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

Court of Chancery a. - - require his attendance, he should be unable to assist of Appeals, but be would propose that one day ' in consequence, be appropriated for that , presented from the Writers to the Signet in presented from the East India Company, con ty's Resolutions respecting Annuities, dcc.— ; table. .e Bank of sums expended by Commissioners -*ht, during the last year, were preeented.— °Awed - the table. BABINGTON obtained leaveto bring in a Bill for pro viding Accommodation for the Judges of Assizes and the Records c the County of Leicester. presented (rota Durham and Liverpool against en to sweep Chimneys. I presented from Edinburgh for a Bill' to in -o light that city with Gas.—Referred to \ CINTOSH moved for accounts of the sums the Crown and of the Admiralty since the w a summary account of similar sums and 1793 to the present time.—Ordered. presented a Petition from the Farmers and ( orkington, in Cumberland, against the Salt • table. _ DEBTORS PRISON. moved for leave to bring in a Ilill to enlarge of Money for the building of a New Jail of London. wished the Honourable Baronet to state 1 application to be made for this Bill; every .4 to be at the expense of their own Prisons. replied, that the particulars were set forth had been referred to a Committee; and recommended the BilL complained of the edifice as far as it had pro. ill-arranged and clumsy building. It was quite • incurred should be paid; but he wished the le just before they were generous—he should their debts before they gave away swords support some Minister of the day !—(.I/ear.) what were the funds of the City—what , but at all events the state of their prisons m. They did nothing till they were goaded their flourishes to flatter men in power; and .; the Borough Compter, in particular, was a wardness to take becoming care of their prisons. iIIAW defended the motion, observieg that the exceeded the estimate. As to the expenses in entertaining the liberators of Europe (the the rey- being 40,0001.) he did not envy the feel- Hononourable Member (Mr. Bennet) if he grudged occasion. should move as an amendment, that the to the last day for receiving private Bills. a to ascertain what use the City had made of olataiined on account of the Prison. WOO!) said, the City had done all in their their Prisons, as he maintained the present . proved. He added, greater expenses had consequence of a recommendation of a Com e; and when more money was required to suggestions of the Committee, it was rather !URTI/3 observed, that the City Autho give the .unplest explanation—the City in a corner—but the Committee ea the opportunity to institute the inquiry require supported the Amendment. undertook to withdraw his Amendment would present the City's Account. original Motion was then agreed to with- .4ANVFACTURERS. PEEL held a Petition from a num. • had perhaps done more for their of labour, than any other class of had come to him in an unexpected stated, that they were aware that if object, it would be attended with Lies: but they were willing to sob-, ivation rather than continue to be op essive labour. They complained that work in the looms not less than day , that they could undergo much that there was a period when that proved too oppressive to be sup human constitution. When so much increase the prosperity of our trade, he _ House should not shrink from ex rotection to those by whom the nianu- I that trade were carried on. He had, in former years, for the protection' and it had produced beneficial re visions were now evaded by the the children of paupers without regulations. It was the duty of protect those children, who had no other Members. then read. It was signed by about ibove 14 years of age. in the spin , in Manchester and its neighbour that they worked from 14 to, S hours badly ventilated and overheated ; .ilaining of the conditio n of y oung .nted with them' by the dearest ties, through the interference of the House, might be confined to ten hours 4 day, half an hour for breakfast, and one ~ having been a member of the appointed to inquire into the State of Ma could not refrain from saying, that as evidence produced before the Comknittee ipported a case very different from that the Honourable Baronet. Had not the were represented as being unprotected, relations of their own ? He had visited and had never seen an equal number better health. He did not conceive it ~Parliament to interfere by any regulations and their children. had also been a Member of the alluded to by the Honourable Gentleman, - produced upon his mind by the ewi totally different. It had been proved to that the labourers worked from six in eight in the evening ; that they were four minutes at dinner, and that they breakfast, or in the evening, but ;natal when going from one room . . v .. , . • • ~f ♦.„ %,.. ; . .%. Ns ''' -1 I , ~.. ; in Counei The LORD CHANCELLOR (being detained ) It . . ...... ---- : a. P N .4R: III /A it illiS) l. ~/ r P I EEDMGS. UM ' ba: FEBRUARY 10. did not take h' seat on the Woolsack until nearly five o'clock. The lAA hies Jury Presionieseits ME was read the third 1 time and paned. Mr. Matesann, from the East radio Directors, presented at the Bar air Account of the Grants, Follkoll• Ilild Allowances. ' 1 made by dist Body in the course of the ' 1 . asst 7.11.. te Mr. /Worms, from the Bank of gland, = o d an Account of the Receipts and Dhbursemeuts of the ners for the IftedBlB7 both of the National Debt, for the year ending Sth January, which documents were laid upon the table. The LORD CH A NCRLLOR acquainted the House, that the business of the Court of Chancery to-morrow being of that nature ..- i whteh would require his attendance, he should be unable to assist I its the bearing of Appeals, but he would propose that one daj , next week should, in consequence, be appropriated for that . . . i - purpose.—Adjourned. 0 ' HOUSE OF COMMONS. A Petition was presented from the Writers to the Signet in Scotland. Papers were presented from the East India Company, con- s that l Company 's Resolutions respecting Annuities, &c.— Mtit to lie on the table. , . Accounts from the Bank of sums expended by Commissioners for the National Debt, during the last year, were presented.— : Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. BABINGTON obtained leaveto bring in a Bill for pro- viding Accommodation for the Judgesof Assizes and the Records of the County of Leicester. - Petitions were presented from Durham and Liverpool against .. : the use of Children to sweep Chimneys. A Petition was presented from Edinburgh for a Bill' to in- ceirrate a Company to light that city with Goa.—Referred to a istnittee. Sir JAMES MACINTOSH moved for accounts of the sums received in Droits of the Crown and of the Admiralty since the Ist Feb. 1817, and for a summary account of similar sums and their application since 1793 to the present time.—Ordered. Mr. CURWEN presented a Petition from the Farmers and I Inhabitants of Workington, in Cumberland, against the Salt Duty.—Laid on the table. f it • CITY DEBTOR S PRISON. Sir W. CURTIS moved for leave to bring in a Bill to enlarge powers to raise sums of Money for the building of a New Jail for. Debtors in the city of London. Mr. H. SUMNER wished the Honourable Baronet to state , . the reasons that induced application to be made for this Bill; every i Comity and City ought to be at the expense of their own Prisons. Sir W. CURTIS replied, that the particulars were set forth 1 in the Petition, which had been referred to a Committee; and which Committee had recommended the MIL . Mr. BENNET complained of the edifice as far as it had pro- ceeded ;it was an ill-arranged and clumsy building. It was quite tight that the debt incurred should be paid ; but he wished the ('ity of London to be just before they were generous—he should like to see them pay their debts before they gave away swords 'and muff-boxes to support some Minister of the day !—(flcor.) , He should like to see what were the funds of the City—what were their comings-in ; but at all events the state of their prisons 7 wasslisgeaceful to them. They did nothing till they were goaded -i. toil --s cent indee d their flourishes to flatter men in power; and r the wretched state of the Borough Compter, in particular, WWI a (. plea %illicit backwardness to take becoming care of their prisons. :isir .I...kideis SHAW defended the motion, observiag that the eiptasfiture had exceeded the estimate. As to the expenses in- meted by , the City in entertaining the liberators of Europe (the amount for the repast being 40,0001.) he did not envy the feel- ' logs of the Hononourable Member (Mr. Bennet) if he grudged neck a sum on such an occasion. • . Mr. H. SUMNER should move as an amendment, that the motion be adjourned to the last day for receiving private Bills, to enable the House to ascertain what use the City had made of the money already obtained on account of the Prison. Mr. Alderman WOOD said, the City had done all in their power to enlarge their Prisons, as he maintained the present condition of them proved. He added, greater expenses had been gone to In consequence of a recommendation of a Com- mittee of that House; and when more money was required to carry into effect the suggestions of the Committee, it was rather , . hard thus to complain. Mr WILLIAM CURTIS observed, that the City Autho- rities were re.idy to give the amplest explanation—the City i desired to do nothing in a corner—but the Committee an the Bill would afford fit opportunity to institute the inquiry requir- ed by some. Mr. THORNTON supported the Amendment. 'Mr. B. SUMNER undo-took to withdraw his Amendment if the Hob. Member would present the City's Account. 4 "NO answer. The original Motion was then agreed to with- sot isly division. • 4ANI;FACTURERS. Sir ROBERT PEEL held a Petition from a num. 1 ber oNleopre, who had perhaps done more for their country, in point of labour, than arty other class of individuals. They had come to him in an unexpected i manner, and stated, that they , were aware that if they gained their object, it would be attended with a -reduction of wages : but they were willing to sub- mit to any privation rather than continue to be op- , v pressed by eacessive labour. They complained th a t 1 i they were made to work in the looms not less than 11 or 15 hones a day , that they could undergo much confinement, but that there was a period when that excessive labour proved too oppressive to be sup- ported by the human constitution. When so much was done to increase the prosperity of our trade, he thought that the House should not shrink from ex- tending its protection to those by whom the mann- ) futures that fed that trade were carried on. He had i brought in a Bill, in former years, for the protection of Apprentices, and it had produced beneficial re- t stilts; but its provisions were now evaded by the practice of taking .the children of paupers with o ut any indentures or regulations. It was the duty of the House to protect those children, who had no other protectors than its Members. U ? The Petition was then read. It was signed by about 6,000 labourers above 14 years of age. in. the spin. fling manufactories in Manchester and its 'neighbour. . hood. It stated that they worked from 14 to 1.5 hour . , • .:. a Ilan, in rooms badly ventilated and overheated 1 anti after :complaining of the condition of yowl 1 .. children coinected with them - by the dearest ties prayed that through the interference of the House i . i • their labour might be confined to ten hours a day i , allowing them half an hour for breakfast, and ono hour for dinner. Mr. CURWEN, having been a member of the Committee appointed to inquire into the State of Ma nufactures, could not refrain from saying, that a • • far as the evidence produced before the Comknitte , . went, it supported a case very different from tha i • made by the Honourable Baronet. Had not th 'i children, who were represented as 1 being unprotected 1 parents and relations of their own ? H e had visits 7 1 1 ' them himself, and had never seen an equal numbe of children in better health. He did not conceive i / r fon,Parliament to interfere by any regulation I, p rope r for. parliament to interfere by any regulation between parents and their children. 1, Mr. GORDON had also been a Member of th Committee alluded to by the Honourable G ent l eman . ' I and the effect produced upon his mind by the eeni fl , &nee was totally different. It had been proved t •1 ,- the Committee that the labourers worked from six ii !II ' the morning till eight in the evening ; that they wet no; more than four minutes at dinner, and that the , bad no time for breakfast, or in the evening, bat ahat they could snatch when going from one roon P., "- • . .. , • ..'., • s t ,, \ v ' . • a„ - . ... • .00 to another; and yet the Honourable Member could see no inhumanity is their treatment! Nay, children were overloaded with work at the erly age of six years ! The Honourable Gentleman had said that he would not interfere between parents and their chil dren • but the parents themselves were now praying for t hat interference. The state of those children was such, that in Sunday schools which contained SOO or 400 boys, those who worked in the cotton manu factures had been frequently distinguished from the rest by their appearance alone. He thought the Ho nourable Baronet entitled to the thanks of the House ' for his interference. Having made a large fortune by the exertions of persons in the situation of those whom he wished to relieve, it was the best return he could make them to bring such a measure before Parliament. Mr. PHILLIPS contended, that not only children working in cotton manufactories could not be known from others by their appearance, but that many corn- 1 plaints which had been represented as arising from excessive labour, were found, on exarninauon, to have proceeded from very different causes. He thought no good would arise from_the continuance of Corn mittees, but from the appointment of a Specialtom mission, which would go to the country and investi gate the real merits of the case. He alluded. to the state in which labourers were placed at the time when the Honourable Baronet himself was engaged in ma nufacturing concerns. It was not under that Ho inourable Baronet's Bill that factories had improved,. ' but through a tendency to progressive improvement which had operated for many years. The House should not be called to legislate on single cases. Mr. WM. SMITH called his Honourable Friend, to order. He entered into the subject as if there were a motion before the House to go into a Committee. Mr. PHILLIPS had only answered the observa tions of others, whom it would have been more pro per to call to order, if any one had at all been dis- orderly. Sir ROBERT PEEL was unwilling to interrupt the Honourable Gentleman in his speech, but never theless conceived that he travelled out of his subject to endeavour to affect his (Sir R. Peers) character. When the abuses existing in .manufactories had been investigated, he confessed that his own establishment had not been found better than the rest. It was then that he perceived he could not have an eye at every thing, and that relief could only be granted by Par liament. At that time also it had appeared that the Honourable Gentleman opposite had made as free with the labour of the children as the other manu facturers. Mr. DOUGLAS stated, that he had visited the, children in his Honourable Friend's Manufactory (Mr. Phillips's), and that they were in the best health, and as gay as any children he had ever beheld. Mr. WI. SMITH was authorised to say, that the Petition presented by the Honourable Baronet arose entirely out of the spontaneous desire of .the party themselves. There were at Manchester from 20 to 90,000 persons employed in cotton manufactures, and out cif these 5995, all above 16 years of age had signed this Petition, having all been previously made acquainted with its contents, and being aware that the attainment of its object would be attended with a reduction of their wages. Mr. SHAW had visited the . factory of the Ho nourable Member on the other side of the House (Mr. Phillips), and had never seen, or wished to see, a more healthy and contented body of people than he bad witnessed there. He trusted that no Member would make up his mind on the present subject with out having satisfactory evidence, and even personal inspection.—The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table. STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND. Lord A. HAMILTON, in rising pursuant to his notice, felt that the subject which he had undertaken to bring forward, was one of the most important that had ever come before the House. It was the more important, as it referred to the conduct of - the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland, and the Court of Justiciary in that country. This very state ment might create a double prejudice against his bringing forward such a subject. It made the ques tion appear to he a legal one, which might induce a belief that it would have been more properly taken up by a professional man, as merely a professional case, though it might have been in much abler hands. The other point likely to create a prejudice against him, was his appearing to call upon the House to interfere with the proceedings of Courts of Justice, a subject, on which the deepest and the best founded jealousy had always existed : but this he was not thinking of doing in the remotest manner. He wish ed merely to take cognizance of what appeared on their own records. The case which he should sub mit to the House would involve something approach ing to subornation to perjury, with the intended ob ject of producing an illegal conviction. His motion should be for a copy of the records of chose pro ceedings. He would have little more to submit than what those records would shew. For how could the proceedings of a Law Court le better explained than by its own records ? He should now revert to what had p assed in the House on a former occasion, w h en the Advocate stated the population of the country about Glasgow to be so contaminated, that 300 or 400 individuals were implicated in an oath, which in an uncalled-for manner he submitted to the House. He (Lord A. Hamilton) did not deny that a seditious disposition might have existed, but was it possible not to believe that the statement of the Learned Lord had been most extravagant, from what had since transpired, and from his own conduct ? If there was a duty which should be performed more scrupulously than another, it should be, that every person brought to the tribunal of his country should have a fair, just, and impartial trial—(Hear, h ear .) —lt was this which, he now complained, the indi vidual tried in Scotland had not. In saying this he disclaimed any concern with euilt or inno cence of the person in question. Whether guilty or innocent, he was equally entitled to a fair trial— ( Hear, hear.)—But the Learned Lord's exaggerated statement in the House had been most likely to pre judice and influence the minds, not only of persons here, but of those who would serve on the Jury in Scotland. The system adopted by Government, of introducipg spies and informers at meetings on all occasions, had also led to considerable mischief.— From their past records, he would now state what the Oihcers of the Crown in Scotland had done, and acers in . _ not mean to say that either the Learned Lord or any of his colleagues, had wished to induce the' committal of perjury. He should now explain one thing to those who were not accustomed to the man gier in which trials were carried on in Scotland. The pncement of a trial differed widely from the roceeding in England. It began by what was Gonad the purgation of witnesses. l'he Court asked every witness three questions; first—" Have you any malice or ill-will against the pannel at the bar ?"- ¢ the witness answers yes, the Court has still the power to consider on what ground he rests his an swer, and whether it disqualifies his testimony from being received. The second question was—" Has any body taught or instructed you what to say as a witness r He was not asked whether he had been taught to speak true or false, but whether he had re ceived any instructions at all. If he had, then it was to be apprehended the Court would, on that account, set him aside—(Hear, hair, from the Mi nisterial side.)—The third'question seas—" Have you received any reward, or prbmiseof reward, for giv ing evidence r It was not said for giving false evi dence, but has a reward been promised you for giv ing evidence at all ?—( Ikar, Lear.)—lf the witness could not answer that question, then he would stand disqualified. He should now proceed to the evi dence, as offered in Court, to make out his charge. When John Campbell was called as a witness, the Counsel for the Pannel objected to him, on the ground that they had not been permitted to have access to him, having been refused leave by the Lord Advocate, to whom they had applied. The objection, however, was over-ruled, on the ground that the application for leave ought to have been made to the Court, and not to the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate had refused to grant per Mission because he said he thought it his duty to prevent all access to the witness on the part of the Pannel for rear of tampering. The Learned Lord had said so, when the evidence of that witness, from the moment he had been in the hands of the officers of the Crown, exhibited a continued tissue of proofs of the most pal pable tampering. How could the Learned Lord give that as his reason, when he must have known at the very' time that the officers of the Crown had had con tinual access to Campbell for the purpose of tamper ing with him ? On the third oath being put to him, whether he had received any reward or any promise of reward for giving evidence, to the surprise of the whole Court he answered, " that he had."—(Hear.) On that answer he should ground his present motion, and it would be for the House to judge of the tam pering used, and of the propriety of producing a wit ness so tampered with, to convict illegally the pan nel at the bar. It was not usual in the trials in Scot land to take down the whole of the evidence, but in this instance it was dune, and principally on account of Campbell's answer. He should read various pas sages from this to the House to prove the correct ness of what he had advan ced. The Noble Lord then read several parts of the evidence, to the follow ing effect :—After Campbell had been taken and brougtgaol, he was left alone with Mr. Salmon, the Procurator Fiscal, who told him—" John, you, perhaps, did not know that I knew so much of your affair, and that you took the oath at Lanark."— Campbell denied having taken the oath, when Mr. Salmon shewed him some manuscript notes, and said —" John, I assure you that I have six men who will swear that you took the oath, and you will be hanged as sure as yoti are alive." Was that a threat to be made to a man who was afterwards to be brought forward as a witness? On another occasion Salmon said, " It will do you no .good to persist in denying, but if you follow the other course, it may do you much good." Campbell asked how ? and was an swered by Salmon, that the Lord Advocate was at Glasgow, and would come under any obligation to him that he pleased. Campbell was then removed to Edinburgh, and a new scene opened. A Mr. Home Drummond came to him, and told him that his name was in the list of witnesses, and that the time was h arrived when he must say whether he would be one or not. Campbell then said that be must change his name, if he appeared as a witness, and that he could pot afterwards live at Glasgow. Mr. Drummond a ns we r ed—" We have been thinking of a plan to write to Lord Sidmouth and get you in the Excise." —( Hear, hear, and laughter.)—And this was said to a man who was liable to be tried, with six witnesses ready to swear against him, and who was certain of being hanged! He was afterwards left alone several times with Mr. Home Drummond, who asked him " what he wanted to have r and told him, that " if he would give such evidence as would please the Lord Advocate, he should neither be tried nor called upon as a witness."--(Hear, hear, hear.}—He was not prepared to say that the whole of this most unfair proceeding was the work of Mr. Home Drummond or of the Lord Advocate, but till it was disclaimed by the Learned Lord,.it must. be considered as his own. It was possible that the Lord Advocate would say, all this is true, but Mr. H. Drummond did it, and tampered with Campbell, without my having any thing to do with it ; in that case, all he (Lord A. Hamilton) wanted, was to find the guilty person, and it would be for the House to ascertain the degree of his guilt. The next time Mr. Drummond saw Camy bell, he told him, " We don't know what to do foe you ; we all wish to favour you ;" and a few days after he told him, that that would be the last time he should be asked. Campbell then enquired if Lord Sidmouth had been written to? and Mr. Drummond replied that he had not, as Campbell had been un derstood to have refused the offer. The next exami nation was in presence of Sir William Rae, the She riff of Edinburgh. When the deposition was taken before this Magistrate, on its being stated under what circumstances the deposition was made, he refused to have it signed, on the ground, that if what the witness stated respecting the offers made to him were true, the deposition would be a perjury. Thus, if it had not been for Sir Wm. Rae, who had acted most conscientiously according to his duty--(Hear, hear,) —the perjury would have been committed. The Noble Lord then read various other parts of the Re cord, of less interest, as they related chiefly to the treatment which Campbell received during his confinement—his having been furnished with shoes that instead of executing their ditty fiitic, they had by order of Captain Sibbald, the Governor ef endeavoured to convict the wily person put on his Gaol—his wife being sent fur from Gl;ugv..... trial, on what he would have little hesitation to call Me made use of the Record, not merely tss the subornation to perjury. In doing this he meant no r riry for his statement, but as containing the s v .., personalities. He only wished to look at the con. statement on which he wished to found his case. duct of those Offir • • their public character, and recollected, that the Attorney-General, not Ion? • . in the course of a debate respec ting any into -was! between the Law Officers of the Crown and while s " ; used this expression, " GOD forbid that I should irk, fere with any witness." Unfortunately the prewiat as :reed to shew that this did not seem to be the e tk3 pursued by the LAW Officers of the Crown in s col i cdi The system acted on there was that of employing and tampering with witnesses. If any of thou denounced an individual, that individual was arrested—carried to gaol—to a secret gaol_,, ta Magistrates were prevented from having acte k him. Then the evidences to be produced U 3 tie ;; ,/ of this individual were tampered with. lle ask, what was the chance of an individual es ca • who was arrested and brought to trial in this 41 The other great point of his charge was, that the 2 amounted to subornation of perjure. He would whether, if the result of the trial . had been tia viction of MlKinlay upon the evidence of Carr. y thus tutored for the occasion, and if the cc.in i ,.. 4 had been followed up by execution or transp ora.. „ . and it had then come out what the practices vi Hume Drummond had been, and how er.:r - tion had been procured, what could be the state of the ccountey ? M.Kinlay was p :a , bar charged with an attempt to overtuni b r , j into contempt the laws and government tit try. But he would ask, whether [lie v adopted by those who had put M‘Kiula) trial were not calculated much more violently to overture the laws, and bri,:g ir.: tempt the administration of justice ?--Oht c , There was only one other point oil which trouble the House, and that related to case r,a;;ro the evidence which he would ask to ha% e irtfc. His motion would be for a copy of the rect rd trial; because that was evidence of the Vt_r' kind as to the facts, and therefore he suppc...d.: that by rich the Law Officers of the Crew:. t.. land woCd wish to be tried, for it might he be of their own manufacture. He held it - deniable that the Lord Advocate really ilk! call Campbell as a witness upon the :ha]. F... was a passage in Professor Hume's Treatise Criminal Law of Scotland, which clearly pn,tedu to call such a witness was an offence fur Magistrate was indictable. It was quite clear, to use tie testimony of S-4:11 a f.itatlS tee - all ft support a cause by perjury, for before the te:za, of the man could be received, he must hare that he was a competent witness, a ttaten.mt he could not without perjury make upon his after the offers which were made to hint. sion, he wished it to be distinctly understoel what he had said, or in the course of conduct •- in respect of this matter he felt it his duty to 1. he was not actuated by any feelings of perk:.-. • mosity against the Learned Lord, or any of di most respectable persons whose names were ted in the u - ansution. He proceeded ectire::. . : public grounds, and acted from motives of duty. He concluded by moving, " That there laid before the House copies of such pans of the . cords entered upon the journals of the l CO of Justiciary in Scotland as contained the indictorA evidence, verdict, and judgment of the Court. proceedings on the trial of Archibald M'iiinlay the 19th day of July, 1817."•;--(Hear, heat, Opposition.) The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND that he would begin by endeavouring to set right with the House as to the charge made him, of having, in the last Session, made en r• gerated statement of the situation of Scotlar..'. statement which he had made was in effect, - certain part of Scotland an oath had beer. ..:2.:r— -tered to many hundred persons, by which tilt! - bound together to effect treasonable objects. n charged against him, that such a statement vac eve if true, unnecessary, and uncalled for. To - the House to judge of the justice of this charge.' would refer to the occasion on which the 5:.,:.•- was made. The occasion was the debate upez Report of the Secret Committee of the /loose. that Report the state of Scotland was esFressiy ded to, and Glasgow was particularly mentie r and yet it was objected, that the statement w;.s called for! So far from this, he felt that if lte omitted to state what so materially served to fu. the House with an important fact relative to ire tuation of the country, he would have been a gloss breach of duty--(Hear, hear.) So fnua that charge against him.—With respect to tly ceedings m the case of M'Kinlay, although he it - enter fully into all the material circumstances. !e! would not trouble the House with the details et the.evidence led in that case. The charge 3 il M'Kinlay was for administering an unlawful e several persons at secret meetings ; the :'sue of ' trialswai a verdict of sot proven. He spoke hearing of several Honourable and Learned men on the other side of the House who were - sant with the laws of Scotland, and knew the tion which those laws made between a verdict 'guilty and a verdict of not proven. rle was this—that where the evidence was strong en , 'to satisfy the Jury that there was corpus de:/ a. there was guilt en the part of the prisoner, bet s% was not sufficiently brought home to him to str. a conviction—the verdict was not prowl,. 0: -• other hand, where it did nct appear fr,la deuce that there was corpus dclidi, and 'she" thing criminal came out in which the prisms.: implicated, the verdict was not guilt;. 'fherel.7. the verdict in M.Kinlayia case, the adtr.ir:strr . : the oath was proved, but not proved At least, therefore, it turned out, that tic he last year read to the House was no imps F ' had really been administered in the way had then thought it his duty to state. As to t iel i •- cipal part of the charge preferred by the N..b.e namely, the communication of the Lord Abv. with witnesses, he begged to state the re,'sors .. ll : the Lord Advocate of Scotland was, by his duties, placed in a different situation 5.:17. to witnesses, from that in which the Attor::eske!. rat of England stood. That differes.ce o: s arose from the circumstance of Scotland . bc a separate government, without 2ny nistration; and cougequently the duties o