so, Lord Nairn presented a petition, which was intended as an apology, with something of a justification. Reduced to as few words as will convey its sense, it was to this effect: he was a Church of England Protestant, but he had unwarily imbibed mistaken principles in his tender years, which caused him to be in no conformity with the Revolution of 1688, ‘lying under the less necessity, for that he had married an heiress, in whom all Lord Nairn’s, or rather _her_ own, estate was invested.’ He had never taken the oaths, but he had lived as loyally as if he had, till he was _inadvertently involved_ in this rebellion by Lord Mar and his forces surrounding his estate and occupying his house, which lay between Perth and Dunkeld, both of which cities they had fortified. Lord Nairn solemnly declared that, up to that moment, he was ignorant of any movement on behalf of the Pretender, and knew nothing of the passage of the Forth till he found himself of the party making it! He ventured his own person therein to avoid the imputation of cowardice, but he sent back all his dependents. As for the invasion of England, he gave a curious reason for being innocent of having share in it, ‘having been bred a seaman,’ he said, ‘he had no pretensions to knowledge in the land service! For the sake of his twelve children he asked for that mercy which at the time of his surrender he was made to believe he might reasonably expect.’ Lord Wintoun, on his request, was allowed to defer putting in his plea.――Six of the seven lords, however, having thus pleaded guilty,――each urging extenuating circumstances,――they were speedily brought again to the Hall, to hear the pronouncing of doom. [Sidenote: _THE LORD HIGH STEWARD._] When the condemned lords were brought to Westminster Hall to receive sentence, the Lord High Steward addressed them in a speech which, highly praised as it was, at the time, has a very dull and commonplace ring about it now. He spoke of King George, of course, as the lawful sovereign, to make war against whom, and to compass whose death, was a compound crime to be paid for by forfeiture of life. Yet, they, as individuals, had attempted to destroy a monarch who occupied the throne, by virtue of rights confirmed by the legislature of King William and Queen Anne. The rebel lords, he said, had been convicted of ‘an open attempt to destroy the best of kings, and to rase the foundations of a Government, the best suited of any in the world to perfect the happiness, and to support the dignity of human nature.’ Had the wicked attempt succeeded, King George would speedily,――so Lord Cowper inferred,――have passed from the throne to the grave; for, being of a valiant race (which was perfectly true), neither he nor any of his family would have condescended to save themselves by flight.