Star.
London, England, 1823-06-04 00:00:00

'still a ptivtte priNeentei had all the fiiho of A*
Lord Advocate. The Latareed Lord here mined
into a statement of the detiesuf the Advocate Des
putes ; observing that with thstraductof Alexander
he bad nothins to do. The case had come before
Mr. Hope in the course of his 'official duty. The
Magistrates had ordered the papers to be produced,
and the answer of Bothwick had been, that they were
in the bands of his agent. The fact turned out to be,
that they had all, been taken by Mr. Stewart in his car-
riage to Edinburgh. Upon the Procurator Fiscal being
applied to for the recovery of thepapers. he thought
itihis dutylto consult. Mr. Hope. The Learned Lord
then went on to sinew, that Borthwick had broken
open the desks in the office withont any authority,
and had delivered the papers to Mr. Stewart. A
considerable time before the duel of Mr. Stewart
with Sir A. Boswell, Mr. Hope had, given a distinct
qpinion, that the conduct of Borthwick called for the
animadversion of the public prosecutor. BUtthwick
had been liberated, in consequence of a gloss false-•
hood, on a Sunday, it having been stated that he'
was summoned as a witness on a trial on Monday.
At the time the office was broken into, there bad
only been a boy of twelve years old there. The
locks had been picked, and an attempt made to
open the safe. The whole had been previously ar-
ranged by several persons, some of them of the pro-
fession of the law ; and a debt of fifty pounds,.for
which Borthwick was then in jail, had been paid,
that he might get possession of these papers.—
He (thb Lord Advocate) contended, that Alexander
was the sole owner, and that, consequently, the ab-
straction of the papers constitute 4 the crime of theft.
It had been by his own ex press ditiie that Borthwick
had been taken to Edinburgh; and the moment he
left the carriage the handcuffs had been taken off.
He was confident, that the House would agree, that
Mr. Hope had acted from a proper motive; and, as
for himself, he had only to state, that he.had disap-
proved of the prosecution. In his time, there had
been more trials for political crimes than in the time
of any or of all his predecessors, and in every case
the accused had either been convicted, or else had
absconded. Whatever should be the decision of the
House, he had, at least, the consolation to know that he
had acted from the dictates of conscience alone (Hear).

Mr. J. P. GRANT contended that the Learned
Lord had gone far wide from the real question.—
There was no power in the Lord. Advocate of Scot-
land to appoint, and he had no right to appoint, de-,
puties to place any of his Majesty's Scotch subjects
on their trial ; the Lord Advocate was bound to act
as prosecutor in all cases. The Learned Lord was
therefore wrong in speaking of his coadjutors as re-
sponsible with him. The House was bound to inter-
pose between the despotic acts of each Lord Advo.,
cate and the personal liberty of the Scotch people.
The present case was such as required the interposi-'
tion of the House. The Learned Lord was respon-
sible for all that had been done. The practice of
Scotland did nut allow the Lord Advocate to have
such deputies so empowered as the Learned Lord had
contended for the Learned Lord was, therefore, in-
dividually responsible for all the acts of hisoffica. As
soon as the Lord Advocate had. declared that theper-
son ought not to be tried, there was no law for keep-
ing that man in prison. Yet, in the present cae, a
deputy had, against the decision of the Lord Advo-
cate, thought proper to keep the man in prison, and
even to bring the man to trial. If any ether Gentle-
man had seen his responsibility so disregarded by his
deputy, would he have been satisfied to act and to
do nothing ? The House had no alternative but to
visit the punishment on the really responsible agent.
It was futile in the Learned Lord to endeavour to
take a part of the guilt on himself, in order that
both might escape; the House knew nothing of the
deputies of the Learned Lord ; he alone was respon-
sible ; and the House ought to pronounce its decisioe
on him alone.. There was no doubt of the improper
application of the principles of Justice in that case,
by the Law Officers of the Crowe in Scotland.—
Was there one man who had read the evidence, who
would say that there had been a theft committed,
since it was evident that no man could steal froth
himself ? Was a man who committed what could'
not be called a trespass on his own property guilty of
a felony ? Could a man steal from his partner ? A
wife had been once charged in Scotland with having.
stolen from her laubbaod ; but the case was instantly
dismissed by Lord Gilles. 'The present case was more
extraordinary. As soon as the Lord Advocate had
become acquainted what the whole affair, had be
given his decision that Borthwick ought to be conti-
nued in prison without blowing the whole of his
ease ? There was nobody who could credit the charge
of the felony—there was no lawyer in Scotland who
would say that there had been a felony committed.
Was the defence of-the Learned Lord, that there lqd
been a mistake on the part of the Crown Agent, in
supposing Borthwick confined on some other suit, to
be accepted by the House as exculpatory of the gloss
perversion pfjustice—of the flagrant injury which 1
been inflicted on Borthwick? If the Gentlemen
England would not shew by their votes that they felt
some ietirest in the state of Scotland, as its virtual
Representatives, there was great dangerthat the li-
berties of Scotland would be impugned hereafter by
this most fatal precedent. He regretted that he was
' compelled to use strong language towqrds the
Learned Lord ; but he could never sanctiop the con-
dust of the Learned Lord. It was such As deserved
the reprobation of every Member of the House who
valued the date administration of justice, and be
would, therefore, support the motion of his Hon. and
Learned Friend.

Mr. HOME DRUMMOND defended the conduct
of the Lord Advocate, who, he said, had acted regu-
larly in delegating a portion of his power to his De-
puties. It would be utterly impossible for.any Lord
Advocate so read over or inquire into all the precog-
nition which might be sent up to Edinburgh daily.
He denied that there was any irregularity in the pro.
ceedings against Borthwick. If there had. been any,
why was not advantage taken of them at the time,
for this person was not without legal advisers? He
was never without five Lawyers at-his elbow—(A
laugh).—The Hon. Member theu took a review of
the case, and contended that Borthwick, when he
again timit plssession of the premises, carried off pro-
perty that did not belong to him—property belong-
ing to Alexander—property which he had to more
right to take than he would have in this country to
enter the House of Commons, and knock him (Nh.