The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-02-11 00:00:00

lbar.)--rneed scarcely remind the Me* of the
importance or the 'object, when I slate. Ono it. re-..
fere to the coutkiet of the Lew °Moos in bent-
II
hood in the misessgenteist of a grave politic prime-
cution in the High Court of Justiciary. It relate*
to a c..,se of the utmost magnitude to the people.
.The mention of the nature of the subject. may, pro.
baps create a prejudice against it wliesiliart.lnced
by such * person vs 1 am. it may be that, bring
somewhat of al low question, it ought to be intro-
duced by a professional nom. I, for our, should
have been sorry to see it in the lentils of a wore*.
Biotin{ prison, lest the gnrstinu Stupid(' be narrowed
into grounds merely technical inirtprofes.imial.—
( Hear. hear.)—I courtlier the ease to be rather
our of plain cununon se.me, asldtiT eomtoon justice.
and ii gig it may have fallen into better hands,
trust that my fetid- advocacy will not deprive it of
the justice to which it is esasiorntly entitled.--
1 hope on that score it will suffer DO defect. I beg
at the outset to exploit) most utwquivocally. that
my object is not to call on the House to do that
which is seldom or ever Jour—to interfere in the
proceedings of Courts of Justice; these are what I
know the House almost invariably refuers to teach.
I big leave to state, that 1 mean to call upon you
to do no such thing; but I do ask of you to take
cognisance of a gross injustice cossintted 'on the
eubstaistsil justice of the country. in • ease
which. in my opinion, involves something near
a charge of subornation of perjury on 'tire tint
of the Law Officers of the Crown.—( f /ear, hear.)
The care to which I allude is a eimple one. and
does slot branch out into the whole subject Of the
late State Trial. in Scotland, though my motion
will be for a record of these proceeding.; and in
calling for it I shall have little or nothing to sub-
mit sure what will be found in that record. I shall
call upon the Luw Officers of the Crown for their
own record, and I shall convict them on thetr own
evidence, as on the face of that record. This sub-
ject naturally lead. me to a short retrospect of
what passed in this !lonise last Session on the state
of Scotland. It was then sold by the Lord Ad-
vocate, that the population of Glasgow, in parti-
cular, were so contaminated, that treason end se-
dition had been traced to 3 or 400,000 persons, and
that they were leagued together by a desperate
oath, which he, though it was rather uncalled for,
introduced to spool the House. Ido not mean to
say, that at that period there were not perhapssonie
seditious or disaffected personecontemplatime pub-
lic disturbance; but we cannot avoid looking at
the contrast fltrnislied between the Lord Advo-
cefe's statement, and his subsequent attempt to
substantiate this sedition by legal proof.—(Hew.)
—From this it appeared, that his statement was
most exaggerated, if not slanderous. If in din.
tnrbed time. any Otte duty more than another de-
Volves on a public prosecutor. it is. that the ac-
cused shall have justice done upon them by a fair,
just, end impartial trial. My complaint is, that
the parties in Seotlimil had not a fair, just, and
impartial trial.—( Hear, hear, hear.)—lo my pre-
sent proceeding, I big, however, to disdains
all concern as to the fact of the guilt or intio-
educe of the accused—either is alike indifferent in
my view of the case. Whether the party be guilty
or not, hoursit or not, he is equally entitled so tin
opts' and impartial trial.—( Hear.)—l complain
that the Lord Advocate, before the trial, did detail
so exaggerated • statement or the facts he was
afterwards to try, alto entail an influence and bias
on the country at barge, Intl on the minds of all men
who were likely to become jurors on the occarlimi.—
It is impossible not to complain of such a pro-
ceeding, or of that system which Government, fur
the last few months past, have established, of intro-
ducing characters into private societies and convi-
vial meetings, to eke riot crimitial charges against
particular individuals..—(Heor. bear.)-7 his has,
its my mind, led to incalculable mischief, and pro-
duced, by slander and misrepreseistatioe, a total
error as to the feelings iota opinions of a great mss
jority of the country.—( Hear )—Wlato I set out
a ith stating, that I slid not hesitate to say that subor-
nation of perjury Intel bees. committed in Scotland;
was aware that I had e right to be called upon to
support my assertion by proof, and in adducing
this proof, I should he extremely sorry if any word
should escape me that may be deemed personally
offensive to the Law Officers connected with the
case. I assure them that I 131 ell II to speak of their
public acts, and not of their personal characters.—
Heor.)—To them I can have no other sort of
hostility than tiro which any Than has a right to
exercise against public officers; and I think I shell
be unfairly dealt by, if adventage shall he token of
any casual expression I may use, instead of nieet-
tug me on fair and opesi grounds. It is neces-
sary that I shall state, fur the information of Gen-
tlemen not accurately versed in the forms of
Scotch law, and proceedings of trials in Scotland,
the mode adopted respecting sittiessee, lest it
should he somicord that when I speak of toilsome-
tion of perjury, I mean to insinuate that the Law
Officers of the Crown iii Scotland hat endeavoured
to influence, or influenced any winless to give per-
jured tvideme. I do not meals to cost any such
Insinuation upon them. The practice in Scotland is
very different from that of Eligland, in the progress
of criminal trials—for in Scotland they are coat:
silenced by putting out the record the deposition of
the wit fur the prosecution. Prior to the exa-
mination of any witness on a trial. au oath of 111.1 f
pinto, is tohninistered to him. and he is invariably
inked the dote following question, Have you
any malice or ill will aganist the Passel et the
Bar ?' if he replies, s Yes,' still it is a question
for the Court to sly whether the malice he of that
description which qualities the party from being a
witness nil this trial. The Sti:01111 question put is,
Iles any body taught you or instructed you what
to say as on the trial ?' . By this it is out meant
instructed the witneel what to say. either true or
false, but to say any thing at all —( Hear, heur.)—
If he were desired to say any thing. the Court
would, I apprehend, say he was disqualified
being a willies& in the cause ; it is, therefore, I imy,
that the witness brought forward by the CfOssfil was
disqualified, and of that I now complaint. The
third question is, • !lave you in any way received
a reward. or been promised a reward, to give evi-
dence tin this trial ?' Here agnin it is meow, tint
evidetive tine or false, but troy esidence ut sill—
(f/ear)—aoll if any such promise is held out, lie
Is disqualified. I now proceed to the evidence. a-
-1 fered to the Court, a uln. I contend; makes ant
any case. On the trial of Andrew the