Star.
London, England, 1822-07-10 00:00:00

:0" t",,7,'

.
A
.

. s.'• •
in_ •

r—
very allegation. But than that action happens to be.
at theinstanceof,ecisssp)cuonsly active political ai
sociate ; and this unprecedented and inquisitoctil
examination was evpected, probably, to supply the,
evidence which might be wanting in the leggpro-
ceedings of your friend.
But it is not merely on such generaittanik That
1 now wish to notice your conduct. I MuWrithe:l
wish to advert to the want of good tsuite—of pro-
priety—of candour, which our attack manifests.—.
You, an English Barrister, exercising those very,
rights which you have so directly attacked, and
called upon (it spay be) to discharge the very same
duties, which others in your profession are bound to
discharge, have made -tbe conduct and motives or
scotch Counsel, in a private and depending case
arising in a. Scotch Court, the subject of abuse and
personal reflection in the British House of Commons.
The members of your own profession in England
will, I am persuaded, unite with the Bar of Scotland
in reprobating the presumption whiCh characterises
so unusual a step, and the violent spirit of party and
of political hostility which it betrays.
Thei e is something, it must be admitted, peen-.
Early becoming and graceful on the part of Gentle-
men of the Bar of England, who may enjoy the op-.
portnnity of public invective in the House of Com-
mons, availing theinselves of that advantage, in order
to arraign the motives—to censure the conduct—and
to question the profesional skill and judgment of
Scotch Counsel, in the management of a private
action, which hitherto has not even advanced so far,
as to be brought ur,der the opinion and consideration
of the Court to which it belongs. But when the
Counsel, who are the object of so unusual an attack,
happen to be young Gentlemen recently called to the
Bar, who e prospects and professional character may
be the more easily injured by the vehement and un-
qualified impeachment of their motives, and the
sweeping condemnation of their prurience and know-1
ledge ; and when the attack, on the other hand, is
made by those who have acquired the standing and
the authority of Seniors, and who are aware that they
influence the opinions of the party in the country with
which they are connected, the generous and high-
minded feeling—the moderation, kindliness, and dig-
nified character, exhibited in such an attack, will, no
doubt, be duly appreciated.
That attack, however, being now public—an at-
tempt having been made to intimidate and stigma-
tize the Counsel who are employed against your poli-
tical friend—and the merits of the action having been
selected as the topic of inflammatory and laboured
Parliamentary invective, the action may now, per-
haps, be resumed, in the hope of deriving aid from
your interference, and as if to furnish a practical il-
lustration of the notions which you entertain, as to
the impartial and fair adminiatuation of justice be-
tween man and man. _

I have now, however, to inform you, that in re-
presenting me as Counsel in that case, and in direct- ,
ing your reflections and insinuation; against me in
that character, you either.bave acted upon most false
information—(if you have received any information
on the subject)—or at least upon most iniufficient and
unwarrantable grounds. I am not, and never twat,
Counsel for Mr. Alexander or the other defendant,
in the action against them at Mr. Stuart's instance.
I drew no papers—l gave no advice or assistance in
that action : and my only knowledge of lb merits or
details, is that which I have been obliged to acquire,
in order to meet your wanton, illiberal, and extraor-
dinary attack.
At the commencement of the action I was applied to,
in the view of being retained as Counsel for the defend-
ants. Understanding that they had the efficient and able
assistance of Mr. Forsyth and Mr. M‘Neill, I stated
that circumstances of a personal nature rendered me
desirous not to be employed or consulted in the case;
and, though not entitled to withhold my professional
assistance in any case of the sort, I begged to be al-
lowed not to act in this particular instance. You are
well aware that, if the party-had insisted upon having
my aid, there was no professional reason which I
could with propriety have assigned, or on which 1
could have been entitled to decline the case. If I
had anticipated the injustice which the defendant was
to suffer from the discussion of his case in Parlia-
ment, or that an attempt was to be made to intimi-
date and deter his Counsel in the discharge of their
duty, most assuredly I would not have allowed any
personal consideration or feeling to prevent me flom
undertaking Mr. Alexander's case,which I now regret
that I declined.

• Of the conduct, management, or particular merits
of the case, I knew nothing until this day. It ap-
pears that the clerk of the defendant's agent, not
being able to find Mr. M'Neill at the time when the
paper in question was about to be lodged, had brought
it to me to sign for Mr. M'Neill. Every one ac-
quainted with the rules and practice of the Scotch
Courts, is perfectly awart. that Advocates are al-
lowed, and are continually in use, to subscribe in this
manner, pleadings for another, as it frequently hap-
pens that the subscription of the lawyer who draws
the paper cannot be obtained before the time, or the
particular hour, at which the paper must be lodged.
Papers are accordingly subscribed every day by one
Counsel for annther—:in the way in which, it appears,
I had subscribed the paper in question-6' For Mr.
D. John Hope,"—not even knowing the
parties in the case. No responsibility for the con-
tents of the paper is inferred or created by such sig-
nature. I state that as matter of universal under-
standing, and of daily practice. Indeed, the mode
in which my name appeared in the paper in question,
must have proved at once, to every person acquainted
with the practice of the Scotch Courts, that I was not
' Counsel in the case.

Mr. Stuart, I understand, was offended at the con-
tents of that paper, and personally applied, some time
'sifter the paper was lodged, to the agent for the other
party, to know if I was Counsel in the case, or whe-
ther I had merely subscribed the paper in the usual
way for another Counsel. Mr. Stuart war informed
that I was not Counsel, arid -that I knew nothing of
the paper.
It appears that those friends of Mr. Stuart, who
superintended the publication of the Report of Mr.
Stuart's Trial, thought fit to publish, without expla-
nation, both' names. appearing at the paper in ques-
tion, lough these names were not read or mentioned at
the trial. That the names" were so printed in this
particular niannet,/or the psi7poie of representing me,
to persons*igfiorent-of Scotch forms, as the Counsel