The Sun.
London, England, 1818-02-11 00:00:00

STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND.

Lord A. II AMIt.TONT, in rising. pursuant to his
notice,- felt that the subject which he had under-
taken to bliog forward was one of the most im-
portant that had ever come before the House.
It was 'the more important as it referred to the
conduct of the ,Later Officers Of the Crown in
Scotland,, and the Court of Justiciary io that
rituntry. This very statement ini;eht create •a
double prejudice against his bringing forteard
such a subject. • It made theqoestion appear to
he a leg-al one, which might induce a belief that it
would have been more properly taken sip by a
professional onto, as met ey 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 neon the House
tointet fere with the proceedings of Courts of
Justice, a subject on which the des pest and the
best- founded jealousy had always existed : but this
he- was not thinking of doiag in the remotest
tnauner. He wished merely to take cogoizaece
of what appeared on their own ICCords. The case
which he shook: submit to the uise would
in-
volve something approaching to subornation to
perjory, with the intended object of prodociug an
illegal conviction. His motion should be for a
copy of the records of those proceedings. He
would have little more to soburit than what those
records would show.: For how could the proceed-
ings of a Law Court be' better explained than
by its own records-?.- He should now revert to
what hail LeAsed lathe House on• ,a dormer occa-
sion, when the Lord Advocate stated the popula-
tion ofalie. country. about GtlasgOtv-:fo. he so con-
taminated,- that' 300 -or 404 individuals were im-
plicated in an oath; which in an uncallaefor man-
ner he submitted to the House:- He (Lord A.
H.) did not deny that 'a seditious disposition might
have existed, but was it possikele not to- believe
that the statetitent of the Learned. :Lord had been
most extravagantiefroto what hadssince transpired,
and from his own conduct ? If there- was a duty
which shOol4)re performed more scropitlOusly than
another';.' ir shoUld, be`.l.4at, every .per§on brought
to the tribunaVof.his'Ourieri'should*liave a fair,
just,- and'vimpartial trial:e•iteavis this_. which, he
now complained, the individnatiried. in Scotland
had not. In saying that, healiaciailmed any con-
cern with the guilt or innocence.of the person in
1
question.' .Whether gnilty ivocent, he was
equally entitled to a fair trial. ptit'tlie,Learned
Lord's exaggerated statement in tli.e-House had
been most likely tie prejudice* andlirifinence the
minds, not only of persons here:but' (if ibbse who
would serve on th4.Jury in Scotland::-The system
adopted by Government, of introducing spies and
informers at meetings on all oceaSiOns, had also
led to considerable Mischief.. krOm their past re-
cords would now state what the Officers of the
CrOavn in Scotian. dure' arid that instead of
ex ecutino. their duty fairly, they had endeavoured.
to convict the only person put
On his trial, on.
what he would have little hesitation to call sub-!
(natation to perjury. In doing this he meant no
personalities. fie only wi,lied to look at the con
duct of those Officers in their poblic- character,
and did not mean to say that either the Learned
Lord, or any of his colleagues, had wished to
irfdOce the committal of-perjury. He should now*
explain' one thing to those who were not,
accustomed to the manner in which trials were
carried oil. in Scotland. The commencement of a
trial differed widely from rite saute proceeding in En-
gland. It began by what was called the purgation of
witnesses. The Court asked every witness three
questions ; first : " Have you any malice or
ill-
evill against the panne! at the bar ?" If time wit-
ness answers yes, the Court has still the power-to
consider on what ground he rests his answer, and
whether it disqualifies his testimony ftom being
received. The second question was : " Has any
body taught or- instructed you what to say as a
witness ?"—He was IlOt asked whether he had
been taught to speak true or false, but whether he
'had received any instructions at all. If he had,
then it was to be apprehended the Court would,
on that account, set him aside. The third ques-
tion was : t" Have you received any reward, or
promise of reward; for giving evidence ?" It was
not said for =giving-Jake evidence, but has a re-
ward been:;promised you for giving evidence at
all ?—lf the witness could not answer that ques-
tion, then he world stand disqualified. He should
now proceedto the evidence, as offered in Court,
to makeeottt his charge. When John Campbell
was called as a Witness, the Counsel for the pannel
objected to hint, on the ground that they had not
been permitted to have access to hint, 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 beeo•made to the Court, and
not to ;he Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate
had refused to grant permission because lie said he
thought it his duty to prevent all access to the
winless on the part of the pannel for fear of tam-
pering. The Learned Lord had said so, when the
evidence of that witness, from the moment be had
been in the hands of the officers of the Crown,
exhibited a continued tissue of proofs of the most
palpable 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 continual access to Campbell for
the purpose of tampering with him On the 3d
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." Ott that answer he
should ground his present motion ; and it would
be for the House to judge of the tampering used,
and of the propriety of producing a witness so
tampered with, to convict illegally the pannel at
the hear. It was not mutt! in the trials in Scotland
to take down the whole of the evidence, but in

this instance it was done, and principally on ac-
count of Campbell's answer., He should read vs'
rious passages from this.o the House, to pixie
the correctness of what/he had advanced. Vie
Noble Lord then read,?e.veral
arts of the evi'
donee, to the following effect :—After Campbell
had been taken anti brought to gaol,. he was left
p
alone with 111-r. Salmon, dielcurator
olio told him—" John, you, perhaps, did not
know that I knew so 'Much at- your affair.- and
that you took the oath at Laoark." Campbell
denied having taken the oath, when Mr. Sal"
mon shewed him some maimscript notes, and said,
" John, I assure you that I have six Men :'wl)°,
will swear that you took Ole oatk, and you
be hanged as sore as you are alive." WkI•1113(
a threat to be made to a man who was aftertvot''f
to he brought forward as a witness ) On another'
occasion Salnicot said, " it will do you no
to persist in denying, but if von follow the other
course, it may do you touch good." Campl'dl
asked how ; and was answered, by Salmon, that
1
time Lord Advocate was at Glasgow, and wow"
come' mulct any obligation to him that he please'
Campbell was then removed to Editibtirgb, ante
newsceM
lie
opem.d. A r. 110 m
nme Dromoa
came to hint, and told him that his name was in
the list of ‘vitnes,es, and that the :nue was °P.
rived when he must Say whether he would be olle
or not. Campbell then said that he must elta"l4l9,-
his name, if he appeared as a witot ss, axed cleat
he could not afterwards live at Glasgow. I.W.
Drummond answered—" We have been thitiltia
of a plan to mite to Lord Si,inoutli and get Yi°4`l,
in the Exc:se."—And this was Salk; to a man 0";---
was liable to be tried, with six ►witnesses re4:l
to swear aga.osi. horn, and who rias certaio 44."e'
ing banged ! Ile was- alter warsrs Lt.,: alone bevel-
ral tittles with Mr. Home Drunimowl, who
him " hat be wautyd to have," and told 101:1:
that " it he would give such evidence as wool"
please the Lord Advocate, lie should nei.lmer
tried nor called upon ems a witness." He wasfiuc
prepared to say that the whole of this most 01'
fair proceeding was the woyk of Mr. Home Difin"
mond or of the Lord Advocate, but till it was tis'"
claimed by the Learned Lord, it must be CO'sl7,
tiered as his own. It was possible that the
Advocate should say, all this is true,
Drummond did it, and tampered with Cain
without my having any thing to do With it 3
that ease, all he (Lord A. H.) wanted, "'as to
find the guilty person, and it would be for the
House to ascertain. the degree pt his guilt. TI,I
next time Mr. Drummond sew Campbell, h Wle '
him, " We don't know what to do for you ; we
all wish to favour you ;" and a few days after, lie
told him that would be the last time lie should"
be
asked.
.Campheil then inquired if Lord Sidinoott;
bad been written to, and Mr. Drummond replie‘"
that he had not, as Campbell had been trodet'
stood to have refused the offer. The _next "4...
mination was in presence of SirWilliaM Rsae, tbe
Sheriff of Edinburgh.' When :the deposition
taken before this Magistrate, on its being state"
under what .circurnstances .the deposition oral
made, he refused to have it signed. on the
ground, that if what the witness stated
specting the offers made to him. were true, t
deposition would be a perjury. Thus; if it 104
not been fin' Sir William Rae, who ill"' act:'
ed most conscientiously :,ceordina to his dt“.l".•
the perjury would have been .corountted. -1.144
Noble Lord
then read various other parts ot
Record, of less interest, as tl;cv )(late,"
to the treatment which Cam;;:bell received.diajt,g
his confinement—his having been furnished
shoes by-Ot der of Captain Silib•ald, the fiovern°
of the Gaol—his wife being sent for- trOin Lila'
gow, &c. He made - arse of the. Record, vo.t
Merely as the anthOrity for his-statement,
a
containing the vet y statement. which he e 42
to foutahis-case. He recollected that time Awl"
nr.V•General, not long ago, in the coarse o
fll.
dei):4te respecting any intercourse lo:tweet' I-11
LaW Officers of the Crown toad witnesses, 41se`
this expression—" God tot hidthat I sin old
fete with -any, witness." Uniortunately time Trie-
sent case seemed to show that this (141 ot sel
to be the system pursued by the Law °
the Crown in Scotland. The system acted 01:,
there was that of employing spies and tainpe-ri"';
with witnesses. If any of• those spies &nuance,'
an individual, that individual was instantly i“4
rested—carried to jail—to a secret jail----even
Magistrates were prevented from having access ""
him. Then the evidences to he produced in) tr
trial of this individual were tampered with. het
would ask what was the chance of anjudividot3
escaping who was arrested and brought to trial ill
this way ? -The other great point of his elsogi.
was, that the acts amounted to subornatioo c.m-*
perjury. He would ask, whether, if time res"ll
of the trial had been the .conviction of Al`Kiol4
upon time evidence of Campbell, thus tutored lor
the occasion ; and if the conviction had hero ft)r.
lowed•up by execution or transportation„ and
had then come out what the practices of Alf-
Home Drummond had been, and how that
viction had been procured, what could he thought
of the state of the country ? M`Kinlay was p"t
to the bar charged with an attempt to ovel'`"'l
or bring into contempt the Laws and Governmoot
of the Country. But he would ask whether the
proceeding) adopted by those who had put
ArKirdily upon his trial were not calculate
much more palpably and violently to overturn the
Laws, and bring into contempt the Administra-
tion of Justice. There was only one other point
on which he would trouble the House, and that
related to the nature of the evidence which- he.
would ask to have produced. His motion woo°
be for a copy of the Record of the Ti lab ; ere'
cause that was evidence of the very highest hit'
as to the facts, and therefore hesuppoted it '.53i
that by which the Law Officers of the Crown ill
Scotland %you'd wish to be tried, for it might be
said to be of their own manufacture. He held ic
to be undeniable that • the Lord Advocate te"ilY
did mean to call Campbell as a witness upon the
trial. There was a passage in Professor HUllie.s
Treatise upon the Critnioal Law of Scotland
which clearly proved that to call such a witile7's
was an offence for which a magistrate was indo"
able. It was quite clear that to use the testimony
of such a witness would, be to support a csuse
Ily
perjury, for before the estit»ony of the Man ‘O,"
be received, he must have Sworn tha! he. ‘s. ''
a competent witness, a sta:emcnt whici he cuffed

W'

coulJ

not without perjury make upon bit oath after the
offers which were made to him. In conclusion,
he Wi,hed it to
"'lilt be distinctly understood, that in
he had said, or in the course of conduct,
WhlCh in respect of this matter he felt it his duty
tpoerPZile;,ilinoy
lfewgiatsnot actuated by any feelings of
against the Learned Lord. or
anY of the other most respectable persons whose
names w• re implicated to the transaction. He
fro°e''ethd entirely upon public grounds, "141 acted
m Motives of d
'itililie divv. He con'ujed by
F
„I°.vil-1 " Illat there he laid before the House Co-
ieB of such parts of the records entered upon the
i"la"(1 nnais of the High cowl of Justiciary in Scot-
-1:.e1, as container! the ituticitnent, evidence, ver-
t, 'am! juOgnient of the Court, in the proceed-
.',g' on the trial of Archibald M`EibiaY, on the
1 tli day of Jelv, 1817 ''
SCOTLAND
;li ll'e L°RD ADVoCATF: of said, that
I\vould begin by endeavouring to set himself
l'i,,.‘vi,t!' the 'louse as to the chat ge madei
tog",`,-- nim of having in the last Session wane
Liii te Rouse an exaggerated statement of t•{ e
iia„ii" °1 Scotland. The statement which he
v 41.41 e was in effect, that in a certain part of
ecnth
loin
itnd an oath had hecn administered to many
get!: r"l"rsons, by which they %vere board t(.,-
014 er
~„,t° effect treasonable objects. It was
eveirieett against him that. such a statement was,
feeial;airh4ilte:lire:ei,init:stienetcoessat y and uncalled for. .
judge of the justice (-1! this
*hl eh 1,1" woold refer to the occasion on
Sion e '''e statetnent was made. The ove-
see was the debate upon the Report of the
itt nrre,,,t. ,Cwhinit Ice of the House. In that
itt''-'" ti,e state o, ckotlatid was expressly illud-
v
- If)'
4°l
Atiti Gla,gove -Was particularly mentioned.
ll'ie
aCt It "'as objected that the statement was
lieh—''', ,or ? si, t.r from
this. he felt that if
It:13 ""litted to-state what so materially set vet!
th,,".'''ioi the H„,,e with .to 6111),w:int fact rela
,itt..
1,4 '0 ilie 5it,,,,,i" of the. country, he would.
e heen guilty
.01 a gross breach of duty- So
-,
th fin that charge agdoist hint. ;In the piocettling,s in the • Widi respect
case of Nl`Kinlay, al-
ei'll'igit he would enter fully into all the material
rellrliStanCeS, yet he would not trouble the.
-4043
~ . .
icts in
that: e with the details of all the evidet .
for ark The charge against M`Kinlay was
i r.
agliiiiisteliOg an unlawful oath
5414 at secret meetings ; the issue of the trial ',Vas
to several per-
secret
of not proven He spoke in the hearing'
tievOtal Him. aml Learned Gentlemen on the
-..';)..,it1e of the House who were conversant
tilt 111:(: lavvs !If Scotland, and knew the distittc-
m• wpich those laws made between a verdict of
47at t, •
:4 li,„•61.11"1-1Y and a verdict of not proven. The dis-
' ste ii il as this—that where the evidence wass
t•,:)-g enuueli to satisfy the Jury that there wa
j-Plis der • that there guilt on- the part of
th„ . tett, toeee was
br(ial.:rwler ; hut. such as was not sutficiieointly
t 4 't bogie to him to roars o a .convict
vklAct was not iroveu On Cie oilier hand,
11•11eri. it
dill "01 aptinar from the evidence that
tete v.,4_•
lung criini-
rtal
(s " corpus delicti, and where nut
,e.t.aied,
11,, 'inteotit in which the piisont r was on.o! ,
~ ver(fict ye • by the %Vr-
tlitt ity ..i. a, not guilty. Therefore,,.. „too o
tile 0,01 'vu li.mhiv's case, the admin,s r. , .
aJ ,i,-, t, I;"*,a Pri,ved , hot not proved salico•ufly
not',l- —`iiiky: At least, therefore, I toruitd
IL ' '-a' the oath whirl) he last year rea- '0 i .I.e
,1"1""? "t'ads,j'n impositio,,, but bad really been ad-
it I,is'ti..." 'l' the Aviv, which he had then thought,
the c':•-"Y tn
state lA, to the principal part of
rho Icodirnge Prel'erred by the Noble Lord—tia.).eltyh,
tvit„„ nimiic:Ation of the Lord Advocate wi
rt.or,l i";'' he begged testate the reasons "by 'l`e,
Lis ‘i
'l,':n e," of se„, 1, od was, by the nature or
8 ' ( "ti—':Plleed in a till' rent si nation, %% it') re-
tpect to wroesses, tr,-,ni that in tviucti the Actor-
i7-6:
"I'3,i° Eughthe stood. That difference of
troliation, lie then
,11 11 the circumstance of
proceeded to stare, arose
sl,l"P4rme Government, without any resident
Scotland being under
• 111"ist"tion ; and consequently the ditties
11; the Lea
interne --•" Advocate involved an attention
14 the I
11111tyto „t:itssl4pl,,:tioefet.heTecLnti,riy, and a super-
d Advocate was
olni"sr d•ulv.applieit to by Magistrates for advice
ilie
stibje'es relative t„ t,,, preservation of the pub-
,ePeace ;and the person
to
st.hnst, rs look for informatimi on
whom his Majesty's
the internal
„I'lle Nett Scotland is the King's Advocate. lu this
,;sect then there was a great distinction between
~,._ e .
thosebutes of the Lord Advocate as compared with
t, of the Attorhey-General. lit short, the
.. Me's Advocate in Scotland should take every
an:
, 4sure relative to the state of Scotland which it
.Y 4,,,
, " competent for the Secretary of State to take
ail D
t L'ingLiod—,thich if the Attorney• General were
tn(10 he tvould be usurping the powers of the Se-
)'ary of State.—(llear, hear, hear !)--With
ililit'et to the iosiiturioti of criminal prosecutions
(4._"':Cotlantl, the Lord Advocate was in fact the
ii `"I'l Jury of ,hat country. Proceedings there
41 l'itnitial cases wet e commenced by what is called
LI recognition, a process (as we undertood the
,Na ltd Lot (I) taken before the Sheriff, .his De-
vin.
ki..', or the Procurator-Fiscal. Vt'han a precog-
-1::"h waS takeo, it Was transmitted tirectlyto the
tile rd Advocate, wh w o as to pass his opinion on
•
tin propriety of the proceedings under it ; arid it
11111 examinin it he saw that the witnesses.
tiQh`' 40t been properly examined, or that the
lt,et'ssary witnesses . had hot been examined,
.1i:, was to direct that the proceedings should
I,' amended or renewed. These were part vt the
tits of the Lord Advocate. The object of what
.111',Ioulll done in the present instance was his eXa-
4lg Witnesses under confinement. 'That such
Ilitoceeding was inslifiible he would prove from
44°,1 precedents in good times. In 1738, under
s:",1 President Forbes (and there was a similar in-
!itict, under the Lord President Dundas), con-
ii'leittotis took place on confessions taken in a
olic Jail by the Lord Advocate and the other
m‘v Officers. This showed that at least there
tits limiting unusual in sending Gentlemen to
rise the examination
'kath of witnesses, provided that
ihatl WaS
(!leer no' improperly conducted.--
~ hear, hear, from the Opposition.)—The
14°1.1 Advocate hurl a peculiar interest in attend-
ing to tl, •
:1
they
WeerleMiCordings on the pre-cognitions, for
properly conducted he was liable
;:l.:71 Pi.r..l.lc•eesei:iei
le, b;IIn ((ar
lt till a
y el ;
tu
i°,,l.;ist;eotion• It %VIA'S settled in the tirne of the
that
at if the Lord Adyo-
prosecution on ini-
tliu,ki 13r°""(1s, ant! wit proper evidence, lie
e personally liable for any injury suffered

by the person subjected to the prosecution. With
respect to wbat hail been bone in rite present
casi,., be would not separate-his own ,tots or re-
sponsibility from those of Mr. Home Drummond.
That Gentleman, who filled` the office which
he held with such distinguished ability, had,
in the case of Campbell, been obliged to
perform a very irksome duty in collect-
ing information from that person—a duty
which 'be (the Lord Advocate) regretted to be
obliged to depute or assign to any individual
but still it was a ditty which could not have been
omitted. The prisoners were apprehended at
Glasgow, On the opinion of several most respect-
ahk persons at Glasgow. One and all of the per-
sons so apprehended, gave the information on
which the indictment against M`Kinlay had been
laid; and for having broudit him to trial on such
grounds, he (the Lord Advocate) was re•l)onsi-
Irk before the Court. All the persons arrested
referred to Campbell as the man who could give
most important information. lo order to obtain
that lamination on which the necessary mea-
sines for the preservation of the public peace
must he founded, be immediately felt it hig duty
to direct Mr. Drummond to go to the Castle, and
ascertain from Campbell whether he woad be in-

ihiced to give the important information in consi-
deration of a promise of pardon. Mien this was
done, there was no idea whatever of using Camp-
bell as a witness--(Hear, hear !)-11r Drum-

mond had no authority to offer to Campbell any
situation ‘ihatever, with the view of inducing him
to give information ; and he was authorked to
deny that Mr. Drummond ever made any such offer.
In stating Mi Drummond's account of k vbat pass-
ed between biro and Campbell, he was aware that
it was opposing the statement of Mr. Drummond,
not upon oath, to that of Campbell !pun
Oath ; but he was willing that it should rest on

• the statement of Mr'. DroMmond against the oath
of Campbell. As to the deposition read by the
Noble Lord whose motion was before the House,
it Was plain that Campbell had made it to disqua-
lify himselffronfappearing as a witness. Camp-
bell bad a plain interest in this disqualification,
for hereby, Ist, it might tend to the acquittal of
M`Kinlay ; 2tl, it would prevent any of that dan-
ger with which at one time he said his life was
threatened. The great charge was that he should
have possessed himself of what was likely to he
the sum of Campbell's evidence. If to do so were ,
a crime, he would ask an Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman opposite to say whether he, and two of
his friends, were riot acquainted with the evi-
dence which was to be given by Campbell.
(Hear; hear, hear!)—He held in his hand A state-
ment of the proceedings on the trial which proved
this, in which Mr. Jeffery., the Counsel for the
prisouer, said he would be able step by sit p to
corroborate the w hale evidence of Campbell.,
Now lie would wish the Hon. and Learned Gen.
tkinan opposite to say,' hether he and his friends
had not icwarfied Campbell for urrnishing them
with that evidence ?—(The.Learned Lord parised
some time fora r, ply—lone was made.)—Camp-
bell, ' hen asked for int rination, said that be
dared ;lot give it, because if he did his life would
he e•qhing-cy ed. On this a sate passage to the •
contiueui a as offered to bin, to secure his life
kl!,-tillbt the danger of 4:lying information, and this ,
oti. r was no sooner made theen he said,t hat if it were
, tulalit-I, he would not only give information, but ,
evidence upon the trial. Previous to making this
offcr lie haul consulted whli the Law Officers of
Hie Crown no the propriety of making it ; and ,
they were unanimously of ()pillion that it was their
duty to protect Campbell agauist the danger of
givmg information on evidence, and to protect
him in that Way which be thought would be most
available'. The prisoner soon after expressed
much apprehension on account of his wife, who
was then near her time of confinement, and rtt-
plied for sonic money to relieve her. This, and
every other application for money, was positively •
refused ; but that which humanity dictated was
done, .and the prisoners -wife was ordered to be
conveyed to,Editibutgli, and this was done open-
ly, for the Magistrates of Glasgow were directed
to take a place for her in a stage coach. With
respect to the promises made to Campbell, whe-
tiler they were legal or not, they were made on a
principle of strict' duty. If he had thoneht them
illegal, the very last thing which he would have
done would have been to send for Sir %V Rae,
and to have made the promises in his presence,
when they might have been made with the ut-
most secrecy, and so as never to rise up in judg-
ment against him.- %Viten the thing could have
been done secretly, is it conceivable that if there
was any notion of illegality in the proceeding,' he.
should have chosen that it should take place in
a way to place it on the tecords of the Court ?
(The Learned Lord then read from a report of
the trial an account of what took place before the
Sheriff, Sir %Villiatn Rae.) It appeared that the.
Sheriff burned the first deposition. This skews
that the Sheriff, at least, did not think the offer of
protection illegal, for if he did, the very last act
which be ought to have done was to burn the de-
position. Two promises of protection were mane to
Campbell, the one to give him the means of going
to the Continent, the othe to give him the
means of going to some of the Colonies. LI the
first deposition, the first promise was made. If it
was illegal, the second was equallpo ; mid the de-
position taken under the second promise and re-
cortled, was as illegal as that taken tinder the first,
which was destroyed. So much for the facts.—.
Now fur the point of law. The Noble Lord truly
stated, that when the initiatory question was put
to the witness—" Do you bear any malice to the
pris9ner ?" if the answer was in the affirmative;
the Court would proceed to inquire what was the
nature of the malice, and whether it was such as
would affect the evidence of the witness. The
case was the same with the second initiatory ques-
tion, •'• have you been told what to say ?" The
third question was, " has any reward been offered
to you for bearing testimony in this case ?" And
if the answer was in the affirmative, then it was
to be ascertained whether the nature of the re-
tard was such as to affect the testimony of the
witness. In the present case, the question arose
on this 3d poinr. If the principle contended for
on the. other side were true, no socius criniinis
could even be admitted as a .witness. And yet no-
thing was more cleat ly established than that the
evidence of socius dimznis, Woo came forward as a .]

withese under a gift of pariloni was good evi-
dence. He referred to a passage in the Treatise
of Burnet, p. 416, and to the case of. Home v.
Bth'December, 179 w, in which it was de-
cided, that " a promise of a certain reward to
witness, if would speak out, does not amount
to a disqualification of the witness." The N shle
Lord had been completely misinformed as to the
Law of Scotland on this s,,bject; In Lord Mel-
ville's trial .1 question arose on the admissibility of
the testimony of Mr. Trotter, on the ground of its
being given under promise of reward, and the opi-
nion of the twelve Judges was taken upon it. The
third part of that opinion dis!inctly stated that no
promise of reward for sneaking " the full truth,"
amounted to a disqualification of a witness. 'fhis
was not merely the Law of Scotland, it was one
of the great principles of the Constitutional 1.44 W
of the Country. But the Noble Lord 'contended
that the prosecutor ought not to evirnine before
hand any witness at all. He would disprove this
by an tinexceptiotiable authority—no less than
the authority of this House in the case of Lord
Melville, where Mr. Trotter was called before
the Committee of Managera, and 'questioned
touching the evidence which he was likely to give
on the trial. These were authorities which he
hoped the House wool:I think amply justified •his
conduct in the case of Campbell, and which more
that, justified it, by pointing out to him that con-
duct as his duty. One part of the deposition of
Campbell was read by the Noble Lord in a very
low tone. It was a very important part, and
therefore he would now read it with the leave of
the House. It was the caneluding part of it. in
which it was expressly stated, that " nothing had
been said to him to instruct hies in the evidence
which he should give im the trial." On the whole,
therefore, he trusted that he had made out to the
satisfaction of the Hinise, that the private exami-
nation was no objection to the wiiness ; and if no
objection to the witness, that there was tin ille-
gality on the port of those who advised or con-
ducted. that examination. The Learned Lord then
referred to the declaration MAC by. Campb,-11,
" that he had been treated by all the Counsel for
the Crown, but especially by the Lord Advocate,
with the utmost kindness and li.swriiiity." The
Noble Lord (Archibald Hamilton) had stated that
the object was to keep. the private exatninat ion
secret. Seem! ! 1.17 as the lakine of the deposition be-
fore fir Win. Rae, the She' iff, like a wish to keep it
secret ? On the contrary, did it not manifest an inten-
tion to give it publicity was the sole object of having
it before the Sheriff, because he ft It that by doing
'it so, and by having the whole entered upon the
Records in the Crown Office, lie permanently
fixed the responsibility of the whole transaction
upon himself, in order that if there was blame it
might be attached to the proper. person. It- had
been said too, that Campbell was brought forward
by hint for the purpose of hanging MtKinlay
The disproof of this was in the circumstance that,
Campbell was not called upon as' ••ir wit-
ness
until that stage of the trial when 111(Kin-.
lay was out of jeopardy. On the wirole,
therefore, he thought no ground was made
out for the present motion. 'ln. -addition to
all other reasons against it, by bringing the ques-
tion before Parliament; the -relief' to .Whicte rise
person- professing to be aggrieved was entiOed
before a Court of Justice was interfered. with.:
He therefore trusters that the House would now
follow the precedent etruablisited in its decision in
1794, on the motion to produce the Records of the
Trial of Palmer and wirers, where, although above
twenty objections to the trial were made, the
House decided that the records•should pot be pro-
duced.

Mr. J. P. GRANT-Said, that having bcen.prest nt
during the trial, and having had:a good deal of
information from others .on this subjct„notiiing.
would give him .more pleasure than 40 .find that
the Learned,Lord,..might be able to do a ..a.e;t
effects which. had ,been produced by CatopbelPs
testimony,- -This was not a question of a. personal
nature; it was a grave charge brottgrt against a pub-
lic officer, in Which the whole contit'ry wasinterest-
ed ; and it involved in it :4.qnestion of the most vital
interest to the public at large. He must now deliver
his opinion respecting the conduct - of GentlemeO.
who belonged to the same profession with himself,
and whose character he hall at all times respected
and it was naturally to be supposed, that he must
feel great uneasiness in stating his •-opinion of
them. He should enter into a short history.ot the
conduct. of the Law Officers of the Crown to.,
wards the person .Who bad been selected by them-
selves as a witness, for the purpose of convicting
a prisoner. The charge against these Gentletnen
was twofold; first, it was; imputed to the Law
Officers that they had tampered with a witness,
in order to influence the testimony which he Was
to give on the trial of a prisoner; and in the
next place, that the witness•had been told a ques-
tion was to be put to him, which he must answer
in the negative. Aod yet they knew that it the
witness did answer the question in the negative,,
he should pet:jure hithself. These accusations
stood .on record ; and were uncortradieted, ex-
cept by the Learned Lord himself.. Whether, the
accusation was true or false, it was-the duty of the:
House to
.enter into an enquiry upon it. He should
ask the • Attorney-General if ever he knew of a
case where perjury could have been more clearly
made out.: If Campbell had given a false tes—
timony—if he had, sworn falsely, why did not
the Lord Advocate, who wos himself the Grand
Jury of Scotland, institute a prosecution against
hint ? He had nothing to do but prosecute that
man for perjury, and it be succeeded in the prose-
cution, he would have secured the profession to.
which he belonged from, a:great share of obloquy,
which had heen thrown upon it. He should now
state some parts which would enable the house to
torm a judgment of the case before it. Here Mr.
Grant read from a printed report of the trial, the
deposition of the witness, Campbell, with a view
of shearing the efforts made to influence the testi-
mony of that person. He had stated on his oath,
that Mr. Drummond and the Procurator • Fiscal
had-come and tampered with hint, that when he
was removed to Edinburgh he was again called upon
to be a witness against M'Kinlay; he v.-b.:told his
name was in the list of witnesses, and that he must
appearon the trial. The witness then said he

could not give his evidence ; and could nor go
back to Glasgow, if he did give any evidence.
Mr. Drummond then said he would send hint away

• •

to a 'place orsafely ; or that he would write to
Lord Sidniooth to get Linn a.place in the Excise.
To this he-replied that he did not like to be an
exciseman. After this Air. Drummond came back
and asked Campbell what he would have. The
witness remained silent, and made no answer
that question. Mr. Drummond Own told him 111,:t
if he should give such intorina:ion as would
please the Lord Advocate, he should neither he
flied himself, nor made a witness. All this t‘e.s
done by Mr. Drummond, who thus gave the man
to understand, that if be did not comply with what
was requir,il of him, he should tie stied for his
life It was impossible to conceive a greater per-
version of justice than this, provided the roan's
statements were true; and it they .vere not true,
wily were they not 'contradicted ? Why was not
the man prosecuted for perjury ? Campbell aftt-
wards sald be could not be a witness on the trial,
unless he a passport to go to the Continent,
together with the means of taking him over.—
Prussia was die place lie wished to go to: his rea-
son for wishing to go there was, because a man
of his trade could! have got large wages Hi, Putts-
sia Afterwards he said the gaoler gave hittra.
pair of shoes by order of Mr. DruMinond; and to -•
his demand for itioiley, the answer was, tout none
could be given him until the first trial was over,
If this matt spoke falsehoods, why was he not in-
dieti:d for perjary ? The Learned Lord achnotr.
ledged that papers had been destroyed, and he
woidd inter that they .wert! destroyed -hee:hise
every thing courained in them was not fit to see

the light.:—(Lauginer.)—The man did oor say
that his life %TH.:in datigt.T ; h,ht C.,41 he did not
wish to go • hack to Glas!.!rivr. The subject of
accusariou rigaiwo the Lord Advocate Was ,1113,
th:lt his ,deputy, Mr. Drummond, had hi. hi out
promises of reward .to the witness f.,r the
tvs•ituoily he should give. He tiliteue..! trout
the Le.irneo Lord s .to the iaw. h, 1t:ot laid

,own ~n tht poitit ►i►e ho(,k tploakd

was nor considered as a book of auttioritt:. It
was :tot the law tit' Seotland,.that a mail could 'be
examined as a witness %Olt, ree,iven 3;;), re-
wards ; and here Mr. e. quoted the ()pinto.+ of
five eminent lawyers in Seto fano, who laid‘ithoots
as their opinion, that any witness who received
rewards or promises for evidence was ;
among these lawyers were Mr. Cranston, Mr.
Moncrief, anti Mr. Rutherford. Those gentie-
men also stated that Burnett• was bad authority.
Now the Crown lawyers of Scotland either put
this man in the liX, knowing that lie could no;
be a witness, or they knew that he must be in,
strumental in convicting the accused party. The
trial went on, •and the Learned Lord drop•
ped the prosecution, because the l'eitticss on
whom he replied .would not stipport his case.
Here Mr. G. quoted the case: of • two persons
who bad been indicted for subornation of perjury
in the Trial of Titus Oats. In that case Mr.
Polixon, the Counsel, insisted that he had a right
to give protection and encouragement.to his wit-
ness ; on which occasion •old-Serjeant Maynard,
who conducted the prosecution,obse ived You
find out. abetter way than the devil himselfrould
-do, tortphold subornation of prrj try ;" and in this
sentiment of the Learned Serjeaot the Judges
fully coincided. - If such tampering with witnesses
as appeared to have taken place in the, p:-esein
stance were there .was. not--a pettifogger
it; the kingdom who would not be •eudeavoming
to pervert the ends of public justice; and if the
House did not enter into this investigation, it
uvonld do the greatest disservice to the -country,
and public.justice would be trifird with.
Mt. COLQUHOUN- contended that no charges
were eeer noire unfounded than those included in
the preSent motion. Many of the, deposit:ions-of
Catnpbell were falsified by their absurdity; for
was it to he believed ',that Mr. Drummond, ?titer .
promblng to send the man out of the 'Cour try on
account of his danger, woldil, at the same moment,
offer to procure hint a situation in the Excise ?
This was inconsistent on the very face of tt, and
bore internal evidence •of its falsehood. Witls
a few scraps of •truth the-. man had Mixed up
a multitude- offalsehoods. He denied that it was
a reward- to scan a man out of. the country at
the noblie expence, when .his -personal safety
required it ; therefore the Crown Low yers of
Scotland were justified by law• in promising to
send the—man away. How could it be a reward
to banish a.man from his .native country and
was it not - proper for the• prosecutors to avail
themselves of his •testimony on such. condition ?
The Learned-Lord had a fair right to get at the
testimOny of Campbell- in. the way he did. The
witness's testimony will not rejected on the
ground of its being illegal ; but the prosecution
tailed because . some other witnesses, who had
been expected, did not come forward.
Mr. C. W. WyNt.l conceived thakthe question
lay tvb bin a very narrow compass.. • -There were
many - 'balances of witnesses on trials having
tnrne.sl round and given evidence directly contrary
to their former statements. Such an instance oc-
curred in 1-621; when several. Gentlemen were
tried,for High Treason, in Lancashire. The wit-
ness against them -turned round in that way, and
the prosecutions fell to the ground.:: After-this
the House of Commons toolt'up the subject, and
declared its opinion that there was • nothing im-
proper in the-conduct of the .proiecuting parties.
In the present case the House was justifien in
instituting an enquiry. There was no compai ison
between this case and that of. Mr. Muir : for in

the latter case the House was called on to review

a proceeding in a Court of justice ; but in the pre-
sent instance-the question was, if,. when a serious
complaint )vas-made against the conduct of a public
servant, the House of Commons was not bound to

take cognizance ot, and make an enquiry into
his conduct. lic shoulu therefore support the

motion.

Lord CASTLEREAGH wished to trouble the
House with only a very few observations. He did
not think tiny thing had transpired that ought to
induce the House to enter into any proceedings on
the subject; He could not see on what giound
they could with propriety call for the record. Did
they wish to look into it to see it the Officer of

the Crown had been authorised in his proceed-
ings ) He apprehended there could be nothing
it to show that he had not been justified in in-
stituting this prosecution. This was established
by the proceedings on the. Bench and indeed the
whole course of the proceedings went to es-

tallish the Tact :?tat a conspiracy 'Of an'
•ext ceded nertue did exist in the neiehbour-
,hood of Glasgow, where persons %vete hound
loge-thee by sect et oaths. Thecetore, unless
the poi-fine was either to punish Campbell
'for perj,•ty, or to prosecute ti:e Lord Advocate
for the important steps ate had taken, mete could
he tto r, whatever for calling for the record.
His evideue:! had been considered by the Court
-absolutely so ineredinle that it could not be en-
tertained in any Courr, of law whatever —(hear,
hear !)—And hecatFe this man's evidence was
considered tot,lly on‘eor!iiy of credence in a
Court of justice, was it to be deemed worthy of
•cred t in Parliament, and made use of there be-
cause it could be used no where else ?—(Hear,
bear !)—Then, if Campbell's evidence is not to be
-believed, what evidence did the 14011.11e/0w
think the record would furnish ? He apprehend-
ed that the only point that could be brought
against him was that tvbich admio,tl of no evi-
dence in the proof—the conversation between him
bud the officer when no o-her person was present,
(Cries of no, no,)—therefore, the question of
perjury was only the imputing of an offence which
was placed beyond the reach of a tribunal below.
To suppose that the Lord Advocate was making
any offer not fully justified by morality and law,
was absurd ; for so far front concealment, there
was nothing in the tzansaction but what was the
very reverse. The Noble Lord proceeded to argue
that no inference contrary to this was to be
drawn from the observations of Sibbald or Sit W.
Rae, as the former would be no evidence
against Campbell, and though the latter bed
thought proper to destroy this paper, _ he
avowed they went with full authority to make the
offer of protection. 1-low could the House ex 3..
mine Campbell ? Would they have the vitiated
testimony of such 'a man,• in order to put Mr.
Drummond on his trial,—to perjuie him on his
own examination against the evidence of such a
chat acter. lie apprehended this was a proceeding
that Pirliament never woeld sanction under any
circumstances. But this was a conspiracy against
the Advocate, amid against his own truth ; .and he
evaT, sure, if he believed Campbell's evidence went
to attach subornation of petp the Noble Lord
would not be a party to such a prosecution. But
from the course that Campbell pursued, be thought
there was an evident consph acy between hint and
those that carried the tobacco, not only to defeat
the Officers of the Crown, but the ends of justice.
It the House lent themselves to this sort of trick,
--and it was too much the fashion to get up cases
of this eature—(Hear, hear !)—he must contend
that the.testimony of indivithials would soon not
be considered credible on their oaths. Ott the
whole, therefore, this was not a case that the
House coald feel themselves called upon to in-
quire into, and he trusted that they-would concur
in opinion, that there was no reasonable motive
for the motion.

Sir S. KOMILLY, after the nnartswerable speech
of Lis Hon. and•prarned Friend, would tint have
troubled the House with any observations but
for some things which had been stated by the
Noble Lord who had - just sat down ; and •he
could not help saying, that his Noble Friend
would not have called ior-the record •uulets he had
intended to institute some proceeding upon it.—
It had been asked, what injury had sus-
tained•frem Campbell,- when -his testimony was
rejected as a witness- ?:'•But let it .be recollected,
ti,at the last words of one of she Learned Judges
upon the Bench was, that 'hit was a' matter that
ought to be brought- forward for further iu-
artsti,,aatiorr. He- would refer• to. the statement
of Mr. Jeffrey;, who was the. Counsel -for
M`Kinlay, nay, he wtiwld call upOn Sir -Wm.•Rae
himself to state, whether Lord Gillies had not
concurred in the inadmissibility and incredibility
.Of the evidence. Lord Hermand had also stated,
that he did not believe it ; but the noose was to
be led to the belief, that the Court did not object
to the evidence because it was incredible, or on
account of the misconduct of the party, but be-
cause he had been tampered with. The offer of au
exciseman's place had been ridiculed, because it
wa3 to he inferred from Campbell's statement of
his dread of living in a manufacturing town, that
he could never have accepted such an appoint-
ment ; but was there no instance of a Scotch-
man being an. exciseman in Cornwall ? The
witness is brought out with the alternative of
death or a better situation, and upon such a state-
ment would the House refuse to inquire I The
Learned Lord had said, will you call upon Mr.
Dri:mmond to answer ? But be would call upon
any man, upon the Lord Advocate himself to an-
swer, as all men welt bound to make a defence to
sucir a charge —a great injury would be done to
the individuals themselves, if an opportunity should
not be afforded them to remove the cloud that then
hung over them.
The Louts ADVOCATIS Of SCOTLAND, ill explana-
tion, said be bad declared in express terms, that
Mr. Drummond had not promised Campbell that •
he should be made an exciseman. He bad also
denied that money had been given to him, or pro-
.nrised to be given, till after the trial.
Sir S. KOMILLY bad not said, that it was not
denied that Mr. Driumnond hall promised the
witness the place of an exciseman, but that it was
not denied that he bad authorised some other
p !rson to do so.
The LORD AnVoCATE of SCOTLAND said he had
expressly denied that this bad been done.
Mr. J. P. WANT understood that in his ab-
sence he had been represented to have concur red
in a compliment which had been reported to have
beeo paid by Mr. Jeffery to the Law Officers of
the Cm tvn. He denied that he had done so, and
lie had the authority of Mr. Jeffery himself for
saying that what had. fallen front hint had been in-
correctly teported.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD contended it was iii Vain
to mustier the present•motion as any thing but a
censure on ;boar who had otiginated the late
proceedings, and nothing that be had heard had
proVed to hit!) tit at such a vote ought to be come
to by the 11i;use. lie showed tha: it had not been
possibie to prosecute Campbell for perjury, and
proved from the speeches of Lord Gillies and Lord
Hermand on the Bench (which lie red) that they
bad held iliAt the witness was not solely disqn:ili
-
fied by what had passed between him and those
who had been said to have diAptalified him, but
that whether he spoke ttuth or.filsclicod on that

THE SUN.

SOLCSI QUIS DKERE PALSUM AUDNAT

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 181 S.

We received last night the Park Papers of Sa-
turday last : those of Sunday, which were due
this morning, have not come to hand. We have
only room for a very short notice of their con-
tents, which are, however,- of little importance.
Two Suppletoe,ts to the Monileur contain three
long Reports from the Minister of the Interior to
the King, respecting the purchase of foreigu
Grain in 1815 and 1817, to relieve the ressure of
Scarcity in France ; the measures adopted for the
relief of the Poor; and the means resorted to for

rfie -,•,mpoNe of ketpir.g Ekwn tier ',lire of greati
in Paris.

The King I:ehl.a Council of Ministeis Ftiday,
which sat from one Welock till half,past four.
The Committee on the Budget also assembled on
Friday.
One of the Journals states, that A hi w is in eon-
tetnplation at Frankfort for the pui.po3e oftender-
ing; that City in ftiture ao Aiyluni fOr all personi
prosecuted on accoutit,of their political op!niOns,
unless they have committed etimes.

Fl' 'E PER CENTS.

Friday

F.

The senseless rumours of expected Changes in
Administtation ate still curi•eut, but, we believe;
without the least foundation.

IVe hear with roach regret that the Princess
SOPHIA is in a state of great indisposition.

If ever there was it clear case of self-defence
made out in a milliner that must be satisfactory to
all unprejudiced minds, such a case was made out
last night in the house of Commons by the LORD
ADVOCATE Of SCOTLAND. It is astonishing that
Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON amid Mr. J. P.
GRANT could possibly suppose that they had
convincing evidence against the LORD ADVO-
CATE, and they displayed an easiness of be-
lief that cannot be considered as creditable to
their understandings, however 'we may rely on
the purity of their motives. It appears that they
gave credit to every thing said by CAMPBELL,
who had been concerned in, seditious practices,
and whose interest, and, according to his own
statement, whose safety required that he should
disqoality himself as a witness. It ap-
pears too, that they believed this feflow in
all the charges of tampering which he brought
against Mr. 110348 DRUMMoND, a Gentleman of
high talents and unimpeachable integrity. ' i fir.
J. P. GRANT himself sail, that " k was true
that on one was present during this conversation
(involving the tampering)- hut the Parties them-
selves. so that it rested upon the evidence of
CAMPBELL." And yet Mr. J. I'. GRANT prefers
tile assertions of soch a fellow, as this, who, as
we, before observed, had an interest m disqualifying
himself as a witness against Mr. Home Deuet-
mcren, a Gentleman universally respected. Be-
si:!es, it is stated that when the Procurator-
Fiscal, Mr. DnumeloND„ssked S.;AMPBELL. if he
cons:detect his liSe in danger " he, CAMPBELL, did
riot say that he dirt, but he admitted that Mr.DRUM.
IVIOND having taken it in his mind that his
(CAMPBELL'S) life was in danger,. he permitted
the supposition to go uncontrit,licted7 Yet this
artful, shufflieg feilow is ro he believed on his
own word, though none but the two individuals
were present, and CAMPBELL had an eventual in-
terest in asserting a falsehood !—But as three
or four hundred omen were interested in get-
ting CAeretteee &qualified as a witness against
M`litteeAv, why may it not be inferred that they
contrived means to bribe or terrify hiers itei a the ac-
complishment of that purpose, as they themselves
might, front circumstances arising from the Trial,
have been brought into equal clanger Upon
the whole, there seems to have been the most
infatuated" credulity on one side, and the most
satisfactory evidence of legal propriety and moral
rectitude on the other, as we doubt not that
our 'leaden will think, after having read the
report of the Debate on which we have founded
our observations.

Sir Jamas SHAW last night gave a very proper
rebuke to Mr. BENNET, who affected to condemn
the City of London, which as he said, " whenever
any ministerial object was to be promoted, was
always ready with its pres-ents, its swords, and its
snuff-boxes." The worthy Baronet seemed to be
animated► with indignant surprize at heating the
City thus taunted on its liberality to those Heroes
who. had essentially contributed to the honour of
their Country, and to the deliverance of Europe.
It is astonishing how far party rage can blind the
intellect and deatlen.t he heart, even to the common
feelings of mankind. We would ask Mr. BL NET
whether the Ci•y of London was " promoting a
ministerial ohket" when they thus liberally testi-
fied their admiration of a Viet.t.moTom, aNcLsos,
an EXMOUTH, titH.l other heroic characters, who
would have been reverf in all ages, and whose
brilliant actions History will proudly record ?
Every generous, every patriotic, every candid
mind, must revolt from such censures, which indi-
cate a lamentable want of taste, as well as of those
feelings which do honour to human nature.

British Tar, Captain Pt RH?, from Sierra Leone,
".eched off Lytnington on the 30th January.--A
letter from that place, received by Messrs. PIRIF.,
NICHOL, DWI Co. this.morning,•mentions that the
bo:!ies of Thomas Atkinson, First 'Mate : John
Patterson, Second ?Nate; ainl Joseph Wi:son,
Cook, have -been found buried in the sands ; a
table cloth, marked " H. G. H.
,No. 15 ;" a fine
chirt„ marked " (iray, NO, 1 ;'' part ot
chemise, in:irked " Clara 11.-;" and the sbp's
Len, have also been picked up,