Star. — London, England, 1818-02-11 00:00:00

cocs:dered as a reward to send a person into exile.— was expected, like every other witness, to tell whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; for this had been offered protection to his person, and nothing else had been done. He was astonished to the opinions of five out of the eight Counsel for prisoners, produced in that House as authority against the Supreme Court itself. They had all done their duty, by the assistance they afforded .to the pannel, and though -he never witnessed such an assemblage of Counsel on behalf of one prisoner, • nobody could blame them for coming forward exerting all their talents in his behalf. Hut when arguments were brought forward to shew that proceedings of the Learned Lord were ille ' deserved ne weight. It was remarkable, that igh the . Learned Gentlemen found this deposi in a roll of tobacco, and were in possession of the curious matter it contained, they thought proper to object to his examination.- 7 (itear, hear.) — What would have resulted from examining Sir Wm. • ? Noshing but what the Learned Lord had ad mitted that night. It was quite proper for him to in the manner he had done, and he defended him _ all the course he had followed, beCause no decla ration ought to be received that was madeby another but it did not follow that Sir V. Rae held cilf:ir to send him abroad to be Blezal, In short, • thing had been conducted in the most fair and manner, and he could not imagine what advan „was expected to be carried by the Motion, unless was to int,ict an unjust stigma ..on' the Learned and other Gentlemen, not Member's of that Wise, and therefore more entitled to protection.— the Gentlemen who were engaged for the prises', all joined in praise of the conduct of the Learned ; and yet, now, the Learned Gentleman u-ho last said, nothing but a regard . for his duty _ have induced him to come forward and use , inguage which he apologised for being •so strong, .'eeling the conduct of the Learned Lord and his col leagues to be so deeply criminal. Mr. WYNNE thought the question lay in a very irrow compass. If the question had been for an ,dress to remove the Lord Advocate from his office, should have felt that every thing told most strongly • favour: But the case was quite different. the lonerurahle Gentleman quoted, as a similar ease, the of some Gentlemen, in Lancashire, in the year ~ then an evidence of the name of Lutt so con tradicted himself, that the Counsel for the proseco - shut up their briefs. He then proceeded to ad _ to most of the points noticed on both sides, and contended that he wok it as a prima facie case, that account of this deposition so given, the Court una nimously: determined not to receive his evideace.-- nassuid.be material to ascettain whether that part 'ie-deposition were true, which says that the first :Drummond called on him, he told him he was served With a notice to be a witness. lie also thought -.singular that the man should have been examined :all, without the common precaution that every ustice of the Peace would take, of having a clerk resent to take the confesskm of a man charged h such crimes. The proced!ng after the trial of Muir was very different, for then the House was . . . .41 OM to review the decision ; but here it was only shed to examine the conduct of the servants of the .; and that House, as the guardians of the pub iberty, were bound to see that the public functions properly administered. On the whole, he thought a sufficient case had been made out to de mand the attention of the House. Lord CASTLEREAGH wished to trouble the souse with only a very few observations. He did think any thing had transpired that ought to in the House to enter into any proceedings on the oj'ect. He could not see on what ground the 7 •Ould with propriety tall for the record. Did, they •to look into it to see if the Officer of the Crown _ heenauthorised in his proceedings ? He appre hended there could be nothing in it to thew that he ' not been justified in instituting this prosecution. was established by the procings on the Bench, indeed the whole course of the proceedings went establish the fact that a conspiracy of an extended iature did exist in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, where persons were bound together by secret oaths. Therefore, unless the purpose was either to punish :ampbell for perjury, or to prosecute the Lord Ad vocate for the important steps he had taken, there be no reason whatever for calling for the re- His evidence had been considered by the absolutely so incredible, that it could not be entertained in any Court of law whatever—(hetr).-- . because this man's evidence was considered to unworthy of credence in a Court of Justice, was be deemed worthy of credit in Parliament, and use of there because it could be used no where ?_..(hear, hear, hear.) Then, if Campbell's evi is not to be believed, what evidence did the curable Member think the Record would fur- He apprehended that the only point that _ be brought against him was that which ad ttted of no evidence in proof—the conversation be- ,weer him and the officer when no other person was present—( Cries of no, no)—Therefore, the question of perjury was only the imputing of an offence which placed beyond the reach of a tribunal below.— . suppose that the Lord Advocate was making any not fully justified by morality and law, was curd ; for so far from concealment, there was no. in the transaction but what was the very re rcrse. The Noble Lord proceeded to argue that no ferince contrary to this was to be drawn from the ,serrations of Sibbald or Sir W. flae, as the former •ld be no evidence against Campbell, and though Satter had thought proper to destroy this paper, avowed they went with full authority to make the of protection. How could the House examine Campbell? Would they have the vitiated testimony •Ich a man, in order to put Mr. Drummond on his vial—to perjure him on his own examination against • evidence of such a character ?—(h ear, hear, hear.) apprehended this was a proceedineliat Parlia cnt never would sanction under any circumstances. this was a conspiracy against the Ad. , oc.ate and against his own truth ; and he was sure, if ho be. fed Campbell's evidence went to attach suborna of perjury, the Noble Lord would not be a party such a prosecution. But from the course that i pbell pursued, he thought there was an evident' cmspiracy between him and those that c rried the to co, not only to defeat the O ffi cers of the C r o wn , the ends of justice. If the *use lent themselves to ch:q sort of trick, and :t was too muck tlie fash:on to get up cases of this nature—(Hear.. hear, hear)—. he must contend that the testimony of individuals would soon not considered credible on their oaths. On the whole, therefore, this was not a case that the House could feel themselves called upon to inquire into, and he trusted that they would concur in opi nion, that there was no reason for the motion. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, after hearing the speech of the Noble Lord, he could not help noticing some of his arguments. The Noble Lord had said, the House ought not to call for' the record, unless it were decided to institute some inquiry. But this document was called for because it was not yet clear to the House what course of proceedings ought to be adopted. The printed book did not contain that ac count which the Noble Lord had : perhaps, indeed, the account was in nobody's hands but the Noble Lord's. What reason, then, could he give why the record should not be produced. The Learned Lord had said, that if the record were called for, they might bring actions against him ; but if not, they could not, because it would not be in. their power to obtain copies: but was there any lawyer in the king dom who would not say that no action cguld be brought against the Learned Lord? Who was, in fact to bring an action? He did not see how the in-II quiry called for by the present motion could be fairly opposed, when the last words of one of the Learned Judges on the Bench had declared further investiga tion to he desirable. The Lord Advocate of Scot land had wished that further investigation should take place, het he had • withdrawn the witness.— What had been• said by Lord Gillies of Campbell's evidence being inadmissible, was founded, not on the incredibility of his evidence, but on the proved mis conduct of the law officers of the Government. What Lord Gillies had stated was that the trial of M , lfinlay was then the only busineas before the Court—that it might, on many accounts, be expedient to investigate the matter further, but that was not to be done by that Court. If then, it was desirable that it should he investigated elsewhere, what were the means for making the proposed inquiry ? A prosecution for per jury might have been commenced, but no such pro ceeding had taken place, and what then remained but to bring the subject before the House of Com mons? Where, under all the circumstances, could the case be so well investigated as in that House? The Noble Lord had stated the evidence of Campbell to be wholly incredible. He (Sir Samuel Romilly)- did not see any thing in it from beginning to end that deserved such a character ; and the Learned Lord ought to know, that while it remained uncontradicted he was bound to consider it entitled to belief. When an inquiry should be made, he hoped, from the high characters of the parties concerned, than. the incredibility of the witness would be proved (,the Learned Lord must excuse the expression) on„,bet ter evidence than that of the Lord Advdcea— The Learned Lord in his Speech had not deniedthat Mr. Home Drummond might have authorised some one to offer Campbell the situa ti on of an exciseman. The Noble Lord had said a prosecution for perjury could not take . place, because the Law of Scotland requited two witnesses to the conversations alleged to have taken place, and these could not be produced, as the conversations referred to had occurred between the prisoner and Mr. Home Drummond when no other persons were present. This had been stated, not by the Learned Lord, but by the Noble Lord who seemed to know the motives of the Lord Advo cate better than he knew them himself, as the cause of no prosecution for perjury haAng been commen ced. The Learned Lord had said, on the trial of M.Kinlay, it had been proved that a treasonable conspi-acy had erns:id,. and that unlawful oaths had been administered to hundreds of persons at Glasgcw. This, he contended, must be seen from the verdict of " Not proven," which had been given. He had so far presumed on the ignorance of the House of Com mons, of the laws of Scotland, as to assume from the verdict given that every thing had been proved but the guilt of the particular individual ; that the cora delicti was mast satisfactorily established. He wish- ed to know if under such circumstances he was jus tified in assuming this by any of the great Law Au thorities of Scotland ? What was understood by the verdict of " Not Proven" was, that the party was acquitted, but not honourably acquitted, of the of fence charged against him. Much had been said of what Campbell had communicated to the Counsel for the prisoner, and it had been made a great crime that he had made them acquainted with the charac ter of evidence he intended to give. This he thought might very properly be done in every case ; and if on this the Noble Lord felt himself justified itt call ing the present question " a got np case," though he might prevail on the majority of that House to agree with him, he was sure he would not be able in the same way to satisfy the majority of the People. The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND, in ex planation, said he had declared in express terms, that Mr. Drummond had not promised Campbell that he should be made an Exciseman. He had also denied that money had been given to him, or promised to given till after the trial. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY had not said that it was not denied that Mr. Drummond had promised the witness the place of an Exciseman, but that it was not denied that he had authorized some other person. to do so. The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND said he had expressly denied that this had been done. ' Mr. J. P. GRANT understood that in his absence he had been represented to have concurred in acorn pliment which had been reported, to have been paid by Mr. Jeffery to the Law Officers of the Crown. He denied that he had done so, and he had the authority of Mr. Jeffery hinfsell for saying that what had fallen from him had been incorrectly reported. Mr. VESEY iTf.4GERALD contended it was in vain to consider the present motion as any thing but a censure on tho! e who had originated the late pro ceedingc, and nothing that he had heard had proved i t', him that such a vote ought to be come to by the House. He she=•ed that it had not been possible, to prosecute Campbell for perjury, and proved from the speeches of Lord Gillies and Lord Hermand on the Bench (which he read), that they had held o .lat the witness was not solelydisqualified by what had passed between him and those who had been said to have dis qualified him, but that whether he spoke truth or falsehood on that subject he was in every way disqua lified. Be had been offered prolection as a witness, but no reward as an informer. It was far film .h 4 wish to screen any one from justice; but unless he could believe Campbell, it was useless to vote for the production of the record; and as he could not do this, he must vote against the motion. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, the Right Hon. Gentleman had quoted a copy of the trial which he had not seen, and of which perhaps no man in the country but the Lord Advocate had a copy. Mr. VESEY FITZGERALD WAS not aware that his copy of the trial was different from that of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, as he had heard that which he held in his hand quoted from the oppo site side of the House. The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND stated the copy he had to have been published by the autho rized short-hand writer. It would have been pub lished sooner; but the Reporter having sent the speeches of the prisoner's Counsel to them for correc tion, they had kept them from the month of August till the end of January, and in the mean time a mu tilated and incorrect report had appeared. Mr. J. P. GRANT explained the circumstances under which the publications last alluded to had ap pea-ed. The delay which had occurred in correcting the speeches was caused by the notes of the short hand writer having been so very incorrect, and so unintelligible, that it had required great labour on the part of the Counsel for the prisoner to correct and make out their own reasoning. ' The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he saw in Campbell's testimony the mind of a most artful man, who was capable of raising, on a very nnall foun dation of truth, a great fabric of the grossest false hoods. There was, certainly, as had been stated, a great difference between the situation he had the ho nour to hold, and that of the Lord Advocate of Scot. land ; but w hen it was said that he would not com municate with witnesses, as the Lord Advocate had done, he wished it to be understood, that though per sonalty he might have no communication with them, yet in point of fact he did communicate with them through others, and this was necessary, not only be fore the parties werehrought into a Court of Justice, but before a prosecution was determined on. (Hear.) In a case Where a witness should say he could not ventur' to come forward without putting his life in danger—in such a case, whether others might decide that his conduct would be right or wrong, he should feel it is boturdn duty to say, “ Assure him of pro tection."—(hear, hear, hear.) This he would main tain was .not tampering with a witness--(hear, hear, hear,)—but performing a duty to prewent b ad men by threats of violence from deterring witnesses from coming forward for the purposes of public justice.— It might be a convenient doctrine enough for some persons, (he did not mean in that House, but else where), to have it taken for granted, that any infor mation obtained must always cotitaminate him who procured it--(heer, hear, hear,)--and that to encou rage a witness to come forward was to tamper with him—hear, hear, hear.) He opposed the motion, be cause the object of it was not to obtain the Record, but to make it appear that in the late proceedings there might be found almost matter of impeachment against the Noble Lord near him. The real question before the House was not whether the record should be produced, but whether there was not matter enough betbre them to justify a charge for improper conduct, being. preferred against the Law Officer,of Scotland ? Mr. KIRKMAN FINLAY said, he would ask, in reference to Mr. Home Drummond's conversaticins with Campbell, was it usual to ask a person whether he would choose to be examined or tot?—{Mach cheeriNg from the Opposition.)—That Mr. Home Drummond had a right to afford him protection he would admit ; ,but a removal to some place abroad seemed to him to be something more than mere pm tettion, and to be therefore unwarrantable—(hear, hear). For the sake of inquiry, he must vote for the pro duction of the record. He would explain his reasons. He agreed with the Lord Advocate that the state of the country had been alarming and dangerous; but agree ing with him in this opinion, he would ask, how it happened that there had been no trial for two months after this perind of alarm and danger, and no con viction at all had been obtained?—(Hear, hear.)— , The Honourable Member here whispered for a few moments with a Gentleman near him, and then told the House he should trouble them with no more ob- • Lord A. HAMILTON in his reply, observed, that the Attorney-General appeared very much to misunderstand the merits of the cue. Mr. Home Drummond was never called to offerany evidence in opposition to Campbell, nor had he (Lord Hamilton) ever heard that Mr. Drummond considered Campbell as a perjured witness. Nay, he never understood that the Learned Lord himself had ever so ccnsidered him, or that even since the trial he had ever said that Campbell was a false witness. No such declaration, indeed, was ever heard from the Learned Lord or his friends, n otwithstanding all the obloquy and reproach to which the discussions upon this extraordinary trial had subjected hint throughout all Scotland. Upon what ground then, did the Attorney-Oeneral assume that Campbell was a false and per- , lend witness? The Learned Gentleman had, however, re marked, that Campbell could not be convicted of perjury, be-, cause there could be no evidence against him but that of Mr. Herne Drummond. The Learned Gentleman then seemed to forget that there were many others who could contradict Camp-, bell, if he had deposed to any falsehood—for the whom spoke of communications with the Sheriff Substitute, the Solicitor General, the Procurator Fiscal of Edinburgh, and a clerk ; and Sir W. Rae had stated, that if Campbell had signed the paper presented to him at this communication, Campbell would haye been guilty of perjury. But the fact was, that many persons pre sent in Court at the trial could have contradicted Campbell, if be had morn to any falsehood. With falsehood, however, he was never. charged by any one connected with the prosecution ; and among his depositions this witness distinctly alleged that the Learned Lord and others had tampered with him by promises of reward. Under those circumstances, it was in vain fur the Noble Lord to calculate that any vote of that House would serve to acquit him in the estimation of the country. The direct nature of the motion, if indeed it should be pronounced, would, he was confident, avail very little either for the character of the Learned Lord or for that of the liciuse itself. On a division, the numbers were :—For the motion, 71—Against it, 136—Majority, 65. Mr. OGLE obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the more ef fectual Suppression of Gambling, and for better Regulating 1101110 of Ifla. Mr. BEN/VETT gave notice, that on Thursday next he should mote that the Petition from Manchester, presented the night before, be referred to the Secret Committee. Ile then restated two Petitions, one from the county of Durham, and the other from Liverpool. The hut against the employment of Cittehirg Boys, and the latter fee &firm. They were ordered to lit on the table. Mr.AitiertnanWOOD gave notice, that on Wednesday, the tetb instant, be should move that a Committee be appointed to mese Ntsurgate and the other primes in the City, and report upon the 'object. Mr. CURWEN asked, what measure wankd be adopted to Witate the caning he of the Rank Tokens? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER conceived that there Was r.O oltiiptiou or: the 04:mem:tent to take any measure to rill in the Bank T.kees, wet under an existing Act of Parliament in the at, neat. He did not think any more ioconvenien to the Public than when the Bank had withdrav non the Dollars which it had issued, or the Cow Silver Tokens. The Bank was fully able to isr any amount of its Tokens sem back. The other Orders of the Day being gone throe adjourned at Lail after twelve o'clock- LIST OF THE HINOEITI Oat LOAD a. 111.1L1111.10161 MOTION OM The STATZ TIM Abercromby,Hon.J. Fremantle W. Oi n a Althorpe, iseount Gordon, Robert paw l , Anson, Sir George Grenfell. Pascoe ": Pomo Atherley, Arthur Guise, Sir W. B. Phillit Barnett, James Gurney, Hudson Ridle Bennet, lion. H. G. Heron, Sir Robert Rani Birch, Jos. Howard, Lord IL Rune Brand, Hon. T. Howard, Hos. W. Scudi Brougham, Meaty Hunt, Robert Sharp Byng, George Jereoise ' Geo. P. Smi t h Browne, Duns. Leader, William Smith Burroughs, Sir W. Lyster, Richard Smith Calcraft, J. Lytteiton, Hon. W. Semi Calvert, Charles Methuen, Paul Tarim . . Calvert, Nicholas Macdonald, James 'Dem Campbell, Hon. J. F. Mackintosh, Sir J. W.l Carter, John Morpeth, Viscount Warn Curwen, J. C. Markham, Admiral Webb Douglas, Hon. F. S. Martin, Joint I)uncannon, Visc. Mildmay, Sir It J. Wynn Finlay, K. Milton, Viscount Wood Fazakeriey, Mir. Mooch, Sir C. Fitzgerald, Lard W. North, Dudley Fitzroy, Lord J. N•Sesy Lad Mai Folkestone, Vise. Ord, Winn Grant THE, EVENING ST) LONDON. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11 THE FUNDS. PRICE OF STOCKS THIS DAT AT rims - Reduced 80f 81—Cons. tiat i—Cons.l 4 per Cent. 9911 --.Nary Annuities IC India Bonds 96 pr.—Exchequer Bills The Paris Papers of Saturday arrived t ' An article under the head of Constantin the 10th of December, states, that the I obstinately refused to give proper satisfac taro acts of violence committed on the cm nish vessel, in disregard to the Sag of th. the Members of the Diplomatic Corps the Spanish Minister in inisting upon it hoped attention would be paid to the en addressed to the Reis Effeudi on the sub MILAN', who was concerned with L.tc conspiracy of Barcelona, is reported at C escaped, by way of Gibraltar, to South French 5 per Cents. on Friday 67 fr. A Dutch Mail has arrived, from v. , h such extracts as our limits permit: CADIZ, JANUARY 12. Letters from Vera Cruz of the 20th Norwell* numerous corps of Insurgents had posted theme ginning of that month, on the rrind from Mexico in order to intercept a great convoy of gold and piastres which were ient to the latter place to be Spain. The convoy being accompanied by a troops, a bloody bats ensued between the and which lasted six hours, and ended will aka defy who fled with considerable lots, leaving behind *I cannon, with their caissons, 1200 musket; fair 600 prisoners, among whom are 50 Officers ; these of this victory. The Palma Reciner yesterday held which the Recommit of LONDoN made k the convicts under sentence of death. Baro's THEATREe-Last night Mout ted Il Dori Gioraxsti was revived, abll and received with great applause. The in nothing from that of last season except stitution of Miss Coast for Madame CI change not slightly adding to the isteres of the performAnce. The house was us particularly in the boxes, for Tuesday. ENGLISE OPERA Housa.—Yesterday _ . Entertainment of the first Gathering ottl ' Clans, together with the Competition, is i at Edinburgh, of Highland Dancers, Players, and Pipers, was repeated at this' the course of which the audience were del some of the finest of the Scots melodies amused with threesome reels, foursome country bumpkins brawly ! Airraosomy.—New Theatre Royal, Er House.—Mr. WA.Litaa opened this eleg on Friday last with his interesting Lect Eidouranion. The sublime science of A by this ingenious and splendid ric.achi clear and intelligible. The illnsuntions ous and simple ; and the scenery shows a master. The Theatre was warm and w A melancholy circumrtarwe occurred on Sanwa up post-coach, on its jourr•.ey from Liverpool ti A - young WORIall, apparently about 14 Or 13 Tema the last stage of a consumption, had been advised I of her native air, and was proceeding to Marlin purpose in company with her grandmother. Afte wards of 40 miles she became quite exhausted Ira debility, not having been enabled to take any break the coach when it stopped for that purpose at Kr tance 0(30 mike from Liverpool. On arriving at I dle took a little milk, and shortly afterwards r arm of her grandmother to sleep, in which sts without a struggle or a groan. So unconscious mother of hr.r .icpartore, that she only became a it on the approach of the coach to Newcastle, wh who was seated opposite to her, and till then b perceived the great alteration which had take young woman : the feelings of her grandmother conceived ; her distress and anguish it is impossib On the coach stopping at Newcastle, a medical nu and though he perceived that his was extinct, k body to be put Into a warm bed, as a means el animation could possibly be restored. The cape enneeestful AMMO% AT Gazzawricn.—Several persons of were apprehended on Monday and yesterday, on have all been diacharged.—The Gazette of last nig promise of a pardon to any person concerned (el perpetrators) who shall discover, and lead to the the murdereror murderers. A reward of 500 GI same exception, is added on behalf of the int Parish of Greenwich. HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE T( Morning - 10 minute Afternoon - - 53 ......... LONDON: ( ) rimed and published by Levis Place, Temple-1* ~ r 1 , cousid Hew • the wl he ha 11 • ) uothir hear t the pr againi their I panne i• alSelll I yet n• and et their the pr they C thong • tion ar • all th p•opet • ' Witat Rae ? a naitted . • art .trt for all ration - party: the off i every 1 ° °Pei!, r t.tge..va : was Tarvrdi I • 1 frise, I • Even t ner all J.-..rd • spoke I ' I could 1 lingua feelang league: :qr. narrow A .Idre; !,, shot in hisA I innau trials o 1799,1 t. tradicti • con shi vert to rontem on ace< nisnow • It cftho-a t'ate'D served i•.• sing; i 1 1 i': ; all, , 1 Justice ,{ '. i present with st 7'air. Mt called 4 . ) ,.-filted . State; 4 lic libe were though viand i • t I rouse not thi duce tl subjtsct could i wisktc I . ' I had be headed had no This yr. and in< ,• ‘ II to estal !, I nature w!tere Theref '• • Camp; vocate 1 - i . .• could cord. Court • enterta • 1 And bi tally ui it to b< made I el ie ?—; deuce i Itonou ' . 4 I ' r i • ~ ,, 1 . , . . 1,, . , • ;fish co u ld 1 mined l Y . tween present ~ , perjur] was pl To sue t . afar t absurd . thing i 1 i ) verse. a ) I t rli inferit ilbiery t would the tai 1 I,t ;I he avc , • offer c .• Camp of sucl a trial— beat- ev i *Ale ai ta•;int 1 . .., ?u , . ti P , ain: , ' lieved tion o to sui . Camp ' • conspi bacco i . but th , i .. a r• 4 . . ' .. 4 : * : *** . .* • . i . 4 : • : ,' S . 4 . : ir kfit., ..,_ ~1. 4 . 1 ,' •• 07 • . t... 4 ,4 4!.. . k • s 4 . • •4