The Sun. — London, England, 1822-06-26 00:00:00

Shad, he said, no share whatever in the'conduct of the paper, but -he thought. that his withdrawing his name while proceedings were pending against it would have the appearance of a desire no his past to shelter himself from pecuniary consequences. He also said that he had not seen the , articles complained of until his.attention had been drawn to them. Now he (Mr. A.) Could prove that the numbers of the -Beacent were regularly sent to the Learned Lord ; and though he of course could not prove 4, hat the Learned Lord had read them, lie supposed the presump `twit was, that a person who ordered a newspaper to be for -warded to him, read that paper. His case, however, did not stop here. The other night he heard the Learned Lord oppose a Bill of - an Hon. and Learned Friend of his (Mr. Kennedy ) re specting the judicature of Scotland. When he went home he happened to turn over the files of the Beacon newspaper, and there he observed in one of the numbers an article headed Mr. Kennedy's Bill," which contained all` the arguments urged by the Noble Lord the other night against the Bill; ar gument for argument, and illustration for illustration.—(A . Laugh).—The article might really have been cut out, and sent to a newspaper as a faithful report of the Learned Lord's . speech. He mentioned this as a very singular coincidence, just to shew that there was every appearance of the Learned Lord being familiar with the paper. However, the beamed Lord afterwards, notwithstanding what he had said of disdain ing a wish to shrink from pecuniary consequences, did ac tually afterwards withdraw his name, and gave as a reason for doing so, that an action had been, or was about to be, commenced against him as a proprietor. If the subscribers to the bond in question were legally liable, as proprietors, they must be „considered as responsible for every thing which appeared in the paper. If the Learned Lord himself were to prosecute the proprietor of a newspaper for a seditious libel contained in the paper, he could not admit it to be answer to the eharge that the proprietor was ignorant of the insertion of the libel. This position had been established in thecase of Capt. Johnson, fwho in the year 1792 was brought before the Court of Justiciary for a contempt of that Court, committed in reflec tions upon its proceedings. Capt. Johnson proved that he was not' the author of the libel • but being the proprietor of the Paper, he was held responsible for the contents of it, and punished. In the present case the Learned Lord was distinctly charged as a Proprietor. How could the Learned Lord proceed • criminally against other Proprietors for libels if he were not himself held responsible in the present instance ? When the Learned Lord pleaded against Mr. Stuart on a late occa sion, could he possibly forget that his interference had in a great measure been the cause of the cruel necessity which had -rdriven Mr. Stuart to vindicate his honour ? The article in the Beacon referring to Mr. Stuart, was a libel tending directly to a breach of the peace. In other articles it was stated, " that there would be no concealment, and that the writers were willing to come forward and avow themselves ; and there fore while the paper continued, it had a. right to call itself .a gentlemanly paper."— (Cheers and laughter.)—When Mr.. Stuart brought actions against the publishers of the paper, he was assailed by fresh libels, and accused of the most glaring cowardice ; the written defence to these actions, signed by Mr. Macneil and the other Advocate for the Defenders, stated • that these articles did not go beyond the bounds of newspaper ..discussion.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.)—He was, how : ever, happy to say, that this defence had not yet come before the Court. When it did, he had no doubt it would be overruled. •He had yet that to state, with respect to which the conduct of the Leaped Lord Advocate had been, to use the mildest term, the most objectionable that had ever been imputed to the holder of a situation like that which he filled. He particularly called upon the House to give their attention to a plain statement of the case. He would submit it to them without observation ; and dying so he felt confident that it would come home to their feelings with a degree of force which the most splendid elo • quence would labour in vain to supply. The case was that of _Mr. W. Murray Borthwick. Mr. Borthwick had been in part proprietor and editor of a newspaper, in which character he . had at first been honoured with the countenance of the .Learned Lord. Mr. Borthwick had some concerns with Mr. Alexander, who was for some time his partner. In 1821 they carried on between them the Sentinel of Glasgow. —On the 14th of November, in that year, Mr. Borthwick and Mr. Alexander agreed to dissolve their partnership.— The conditions on which Mr. Borthwick was to give up his share to Mr. Alexander were these: that he should receive :twenty pounds in money, and ninety pounds in bills, which were to be delivered by the Bth of December. Mr. Alexan- Nder paid twenty pounds, and gave one bill to a small amount, 'which, however, was ood for nothing. Mr. Alexander not _having complied with the terms of the agreement which had ..been made, Mr. Borthwick finding he could not gain the con sideration for which he had consented to give up his interest in , the paper, on the 18th of November instituted certain proceed ings before the Magistrates of Glasgow, the object of which - was to force Mr. Alexander to carry the contract into execu tion, or to reinstate him (Mr. Borthwick) in that property which he had proposed to relinquish. On the very day on which Mr. Borthwick gave notice to Mr. Alexander that he was about to proceed in the way which he (Mr. Abercromby) had men 4tioned, on that day, and not before, did Mr. Alexander take steps to advertise the dissolution of their partnership. Mr. _Borthwick took the course which he had stated, and which in ,effect said to Mr. Alexander, either perform your agreement; or .let me be reinstated in my property. To abridge, as much as ,possible, he would pass over the intermediate proceedings and .go at once to the decision of the Magistrates on the appeal .made to them by Mr. Borthwick. On the 14th of February, ~the Magistrates pronounced this decision, that the defendant, Mr. Alexander, should deliver the Bills with the securities • which he had engaged to . ..clrnish to Mr. Borthwick within six days, or Mr. Borthwick, availing himself of the other alter ...native, was to be reinstated as a partner in the concern. The .six days expired on the 20th of February. Mr. Alexander had not fulfilled the terms of his agreement, and Mr. Borth wick therefore felt himself in a situation to re-enter and take .Possession of that property, which, by a competent jurisdic tion, had been decided to be his. He applied to the Magis trates for a warrant to enter upon the premises. The warrant •was granted. Mr. Alexander knew of this on the 20th Feb., •but Mr. Borthwick delayed acting on this till the Ist of March. •Oi that day he re-entered on his own premises. There he re .mained for seven hours. Mr. Alexander offered no opposition but by signs of ill humour and marks of disrespect. But Mr. Borthwickcarried off one key and some papers, which as a joint proprietor he haa a right to do, and announcing to the workmen that he would return at an early hour to resume the ,directiOn of- the concern. When Mr. BOrthwiek acted, thus, if he had no right to do so, why did not Mr. Alexander at once take the course which he afterwartls took ?. Borthwick ,was as guilty of theft when he acted the part which he had de .scribed on the Ist of March, as he was on the 11th, but at the ,former period it never occurred to Mr. Alexander to prefer such .:a charge. On the 2d of March, Mr. Alexander got Mr. Borth ,wick imprisoned for debt in , the Jail of Glasgow. There he ,remained tilr the 10th, when he was released, and on the 11th ,he resumed the management of his office, acting on the war rant which he had obtained from the Magistrates, to enable - him to do so. Mr. Alexander, finding his scheme had failed, opposed Mr. Borthwick on his return. Mr. Borthwick, how ever, acted as before, carrying off such papers from the pre -miles as he thought proper. Now, after acting thus, he (Mr. Abcromby) intreated the House to mark what was the first step taken by Mr. Borthwick. His first step was to proclaim the theft (if such it were) which he had committed, by apply - ing to the Magistrates to record what he had done, stating to them, " I have done so and so, and would have done more had . not Mr. Alexander and others interrupted me, in consequence of which I now call on you to interfere." But in the course ;of that day another remarkable step was taken. He knew not by whose advice Mr. Alexander had acted, •but on that day it ,occurred to him that it would be advisable to accuse Mr. Borth widc of stealing that which had been decided to be his own pro perty. Such a charge must be preferred by the Procurator :Fiscal on his own responsibility, or by the party complaining, with the concurrence of the Procurator Fiscal. Now what was the course taken by Mr. Alexander ? In the first place the .prosecution was represeited to be instituted by the Procura tor Fiscal alone. What did the Procurator do when he saw this ! He altered the ,document, so that it should appear the proceeding was instituted by Mr. Alexander, with hisconcur rence. He did snore than this : feeling from what he observed .that it was probable all was not right, he wrote on it " con ...cm-red with," .only, and signed it. P. was thus seen that the .first person to whom the paper was shewn was so struck with 41se course which had been pursued, that he was anxious to ;avert the idea that it .rested on his responsibility. Mr. Borthwick was , taken before the Magistrates of Glasgow, -and they, the only impartial Judges before whom the case .hatl been brought, or ever would be brought, decided that there -was no foundation whatever for the charge. Mr. florthwick -then went to Edinburgh, where he should be able to prove, if permitted to do so, that he had lived without concealment.- - 1 - 1 e must now leave Mr. Borthwick ,or a time, to advert to the -.conduct pursued by others, with whom it had hecome an ob ject of importance to obtain the controul of certain papers. A proceeding had been commerced for that purpose. Mr. Stuart ;clad been examined on this subject before the Sheriff. Every effort .was making to obtain those papers, when the dud be tween Air. Stuart and Sir A. Boswell opened a new course of things to the parties. He begged particularly to call the at 'l.t?-stints of the house to the fact that every part of the proceed ing before the. Sheriff of Edinburgh passed under the observa tion of Mr. M'Neil, who acted as Counsel for Mr. Alexander, avho was well aware of what had taken place before the Ma gistrates of Glasgow, and aware that they had acquitted Mr. Borthwick of all participation in the crime which 'had been laid to his charge. The case was one in which Isorrlhe beginning to the end nothing had occurred to change stile colour of the transactions which it involved, and there oval therefore no possibility of- setting up the plea of being Oa the 3d of April Mr. IlorthwiOc was arrested, under the pretext that he was about to fly from justice and make his escape to America. Now if such were the in- i tendon of a 'person in his situation, it did not immediately i suggest . ..itself 'to the mind why he should be found on the eastern part of Scotland. Mr. Borthwick was arrested on the 3d April, and immediately put in irons. —(Bear, hear, hear!) He was manacled with irons which were too small for him, and wleich in consequence subjected him to much suffering and in convenience. '1 Was not all. Ile was carried from the place where the arrest was made to Edinburgh, between two armed persons, as though he had been the most odious and desperate criminal in existence. He was denied all access to his friends,. and, in other respects, treated with much severity. This was the course pursued towards a man accused merely of stealing his own property—in whose favony the Magistrates had already decided, and whom no man had dared to bring to trial. He was treated as the worst of malefactors. He applied for leave to put in bail, but was refused. On the 6th of April he was indicted, and the 24th was named for the trial. On that day the Learned Lord came into Court, but the public prosecutor did not think fit to bring on the trial. Every effort was made by the Counsel for Mr. Borthwick to provoke the opposite party to proceed without delay. Mr. Hope on this occasion said, pro loco et tempore,' he deserted the diet; that was, he de clared of his own free will and pleasure he would not then go on with the trial. Mr. Hope, however, in his mercy had said, " If you choose to go out on small bail I shall not object to it." He (Mr. A.) on this subject, need only state what had been he answer of Mr. Borthwick's Counsel, and he begged that it might always be remembered that the case was one between the Law Authorities of Scotland and a man accused, bf steal ing his own property. The reply of Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Borthwick's Counsel, to Mr. Hope, was—" I cannot advise my client to take the benefit of this offer." (And why could not the Learned Gentleman so advise Mr: Borthwick ?) " be cause if he takes the benefit of it, he must lose under the Act of 1701, all chance of ever getting rid of this charge." He could only get rid of it by being tried under the precept which had been issued, and. Mr. Borthwick therefore said, " I can accept of no mercy from you—l can only avail myself of that which is secured to me under an Act of Parliament." He re mained in prison till forty days had passed. On the day when that . period expired, Mr. Borthwick applied to the Court of Justiciary, and claimed to lie discharged under the Act of 1701. He said he bad right to be liberated under that Act:— So said the Judges, but then a new charge was preferred by Mr. Alexander, with the concurrence of the Noble Lord, which was in fact the same which the Magistrates of Glasgow had in the outset declared to be groundless. The Learned Lord would tell him that he had no option in this matter, and was bound to concur when a charge was preferred. This had been called in question by Mr. Hume, who had contended, in particular cases, the :Lord Advocate might refuse to concur, and reserve his reasons for doing so, till called on to state them before the Court of Justiciary, in which Court, the party complaining of such non-concurrence, might ask a remedy. Here was a case, in which, after an individual had been confined for forty days, a charge known to be groundless was preferred, and the party detained for a crime of which he could not by possibility have been guilty. The charge had been dismissed by the Glasgow Magistrates when originally preferred, and with a knowledge-of this the Noble Lord had suffered it to ex tend the confinement; of Mr. Borthwick. Good GOD ! under such circumstances Was it for . the Learned Lord to countenance a charge, which, it was clear, the person who made it could only refer in a spirit of the most diabolical persecution.—(Hear, hear, hear !)—Was it to be endured that the Lord Advocate should be all powerful in Scotland for every purpose but that of standing between an individual and injustice and oppression ! (Hear !)—ln such a case he (Mr. Abercromby) must agree with Mr. Hume, that the Lord Advocate ought to have withheld his concurrence, and have shewn his reasons for doing so before the Court of Justiciary. That which he had described, it was to be remembered had taken place in a.country where there was no Grand Jury—where all was done on the responsibility of thb Learned Lord, who was only responsible to that House. He now asked the Learned Lord, if he thought Mr. Borthwick innocent, why did he not discharge him ?—if he thought - him guilty, why suffer Mr. Alexander to interfere ? This was the case of Mr. Borthwick, with the exception of one very singu lar fact, which was this,that immediately after the trial of Mr. Stuart, Mr. Borthwick had been released. Within 48 hours after Mr. Stuart's acquittal, without being brought face to face with the Learned Lord, without any sort of trial, this unfortu nate man had been liberated, after enduring a confinement of seventy days' duration.--1 Hear, hear !)—ln 1820 Mr. Borth wick was patronized by the Learned Lord, who had written to him, " I shall be 'happy if I can be instrumental in getting the Government advertisements for you." This the Learned Lord knew to be so. In 1821, this Learned Lord had written in praise of his paper. But when Mr. Borthwick became an instrument to expose those who were engaged in libelling his Learned Friend, ' then he was imprisoned, put in imps, and treated like the worst of malefactors. He put it to the House, if it were not 'clear that the proceedings which had taken place with respect to Mr. Borthwick, were not intended to prejudice Mr. Stuart on his trial. Mr. Stuart had been examined on the subject of' them, which had in fact formed a part of the indictment. That part of it, however, the Lord Justice Clerk had said, was not only not proved, but was actually disproved. lie complained of the course taken on the late trial, in which a Learned Counsel sprung up at the close of the examination of each witness to desire. that all might be sent out of Court, because he intend ed to examine them on the ' ensuing Monday. This had been repeated after each examination, yet the Learned Lord was hardly out of Scotland before the individual, on whose trial they were examining, was sent away without being tried at all. He would put it to the House if proceedings like the present did not- call for inquiry. They must be dead to every touch of humanity, and to all sense' of justice, who did not feel that there was no security for any one. if such persecu tions as these could be sanctioned under the forms of law by the Leitrned Lord. He wished for inquiry, that it might be known how Scotland was governed, and for the sake of the Learned Lord himeelf, he wished it, whose character would never be wholly free from taint Without a full and fair inquiry. He then noticed the action brought by Mr. Gibson against Mr. Cheap, a Gentleman of the Bar, who was said to be the real Editor of the Bedeon, and that brought by Mr. Stevenson against Mt. Nimes), who was a journeyman earning . five-and twenty shillings per week, but who Was bound to indemnify Stevenson for damages given against the paper. On the very day the latter action was brought, Niinmo took his departure from Scotland for Paris. He knew not, however, whether he was still at Paris, but this lie knew, that if the Learned Lord thought the good opinion of his fellow citizens of importance, he would do well to bring Cheap and` Nimmo forward, for the people of Scotland would never be satisfied with respect to the part which the Learned Lord had acted, till' those persons had been examined. Sonic time before the Beacon was es tablished, a Paper called the Edinburgh Correspondent had ex isted for some time under the influence of Government. But it appeared that the Editor of this Paper did rot carry his virulence far enough for his patrons • but after the destruction of the Beacon, those persons returned the Correspondent. In both of these papers was observed the same virulent libels against Mr. Stuart. After the - negotiation for the undertaking with re spect to the Beacon; discussions took place as to the extent of abuse to be inserted in the articles in it, and also as to the ap pointment of an Editor. The result of this part of the discus -sion that took place was a determination to have an Editor not known in Edinburgh, and who should unite to his other qualifi cations a due mixture of the bully and the bravo ; and accord ingly an Irish student was provided---(A laugh.)—He should be able to connect with all of these transactions ohe or other of the Crown Counsel as a principal actor anti mover.—(Hear, hear.)—The first witness he would examine to this part of his case were persons of the names of Watson and Thiselton. He had, now stated this case to the House, in which he appealed to them as arbiters, because he could snake that appeal to no other quarter. He did not ask the House to assent to the truth of his propcisitionse but he was much mistaken:if the House did not think that he had made out a prima facie case to justify him in calling for a full, fair, and impartial in quiry. He had exposed a systematic plan of libel, and the information he possessed connected with theselibels, Magis trates and persons holding situations of authority in the coun try, sheaving the effects of the evil example of. the Learned Lord. He intreated the House to recollect, that although this system appeared for the present put to rest, it was ready to be renewed. The death of Sir - Alexander Boswell was not the only lessoh that they had been taught by it. Already the lamented Mr. Scott had fallen a victim to Scotch libels, and the success of the libeller's pistol upon their first victim, seemed to have given fresh vigour to their .proceedings. All that he asked of the House was, that he should be permitted to thew his grounds for what he had stated—that he might be allowed to prove what he had advanced. If they were proved, they ought to be redressed. If they were not proved, it would be to the honour of the Lord Advocate.—(Hear, hear !)—He con cluded by moving, " That a Committee bei appointed to in quire into the conduct of the Lord Advocate and the other Law Officers of the Crown, in'Scotland, with reference to the public, press of that country, and especially with regard to the prose cution against William M. Borthwick." The motion having been seconded, and put from the Chair, The LORD ADVOCATE said, he felt it a painful duty to be obliged to rise upon this occasion. There - were few men whose conduct had been so arraigned ; it had happened to no man before him to be time arraigned before the Commons of England. Nothing could be more difficult than the task which he had to discharge upon that occasion. He felt that in ap proaching this discussion, his character, credit, and future hap piness were at stake.—(Hear, hear !)—While he said this, he did not mean to complain either of the manner or the time of bringing forward this motion. He certainly was not prepared, ,from the nature , of the notice given by the Honourable and Learned Member, to expect such a statement of fact.. H e thought from the notic4 that there would be merely a general inquiry into the Press of Scotland, and no more. When Mr. Whitbread brought a charge against the last Lord Advu cate, he had the courtesy, before putting, him on his trial, to furnish him with a complete knowledge of his accusations, and thus enabled him to come fully prepared before the Hottse. But he had heard the first of his charges that night, although he might have brought fOrward a general motion on the subject ten months ago, and hail threatened to do so, it was not till three days after the death of Sir Alexander Boswell, in whom . he had lost a friend, and when the public feeling ran high, that he had thought a fit time for such a motion. If he thought as he stated he did, it was his duty to have_taken mea sures not to allow him to disgrace the office which he held. For the last eight days, the public press had done every thing in its power to prejudice this question ; and this, too, at a time when he was defendant in an action for damages to the amount of 10,0001. as a proprietor in one of the papers alluded to by the Honourable and Learned Gen tleman.—( H ear. )—These were the preliminary observations he had to trouble the House with. With regard to the charges brought against him, that House must be aware that he stood in a situation of difficulty, inasmuch as he was connected with other individuals, Mr. Hope, Mr. M‘Neal, and others. The House would be aware , of the hardship of the case upon these individuals, he being called upon to make their defence, having no means of communication with them, and not knowing of the charges against them till that day. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had' began by speaking of the nature of the powers belonging to the Lord Advocate. The chief power of that Officer was that. of public prosecutor, and the diminution of prosecutions chewed that it had been exercised honestly of late, and he was convinced, that the effect of the power so exercised, was to bring fewer persons to trial. The power had always been ex ercised with the greatest moderation.. With reference to the matters immediately, touching himself personally, in which the Hon.. and Learned Gentleman had dealt, it appeared that he charged. him with a connexion with three Newspapers.- -One of these newspapers was entitled the Edinburgh Correa. pondent ; and on that subject all he had to say was, that the statement he had made was entirely new to-him • and al though he had occasionally seen that Paper in his 'house, he solemnly declared that he had not been connected with that Paper.—(Hear, hear, hear !)—He wished to be understood as wishing for the appointment of a Committee, could it be done without implying censure upon him. Indeed were it not for that, there was no species of inquiry he did not court.—(Hear !) —The next Paper he was said to be connected with was the Sentinel. He confessed he was surprised to hear his name in connection with that Paper. He had never read it, nor sup ported it in any-shape, or had any connection with it.—(Hear, hear I)—He received a letter from Mr. Borthwick in November 1810, in which he stated his desire to establish a. Newspaper on constitutional and loyal principles, in which the cause of good order and morality might be supported in the face of all opposition. The writer stated that he was unequal to com mence the undertaking upon his own means, and without the certainty of support, and that if he could be assured of the countenance of the Officets of his Mejesty's Government in the country it would give sufficient publicity to the Paper to make it successful. His answer to that letter was, that however de sirable such a publication might be, he knew that it was not the practice of his Majesty's Government to give their support ton paper by the Government advertisements solely on account of the principles of it being in conformance with their own.— (Hear !)—This answer he sent on Nov. 5, 1819, and from that time he heard no more about that paper. Ile applied to ether quarters and succeeded, but he had uniformly refused to give any assistance to him, even by ordering the paper. It was certainly true that in November, 1820, that individual came to him with a paper, drawn up by the Hon. Member for La narkshire, and subscribed by a great number of the inhabi tants of that county. This paper stated that he had actually been ruined by his exertions in the cause of loyalty and good order, in his endeavours to establish the paper he was con derned in, and want on to a pledge of support. His impres sion was that he had not signed that paper; but he was willing to admit, from the lion. and Learned Gentleman's assertion, 'that it was so. He had long been connected with Lanarkshire, and was a freeholder in the county, and as such he subscribed to the pledge of support. It was to be oh served that the lieentiousnesf of the presS at that time was very great, and had caused six or seven trials in 1829 for blasphemy and sedition, and was considered as the main spring of all the insurrections about that time in the West of Scotland. Under these circumstances he put it to the House, whether it was not natural to accede to the recommendation, brought to him from a respectable quarter, and which was only intended to operate as an inducement to others to sup port the paper. But it never could be construed into .a pledge to support all the papers enianatinie from the same source. This paper, however, soon ceased to exist ; the types were sold to a person of the name of Alexander, who, in con.' junction with Borthwick, set up the Glasgow Sentinel. He asked if it was fair to make bins answerable for this proceed ing, which was set agoing under a different name and place, and after the lapse of a year ? It would be the last act of his life to do as had been attributed to him ; and he declared, that he never had the remotest connexion, either by purchasing, seeing, or promoting, in any way whatsoever, that_ Paper.— (Hear, hear !)—He wished also to state, that the , removal of a the Sheriff-Depute of Lanark, was in no way connected with this transaction. With respect to the other parts of the charges, namely, any concern which he might have had with another paper, it was certainly true that in the end of the year 1820, a number of Gentlemen of high respectability Ind to say, the. any of them could be under his influence—he was sure those who knew them would deem impoSsible—these Gentlemen in formed him, that in consequence of the state of the press in Scotland, there being a great number of seditious publications afloat, they had come to the resolution of establishing a paperin order meet and refute the pernicious doctrines and principles which were thus spread over the country. They-came to him and said that 15001. would be necessary to establish such a paper, and he gave 1001. towards it. He did not stand there to deny any part of his. conduct, and he therefore admitted this act. And for the purposes which he had stated he was prepared to say that it was an honest, fair, and legal one. The paper call ed the Beacon was accordingly 'established , on the Ist of Janu ary 1821. From that period down to the June folloWing, he was attending his official duties in Parliament, and he paid no attention to the paper, and knew very little of what it contain ed. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that it contained libels ; but he had read none of them to the House, and they were consequently not enabled to judge whether its contents were libellous or not. Ile was bound to have shewn to the House that it did contain libellous matter, before he called upon them to come to a vote declaring it to be so. One case obly had been decided by the law, and that had come on within , the last few days. The result of that decision did not certainly go to bear out the Hon. and Learned Gentleman in his conclusions. The case was one in which a Noble Lord opposite was a party,. and the Jury had given him a verdict of one shilling da mages.—(Hear, hear !)—lf the Noble Lord was satisfied with this verdict, it was very strange that he had laid his damages at 50001.—(Hear.)—When he returned to Scotland in June, he received an intimation' from Mr. Gibson that he intended, to commence a prosecution against him as proprietor of the Beacon. He then sent a copy of the bond to Mr. Gibson by Mr. J. Stewart, who was the agent employed in the affair. Soon after this the correspondence appeared to which the Honourable and Learned Member alluded. The letter which gave rise to it was a private and confidential one, and never intended to be considered in any other light by the writer. The words of the bond declared it to be expressly understood that he should have no property in the said News paper, and no responsibility for its contents. He never was, therefore, a proprietor, and had no controul whatever over its management. The 'Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said that in law he was a proprietor; but that question was to be tried before the Jury Court of Scotland in about ten daya; and Ise would put it to the House whether it could fairly anticipate or prejudge a question which stood for the decision of a Court of Law.—(Hear, hear !)—He gave his 1001. for the reasons he had already stated, and when be saw the paper come out he found it a very dull and stupid document, and con cluded that his money was gone and there was an end of it.— But when he heard that the contents of the paper had given personal offence to individuals, he hinnediately withdrew his security upon the bond, and the other Gentlemen concerned did the same. As a private individual, he apprehended that nothing could be objected to the part he had taken in this affair; and it still remained to be shewn how his official situa tion would be affected by it. If a private libel appeared in the paper, by the law of Scotland it could not be proceeded against by a criminal information ; the parties must proceed by private action. Therefore he was still to learn how his official duties could have been compromised, even if he had sup ported the paper, knowing it to be the channel of private libels. Libels upon the Crown were certainly not very likely to appear in a paper setting out with the principles which had induced him to give it his support; and he should like tb hear in what way it was possible that his connec tion with it •should interfere with the strict discharge of his duty. - When he entered into that connection, he saw before him the great number of prosecutions instituted for seditious crimes, and the many unhappy persons sentenced to death for engaging in rebellion, and all this he considered to be the cone sequence of the licentiousness of the press in the western parts of Scotland. This was all that occurred to his mind at the time, and as soon as he found the complaints made .he withdrew from it altogether. These were all facts, he admitted, and the other charges which related to him were, as he had shewn, wholly unfounded. No ' further inquiry was therefore neces sary, and the House was as well qualified to come to the vote at once upon his conduct, as ever it could be. These were all the observations with which lie had to trouble the House, as far as the charge affected hint individually. And `he beg*ed that the House would not confound his personal con duct with what followed us to 'the Gentlemen who had been attacked without the means of answering the case brought against them. Two of his Mends had been the objects of a charge which certainly gave hint the utmost surprize. He had never before heard that Gentlemen who acted as his Deputies were to be pievented from undertaking private practice.- -Their salaries were miserable enough, considering the impor tance of the duties they had to perform ; and when it was re membered that it, was necessary to have men of talent, and men who were rising at the Bar, it was utterly impossible that they should be debarred from private practice. It was said, then, that these two Gentlemen had signed a paper in favour of a prisoner. But the fact was tiny had only done their duty to their clients as barristers.—(Hear!)—lle did not expect from the notice ; that these matters would have been brought forward, and therefore he had no means of being informed upon these charges. But he knew Mr. Hope to be a man of the highest honour and character, and quite incapable of !the contemptible motives with which he had been charged. This4art of the question ought, therefore, to be thrown entirely out of view in the deci ,- .on to which the House was about to come. The case of Borthwick had'been spoken of as if he had been the author of all the acts of oppression complained of by him. But he was quite sure, that if Mr. Hope could be present, anti the whole case seen through, every part of his conduct would be justified. Ile thought a theft had been committed, and a most atrocious theft by the person charged. He had obtained the papers by force without a warrant, for it was no warrant until extracted by a messenger.—(Hear.)—lf he was wrong in his opi nion, any Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite might set him right ; but he asserted this to be the law. The charge was that Borthwick had broken open the private repository of his partner's papers, (even supposing him to be such), with a felonious , attempt., Mr. Hope believed this charge to be true, and committed him. accordingly. It was then said that he was put'in chains, and conducted to prison. He could have no means of ascertaining the truth of this from the nature of the notice which had preceded this motion. Bat he would venture to say, that no such order had ever been given by the Town Council. The liberation of, the person in question had taken place earlier than was necessary by law, which proved that there was no unjust detention ex perienced. The suit of Alexander being the suit of a pri vate party, the Lord Advocate could not withhold his con course. He should conclude the observations with which he Wtl to trouble the HottSe, by stating that no part of the Government had any connexion with or knowledge of the part he took with regard to the newspaper in question. If wrong had been done, it belonged to him alone, and it was most right for the Commons of England' to pronounce the sentence which they always pronounced upon injustice, and which of course would be adequate to his removal from the office he had the honour to hold. Should that be the result of their decision, lie should doubtless be succeeded by some one more able to per form its duties, but by none who would be more anxious titan he had always been to exercise its powers with moderation and impartiality.—( Ii ear, hear, hear !) The Hon. and Learned Lord then retired from the House. The SPEAKER then put the question from the chair, amid cries of 'Withdraw ! Upon which Mr. PEEL rose, and said he hoped the House would feel that' the present question demanded the most cautious consideration, and the most deliberate exercise of their judgment before they came to any decision. In addition to the ordinary motives which should govern them before coming to any decision, they should recollect the particular situation of the accused individual, whom he expected to find treated with the strictest justice. Every ap peal to the passions and the prejudices should be- avoided, and, he had to regret that many topics were introduced, perhaps more for effect than any bad design, which, if unchecked; must tend to create an undue prejudice againsthis Noble and Learned Friend. He should now proceed to notice the statements of the Hon. and Learned Gent. (Mr. A.), in the order in which they were made. First then, he thought the introduction of the death of Mr.. Boswell ought to _have been - studiously guarded against, inasmuch as such considerations tended to create prejudiceond therefore to mislead the judgment. The same remark applied to the mention of the death of Mr. Scott. Those matters, no doubt, had some connexion with a consideration as to the state of the press, but in the present instance they ought to have been omitted. Next, as to the opinions•given, and the language held by Mr. M'Neil and Mr. Hope, when privately consulted by a client, what had those things to do with the present charge ? Were those Gentlemen to be made publicly answerable for what their duty to their client rendered it necessary they should say or do ?—(No, no ! from the Opposition.)—But what could the effect of referring to that be, unless to create an unfair impression against them, and, as connected with them, against his Noble and Learned Friend ? The House had now to decide the question. About two months since no tice was given of this motion as affecting the conduct of the Lord Advocate with respect to the public press in Scotland—let it embrace no other topic. Let it be also remembered, that it was only three days after the death of Mr. Boswell that it was given—no intimation was given to any other parties of auy in tended charge, and the House was now called upon to decide the questioh upon the single speech of the Learned Gentleman (Mr. Abercromby.—( Hear !)--He (Mr. P.) knew very well that cer tain papers were referred tu; no Parliamentary documents were before them ; in fact, all they had as yet to go upon was the single speech in which the charges were introduced to the House. He did not mean to say that no case could be made out under such Circumstances ; but the present was not one which should be considered as proved, because made in an able speech. He should now allude to the reported conduct of the Lord Advocate with respect to the Correspondent Newspaper. It was said the object of that Paper was, and it was printed for the purpose of leaving the impression, that notwithstanding the prevalence of those dissensions which caused the death 'of one of the indivi viduals concerned in it,yet that this paper was continued by his Hon. and Learned Friend, and for the same purposes. To that charge what answer was made ? The solemn word of honour of the Lord Advocate, that he knew nothing whatever of that Paper. To him (Mr. Peel) that answer was quite enough. The same denial was given as to the Sentinel; and 'who could deny the solemn disclaimer tvhich had also been given to it ? -He should beg leave of the House to refer .to a document which was read to them this evening ; but he now considered it ne cessary to refer to it again, in order to shew the animus, the dispositions entertained by the Lord Advocate, on the applica tion of Mr. Borthwick. There was no waste, no expenditure of time, which the House would not lend to the full investi gation of the subject now engaging their attention.—(Here the letter of the Lord Advocate to Mr. Borthwick, as noticed by that Noble Lord, was again read over.)—The terms of this letter correctly displayed the intentions of his Noble Friend, and completely rebutted the charges made against him.— The conduct attributed to Mr. Aiken, the Sheriff-Depute of Lanarkshire, came next . in order. That Gentleman was characterised as being a party ih that scandal and abuse charged on the Lord Advocate as promoting ; but he saw ,nothing objectionable in his conduct or the manner of his pro motion. It was well known that a change had taken place in the judicial 'Lairs of Scotland upon the recommendation of a Commission, and it was then determined that the salary of the Sheriff Depute should, be raised from 5001. to 8001. a year, and that he should be a resident in the county. When those ar rangements had been made, he felt it to be his duty to se lect a fit person to the, office, but he had not recommended any person until two months after the change has taken place. When that period had elapsed, the First Lord of the Ad miralty had been going . down to Scotland, and he (Mr. P.) had put him in possession of the name of the persons who had applied to him for the situation, and had left it to that Noble Lord to confer with the Law Officers of Scotland, and to select on their recommendation whoever „might be presumed to be the best qualified. That course had been taken, and he would appeal to the House whether this state, went did not completely negative the charge brought against his Honourable Friend,- that he had used the influence of his office on that occasion. Then (the Honourable Member had observed) whoever had recommended the individual in question, he still remained in office. lie '(Mr. P.) was asto nished at such an observation. The Sheriff was responsible for the conduct of the Sub-Sheriff, and lie had been given. / to understand that it was the intention of the Sheriff to in troduce a change as speedily as possible, and that his sole reason for not having (lone so before was, that he had himself but recently entered upon his office, and that he thought the public service would be prejudiced were he immediately to in troduce a farther change. He now came to the connection of his Hon. and Learned Friend with the Beacon newspaper. It was true that his lion. Friend had become security to the amount of 1001. for the purpose of supporting a newspaper called the Beacon, and it was equally true that at that period he had held the situation of Lord Advocate of Scotland. True it was also that that newspaper had indulged in attacks upcn pri vate character, attacks which he (Mr. P.) was far from attempt ing; to palliate or defend ; but if he could establish a conviction in his own mind that those attacks had been made without the encouragement of his Learned Friend, he could not with any shew of justice join in criminating him for the encourage ment which he had given to the newspaper. The charge against his Learned Friend was, that he had advanced his money, and exerted the influence arising from his official situa tion, in support of calumny and slander. In considering that charge it would he necessary to refer to the state of Scotland at the period when the Newspaper in question was first established, and especially to refer to the state pf the public press. He had in his possession various documents, to 'shew that at that period a great degree of insubordination to the law had prevailed in the country,, and for the cause of that insubordination he would Simply refer the House to a document which he then held in his hand. It was a public document, and bore the signature of Lord Glasgow, the' Lord Lieutenant of the County. In Nov. 1819, that Noble Lord had thus addressed the Secretary of State : " On my arrival here I found the tone of the feeling . of th e 1/0 ti o t h n ewofe ntseditious o pulation of such a description as is calculated to excite serious. public n m t o i n a d dd ,considera bly principlesth at assiduouslyrevolutionary agitated, carried p and ot he . e f l . he principle had documenta m la tg a been generally taught, and that pains .were taken w 1 , 5 i1 , 5 ,,_ into the minds of the young the most pernicious and use— feelings.—(Hear, hear, bear ! from the Opposition.r He (Mr. Peel) knew that it was the fashion to veak 14 11 ' 1 4 of documents of this description • but he woutti ask 3 ' 1819, whether a doubt could now exist that oTeat alarm man who had any recollection of the state a the country 1 1! h a d thei: . prevailed? Now if his Learned Friend had felt anxious to- Silb du ,' the feeling which he then saw ex i s ti ng ; if he had been de li r ee " of affording an antidote so the poison which had been initille4,i. if he had wished to follow the advice so often given bylie n men on the other side ; if, in short, he had acted upon the P; ciple which told them to m e et di scuss i on by discussion, erect,o bat disaffection by the dissemination of loy a l principles, s meet the efforts of the illegal by incukating an o bservaneis t the law ; if such had been the c ase , h e (Mr. P.) would says°l„.3 although it afforded no vindication of private slander and e `i lumpy, yet it did justify the part taken by his Learned Friel' d He would ask, whether, supposing the paper had been conflett to its original purpose—the enco urageme nt of f r ee discus s ' s , and the reprobation of seditious doctrines—would any one 113 / , voted for criminating the conduct of hiS Learned Friend ? itt was likely that the Conduct of his Learned Fri e nd had been d ,,i fluenced by the circumstances of the tim e s. H e h a d just atten . 0 the trials at Glasgow in a professional capacity. ; -and was he . :,.. blame if he had attempted by the means of free diseussion to P. L a i, vent the sprea f the principles which had rendered those tri _ e i t necessary ? they right or wrong, the experiment had bee tried ; and it been tried in the only way in which the Ge n s, tlemen opposite had recommended as efficient. What, thesa had been the ostensible principlesof the Beacon? It appea l from the terms of the bond, " th a t a N ews p a p e r, csile',` lis Beacon, should be supported on loyal principles ; and th at • s ' undersigagd agreed to support the said Newspaper, it belt' understood that they were not propri e to r s o f, or had any c o os trots' over the said paper."—What had been the principle' ",,', which the paper had been conducted, he (Mr; Ps) - did not kn e o , for he had never seen a copy of it ; but certainly in the P r o spectus (though he admitted it contained terms suffieiel l a strong) there was nothing which could give an idea that it 113 , been intended to make' the paper the vehicle of private sla nder Mr. ABERCROMBV—" Certainly not." • , r i,,r, Mr. PEEL—He was now speaking of intention.---,“`S t s hear ! from the - Opsosition.)f--Why, if persons in office s '" a to be responsible for every paragraph which might appear 0,... newspaper which they supported, it might be extrema% Ps but lie was sure that that extreme justice would wear the 3 5 pearance of extreme illiberality. - He had heard an Honours cetand Learned Gentleman opposite (Sir J a mes MackintoshlP 3 l high. compliments - to a newspaper; and yet if he (Mr. r ii ; had risen and said, that in the newspaper which been comp is mented there was to be found a paragraph which wan to vo n / 4 attacked female reputation, and had argued that all prai se in, to be denied to the newspaper in question, becauSe in one b, stance a paragraph had been suffered to appear, for v l ,l c o g perhaps, the conductor of the Paper might have been wu s l e ,, to apologise, he was sure that such expression would have r er y received by the Gentlemen opposite with a natural and s fn commendable indignation. But he was now speaking °f ye, tention. He wished that-the conductors of the Beacon had a"'„,,, red to the principles which they had held out in their prosPeF t ai. He particularly guarded himself from the supposition of' snl n , eating the personal slanders which that paper might have e e s a mined ; but he contended, that the support• of his Lear' Friend to that paper had been given solely from a desire w as pose discussion discussion to ' discussion, and to combat those sedi ti° r f„, doctrines, the fatal effects of whi c h'h e h a d so recently eSP eo e enced. That paper had a ft erwar d s in d u l ge d i n attack. , % cc private character; but in th e corres p on d ence w hi c h had si- et l been laid before the public, his Learned' Friend had disci:o l s ,, not only a participation in, but ev e n a pp ro b a ti on of, thos e ",d tacks. The Hon. Gent. had attempted to i ncu lpate the ise; Advocate in a moral point of view, and that upon two seP 3ra s to grounds ; first, because a newspaper had been regularly se r n t o him ; and, secondly, because upon a comparison of ee Sect documents with certain articles in the Beacon, he concha ,d, that the latter articles were the production of the Noble 1,01;„,_ Now on the first point he would observe, that if the circ ;se, stance of a paper being sent to an individual made W i t f o r sponsible for its 'contents, then he had himself to accoon, he the doctrines of the paper which het k in, but to which be the Hon. Member he did not contribute. Win. be , spect to the second ground upon which the Hon. Me eci rsc relied, viz. a fancied connexion between some article in to Beacon and a speech of the Lord Advocate, h e could st ate a a the House to the House, that whilst the Hon. Gen tle 'tbe had continued his speech, he (Mr. P.) had inquired of ~,r. Lord Advocate whether he had ever written for the Irs. o vi The answer which the Lord Advocate had given was, " 'l ss e, to God, I never wrote for it." Any argument, ther e e at , which the Hon. Member might draw from that fancied reset:te blance, would have no foundation in fact. With regard ° f i r st case of Borthwick, he would not say that this was th e fell time that he had heard of that individual s but he could s a uis a say, that until he had heard the speech of the Hon. Gentlees, he had been ignorant that it had' been intended to call the alt`bot tion of the House to that subject. If the House thought for the power of the Lord Advocate was not sufficiendy define d 'os God.'s sake let that subject be made the ground of a distinct tie tion ; but let not Hon. Members bring forward without OW charges tending to criminate an Officer of the Crown• t f o r would say that the case of Borthwick was in itself suffleien aa a. the ground of a distinct motion. Although his Hon' to r Learned Friend might be legally , responsible for the condws so s . his agents, yet he had, been at the time 400 miles distant front the place. He (Mr. P.) had no doubt, that if sufficient tin le b e o l . been allowed, a full and satisfactory explanation would have s ., o f given ; but the fact was, that they had not expected this P'Sai, be Hon. Gentleman's case, and therefore had no cornstoo cation with the persons whose conduct it involved, ant i __,,,d. certainly had a right to be heard before they were condesS,iss This part of the case he therefore passed over, because no 11 ,",,,,t ; had been given that it was in contemplation to bring it for\ . , l se and because, though it was fit that some explanation sh°,, r ties given, yet no communication had yet taken place with the l';', l ,p; accused. He also begged the House to recollect, that in te,!, the time an action brought against his Learned Friend lo se part which he had taken, and in which the damages wer e se the 10,0001. would be decided. Now if it were right to postr junk' present motion until the 25th of June, he could not help 0 tile mg that it would have been better to have deferred it 01 JP question affecting his Learned Friend had been decideu._ojets knew that he had but imperfectly noticed the diff e rent j e ' tei s,i, upon which he had touched ; his ignorance of the local 4,,itot and especially of the Scottish law, would, he hoped, Sonloo of his apology. He relied upon the ground that the inte rit rioase his Learned Friend had been good, and he implored the o f st not to entertain the present motion, whilst the con duct tic , or Learned Friend was still waiting the decision of a Ce , e Justice.—(llear !) , House at so late an hour on the subject, and, he might . e s hiil i ' Sir J. MACKINTOSH said, it was painful to add a re a s , s ili t ; -V it was not agreeable to his temper or inclination to.o.,otitiag self voluntarily as the accuser of any public, officer. " bl i e tie' but a sense of what was due to his native country, las the corum, and morality, could induce him to stand forward ?so' supporter of the motion. He was bound to protect the pahti from injr ry by slanders and caluminous statements. t i c s Ds., lication to which the Lord Advocate had given his sane t ile; broken in upon the happiness of individuals, destro/ii tr eloeu". peace and comforts, by barbarous levity, andproducinsien ar e Decorum had-often distinguished the proceedings of 1, 1 e dto ll ',' conducted public affairs, but a system of indecorum seeT ios . 1v 3 ",. reserved for the present unfortunate times. The ques e a than whether the Lord Advocate of Scotland had encourstase 1 1 : system a long tune in secrecy, without avowing the s t ,'„ ss ine o t ; had in it ? His opinion was, that the House of ti , aye could not, with any regard to law, justice, and what Wal e cas e the people of Scotland, abstain from inquiry into, nioas, brought forward by his lion. Friend, who called on tn_e ;to o: , to decide whether there was enough to submit to a CoW n asa ins_ , —whether there was sufficient ground for a share or ile a Law Officer of the Crown in Scotland, accused r cr. -ae moting private slander in the most flagitious man divert tve Right Honourable Gentleman had used ingenuity to i i i iht sa e.. attention - of the House to subordinate points, which ° .!' a Oa 3 o been wholly abandoned. One part of the speech watch thires gyric on free discussion, and an argument had be en sea, s. sedition was to be met •by slander. The paper defen ... , i d di_ , devoted to the perpetration_ of every crime that C O grace a newspaper. They had been told that the C/Ydf the lqgia nal and the Sentinel were not the same papers, and o f tiblo, Hon. Gentleman had asked what evidence there was l vito li i „, these papers ? Borthwick the proprietor, stated that 1 pel s oo f ous, which was the cause of Sir A. Boswell's death "Y re iy pr, to the Glasgow Sentinel. That lamentable event was l .l ett bor" o f of the danger arising from the endeavour of a Lear n s d o ctiv e ua t support such papers. The libels inserted were li p e r d u ta s ecc) or quarrels. Anonymous ruffians could not be caller Ter atl„ 4 , without a violation of the laws of honour, but when ni e_ t fo uu .ia portunity occurred to demand satisfaction, blood ma n . cco se He was discussing the conduct of a public officer,,:wwhicllfs, not be put off his duty by the speeches he had hear:, d osg e ' s i considered no other than speeches in mitigation. l e De ar,, These journals were systematically conducted, annel_rej„salsi,7t Lord contributed money weekly, for printing a `' in i s con" io , these libels. The Learned Lord was charged with nil for s• in his public office, and the charge furnished .gr o . ll _,, a sa.oo , quiry, whether he hativiolated decorum and Lord re,sY eos s He' put of view how, for the Learned Lorci e ,__ d „ o is se a sible to the law. The question was, whether h., 11 %, e unl',,, A:riti to t all the ancient offices of Scotland, and according ducted himself as a public officer? The Lord Adv°' be s tas •