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

—Borthwick -and a person- named Alexander had
been partners in a Newspaper published. in Glas•
gow,
At a
gtu nhd. esromthete
htiiadge
aof T
sehe Glasgow Sentinel.--,
'
his partner Alexander to determine induced
heiri)a
partnership
him
ner
sahni
account ; and Alexander entered into an engagement
to purchase Borthwick's share of the property, which
he was to pay for by bills payable at a certain time,
and if such bills were not paid on arriving at matu-
rity, then Mr. Borthwick was to have possession
his property again. Alexander, in short, did not keep
his engagements, and Borthwick, the Magistrates Of
Glasgow having decided in his favour, again took
possession of his property. The decision of the Mal
gistrates in Borthw ick's favour was made on the 14th
of February, and he might have proceeded immedi-
ately to have taken possession of bis property,.but he
did not do so. He instructed his agent to give notice
to Alexander, that unless his demand was settled, he
must proceed to take possession of his property again,
under this decree of the Magistrates ; still Alexander
would come to no terms. Borthwick on the Ist of
March resumed his property, and took away the key,
of the desk. Alexander made no complaint of this;
procedure, but went to Hamilton, and procured
Borthwick to be arrested on the 2d of March, and he',
remained so till the 10th of March. He then went to
resume possession with the advice of two attornies..
He went at eight in the morning with the key that
he had taken with him. As the lock could not be
opened he sent for a smith, but in the meantime
found a key that opened the lock. That had taken
place in broad day in the streets of Glasgow, and'
had not the smallest appearance of a theft. He took
away such papers as he thought proper; and, then
made a complaint to the Magistrates of Glasgow that
he had been obstructed in executing their decrees.—
Borthwick was arrested by Alexander on a charge of
theft ; but being brought before the Magistrates of
Glasgow, was immediately discharged, and without
bail. It was clear that Borthwick had not been com-
mitted, and he soon after went to Edinburgh. On
the lith of March all the proceedings had been laid
before Mr. Hope, the Deput Advocate, who had
been apprised of the proceedings at Glasgow. The
Learned Gentleman had either not enquired into the
proceedings, or must have thought that Borthwick
was still a fit subject fur prosecution. If he had not
enquired into the circumstances of the case, it was an
instance of unjustifiable neglect on the part of the
Learned Depute. Mr. Hope had been of opinion that
the case should be further proceeded in, observing,
that should the evidence point to others beside Borth-
wick, then it would be more relevant. The meaning
of this last expression he was unable to comprehend.
On the 29th of March other papers were laid before
Mr. Hope, who observed that Borthwick must not be
allowed to escape, and that he wished the case to be
pressed on as much as possible to be"tried at the Circuit.
On the ht of April more papers were laid before Mr.
Hope. He (Mr. Abercromby) conceived that the Lord
Advocate was the only person who was responsible
to Parliament, as the Advocates Depute were re-
movable at the pleasure of the Learned Lord.—
He was aware that many things had been done by
Mr. Hope in the absence of the Learned Lord ; but it
appeared that all the proceedings of Mr. Hope had
been approved by the Lord Advocate, and against
him he had shaped hisanotion. On the 3d of April
Borthwick had been arrested at Dundee. The cir-
cumstances of that arrest he had stated last Session,
and they all had been verified. On the 4th he had
been committed to the Jail of Edinburgh. Bail was
refused by Mr. Hope; and he was also refused any
communication with his Counsel and Agents till he
had been previously examined. The day of trial was
fixed for the 24th of April, when Mr. Hope deserted
the diet, and offered to allow him to go at large on
bail, which Borthwick declined, and was recom-
mitted. After this the prosecution was conducted by
Alexander alone, and all the previous information
was sent to the Agent of Alexander. He would ask
the Learned Lord if he had ordered Borthwick to
be discharged after be had abandoned the prosecu-
tion ? The fact was, that Borthwick had remained
in prison from the 4th of May till the 4th of June, an
entire month after the prosecution had been abandoned.
On the 25th of May, Borthwick had been served with
notice of trial at the instance of Alexander, on the
same day notice of trial had been served on Mr.
Stewart, for his concern in the unfortunate duel,
which originated from one of the libels inserted in the
Beacon. On the 10th of June Mr. Stewart had been
acquitted, and forty-eight Hours after Borthwick was
discharged. Thus, after a charge of felony had for
months been suspended over the head of this man, hi
had been discharged without trial and without exa-
mination. There was no doubt that the document
that led to the unfortunate duel had come through
the hands of Borthwick, and in the minds of those
who conducted the proceedings in the case of Borth-
wick and Stewart, it appeared that the closest cond
nection was believed to exist between those two cases;
for the moment that Stewart had been acquitted,
Borthwick had been discharged. The case of the
rioters at Dublin shrunk into nothing when compared
with the case of Borthwick. The-Hon. Gentleman
concluded by moving a Resolution, that the conduct
of the Lord Advocate, in the case of W. M. Borth-
wick, had been unjust and oppressive.
The LORD ADVOCATE stated, that he had been
most anxious that all the Papers cot meted with the
case should be laid before the House. The present
case had been before the House last Session, and had
been brought forward in a manner of which he must
always complain; as he had been taken wholly by
surprize. He might have told the House, that be
bad always disapproved of the prcisecution, and that
by his mean it had been ultimately stopped. But
that line of conduct he did not conceive to be ha
nourable—(Hear' hear)—and but for the avowal of
his Honourable Depute, that difference of opinion
should have ever remained a secret for him. Thit
circumstance bethought might have led to a different
line of conduct on the part of the Honourable Mem".
ber ; as it was absurd to accuse two men of a con-
spiracy against the liberty of the subject, whose VW
tirnents had been directly opposite. He must state,
that powers were ascribed to bis office, which never
belonged to it. The Lord Advocate was only the
Public Picisecutor, and was a Juitice of Peace in,
every County of dcotland. Magistrates were in the'
habit of consulting the Lord Advocate;- but were,
in no case, bound to adhere to his opinion. It was
not till the year 1587, that the Lord Advocate
was empowered to act as a public prosecueor, and

-,-

•II

.410