Star.
London, England, 1818-02-11 00:00:00

STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND.

Lord A. HAMILTON, in rising pursuant to his
notice, felt that the subject which he had undertaken
to bring forward, was one of the most important
that had ever come before the House. It was the
more important, as it referred to the conduct of-the
Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland, and the
Court of Justiciary in that country. This very state-
ment might create a double prejudice against his
bringing forward such a subject. It made the ques-
tion appear to he a legal one, which might induce a
belief that it would have been more properly taken
up by a professional man, as merely 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 upon the House to
interfere with the proceedings of Courts of Justice, a
subject, on which the deepest and the best founded
jealousy had always existed : but this he was not
thinking of doing in the remotest manner. He wish-
ed merely to take cognizance of what appeared on
their own records. The case which he should sub-
mit to the House would involve something approach-
ing to subornation to perjury, with the intended ob-
ject of producing an illegal conviction. His motion
should be for a copy of the records of chose pro-
ceedings. He would have little more to submit than
what those records would shew. For how could the
proceedings of a Law Court le better explained than
by its own records ? He should now revert to what
had passed in the House on a former occasion, when
the Advocate stated the population of the
country about Glasgow to be so contaminated, that
300 or 400 individuals were implicated in an oath,
which in an uncalled-for manner he submitted to the
House. He (Lord A. Hamilton) did not deny that
a seditious disposition might have existed, but was
it possible not to believe that the statement of the
Learned Lord had been most extravagant, from what
had since transpired, and from his own conduct ?
If there was a duty which should be performed more
scrupulously than another, it should be, that every
person brought to the tribunal of his country should
have a fair, just, and impartial trial—(Hear, hear.)
—lt was this which, he now complained, the indi-
vidual tried in Scotland had not. In saying this
he disclaimed any concern with euilt or inno-
cence of the person in question. Whether guilty or
innocent, he was equally entitled to a fair trial—
( Hear, hear.)—But the Learned Lord's exaggerated
statement in the House had been most likely to pre-
judice and influence the minds, not only of persons
here, but of those who would serve on the Jury in
Scotland. The system adopted by Government, of
introducipg spies and informers at meetings on all
occasions, had also led to considerable mischief.—
From their past records, he would now state what
the Oihcers of the Crown in Scotland had done, and

acers in . _
not mean to say that either the Learned Lord
or any of his colleagues, had wished to induce the'
committal of perjury. He should now explain one
thing to those who were not accustomed to the man-
gier in which trials were carried on in Scotland. The
pncement of a trial differed widely from the
roceeding in England. It began by what was
Gonad the purgation of witnesses. l'he Court asked
every witness three questions; first—" Have you any
malice or ill-will against the pannel at the bar ?"-
¢ the witness answers yes, the Court has still the
power to consider on what ground he rests his an-
swer, and whether it disqualifies his testimony from
being received. The second question was—" Has
any body taught or instructed you what to say as a
witness r He was not asked whether he had been
taught to speak true or false, but whether he had re-
ceived any instructions at all. If he had, then it
was to be apprehended the Court would, on that
account, set him aside—(Hear, hair, from the Mi-
nisterial side.)—The third'question seas—" Have you
received any reward, or prbmiseof reward, for giv-
ing evidence r It was not said for giving false evi-
dence, but has a reward been promised you for giv-
ing evidence at all ?—( Ikar, Lear.)—lf the witness
could not answer that question, then he would stand
disqualified. He should now proceed to the evi-
dence, as offered in Court, to make out his charge.
When John Campbell was called as a witness, the
Counsel for the Pannel objected to him, on the
ground that they had not been permitted to have
access to him, 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 been
made to the Court, and not to the Lord Advocate.
The Lord Advocate had refused to grant per Mission
because he said he thought it his duty to prevent all
access to the witness on the part of the Pannel for
rear of tampering. The Learned Lord had said so,
when the evidence of that witness, from the moment
he had been in the hands of the officers of the Crown,
exhibited a continued tissue of proofs of the most pal-
pable 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 con-
tinual access to Campbell for the purpose of tamper-
ing with him ? On the third 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."—(Hear.)
On that answer he should ground his present motion,
and it would be for the House to judge of the tam-
pering used, and of the propriety of producing a wit-
ness so tampered with, to convict illegally the pan-
nel at the bar. It was not usual in the trials in Scot-
land to take down the whole of the evidence, but in
this instance it was dune, and principally on account
of Campbell's answer. He should read various pas-
sages from this to the House to prove the correct-
ness of what he had advanced. The Noble Lord
then read several parts of the evidence, to the follow-
ing effect :—After Campbell had been taken and
brougtgaol, he was left alone with Mr. Salmon,
the Procurator Fiscal, who told him—" John, you,
perhaps, did not know that I knew so much of your
affair, and that you took the oath at Lanark."—
Campbell denied having taken the oath, when Mr.
Salmon shewed him some manuscript notes, and said
—" John, I assure you that I have six men who will
swear that you took the oath, and you will be hanged
as sure as yoti are alive." Was that a threat to be
made to a man who was afterwards to be brought
forward as a witness? On another occasion Salmon

said, " It will do you no .good to persist in denying,
but if you follow the other course, it may do you
much good." Campbell asked how ? and was an-
swered by Salmon, that the Lord Advocate was at
Glasgow, and would come under any obligation to
him that he pleased. Campbell was then removed
to Edinburgh, and a new scene opened. A Mr. Home
Drummond came to him, and told him that his name
was in the list of witnesses, and that the time wash
arrived when he must say whether he would be one
or not. Campbell then said that be must change his
name, if he appeared as a witness, and that he could
pot afterwards live at Glasgow. Mr. Drummond
answered—" We have been thinking of a plan to
write to Lord Sidmouth and get you in the Excise."
—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)—And this was said to
a man who was liable to be tried, with six witnesses
ready to swear against him, and who was certain of
being hanged! He was afterwards left alone several
times with Mr. Home Drummond, who asked him
" what he wanted to have r and told him, that " if
he would give such evidence as would please the
Lord Advocate, he should neither be tried nor called
upon as a witness."--(Hear, hear, hear.}—He was not
prepared to say that the whole of this most unfair
proceeding was the work of Mr. Home Drummond
or of the Lord Advocate, but till it was disclaimed
by the Learned Lord,.it must. be considered as his
own. It was possible that the Lord Advocate would
say, all this is true, but Mr. H. Drummond did it,
and tampered with Campbell, without my having
any thing to do with it ; in that case, all he (Lord A.
Hamilton) wanted, was to find the guilty person, and
it would be for the House to ascertain the degree of
his guilt. The next time Mr. Drummond saw Camy-
bell, he told him, " We don't know what to do foe
you ; we all wish to favour you ;" and a few days
after he told him, that that would be the last time he
should be asked. Campbell then enquired if Lord
Sidmouth had been written to? and Mr. Drummond
replied that he had not, as Campbell had been un-
derstood to have refused the offer. The next exami-
nation was in presence of Sir William Rae, the She-
riff of Edinburgh. When the deposition was taken
before this Magistrate, on its being stated under what
circumstances the deposition was made, he refused
to have it signed, on the ground, that if what the
witness stated respecting the offers made to him were
true, the deposition would be a perjury. Thus, if it
had not been for Sir Wm. Rae, who had acted most
conscientiously according to his duty--(Hear, hear,)
—the perjury would have been committed. The
Noble Lord then read various other parts of the Re-
cord, of less interest, as they related chiefly to
the treatment which Campbell received during his
confinement—his having been furnished with shoes

that instead of executing their ditty fiitic, they had by order of Captain Sibbald, the Governor ef
endeavoured to convict the wily person put on his Gaol—his wife being sent fur from Gl;ugv.....
trial, on what he would have little hesitation to call Me made use of the Record, not merely tss the
subornation to perjury. In doing this he meant no
rriry for his statement, but as containing the sv..,
personalities. He only wished to look at the con. statement on which he wished to found his case.
duct of those Offir • • their public character, and recollected, that the Attorney-General, not Ion? •

.
in the course of a debate respecting any into-was!
between the Law Officers of the Crown and whiles";
used this expression, " GOD forbid that I should irk,
fere with any witness." Unfortunately the prewiatas
:reed to shew that this did not seem to be the etk3
pursued by the LAW Officers of the Crown in scolicdi
The system acted on there was that of employing
and tampering with witnesses. If any of thou
denounced an individual, that individual was
arrested—carried to gaol—to a secret gaol_,,ta
Magistrates were prevented from having actek
him. Then the evidences to be produced U 3 tie;;,/
of this individual were tampered with. lle
ask, what was the chance of an individual esca•
who was arrested and brought to trial in this 41
The other great point of his charge was, that the 2
amounted to subornation of perjure. He would
whether, if the result of the trial .had been tia
viction of MlKinlay upon the evidence of Carr. y
thus tutored for the occasion, and if the cc.ini,..4
had been followed up by execution or transpora..„.
and it had then come out what the practices vi
Hume Drummond had been, and how er.:r -
tion had been procured, what could be
the state of the ccountey ? M.Kinlay was p:a
,bar charged with an attempt to overtuni br,j
into contempt the laws and government tit
try. But he would ask, whether [lie v
adopted by those who had put M‘Kiula)
trial were not calculated much more
violently to overture the laws, and bri,:g ir.:
tempt the administration of justice ?--Ohtc,
There was only one other point oil which
trouble the House, and that related to case r,a;;ro
the evidence which he would ask to ha% e irtfc.
His motion would be for a copy of the rect rd
trial; because that was evidence of the Vt_r'
kind as to the facts, and therefore he suppc...d.:
that by rich the Law Officers of the Crew:. t..
land woCd wish to be tried, for it might he
be of their own manufacture. He held it -
deniable that the Lord Advocate really ilk!
call Campbell as a witness upon the :ha]. F...
was a passage in Professor Hume's Treatise
Criminal Law of Scotland, which clearly pn,tedu
to call such a witness was an offence fur
Magistrate was indictable. It was quite clear,
to use tie testimony of S-4:11 a f.itatlS tee -all ft
support a cause by perjury, for before the te:za,
of the man could be received, he must hare
that he was a competent witness, a ttaten.mt
he could not without perjury make upon his
after the offers which were made to hint.
sion, he wished it to be distinctly understoel
what he had said, or in the course of conduct •-
in respect of this matter he felt it his duty to 1.
he was not actuated by any feelings of perk:.-. •
mosity against the Learned Lord, or any of di
most respectable persons whose names were
ted in the u-ansution. He proceeded ectire::. . :
public grounds, and acted from motives of
duty. He concluded by moving, " That there
laid before the House copies of such pans of the .
cords entered upon the journals of the l CO
of Justiciary in Scotland as contained the indictorA
evidence, verdict, and judgment of the Court.
proceedings on the trial of Archibald M'iiinlay
the 19th day of July, 1817."•;--(Hear, heat,
Opposition.)
The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND
that he would begin by endeavouring to set
right with the House as to the charge made
him, of having, in the last Session, made en r•
gerated statement of the situation of Scotlar..'.

statement which he had made was in effect, -
certain part of Scotland an oath had beer. ..:2.:r—
-tered to many hundred persons, by which tilt! -
bound together to effect treasonable objects. n
charged against him, that such a statement vac eve
if true, unnecessary, and uncalled for. To -
the House to judge of the justice of this charge.'
would refer to the occasion on which the 5:.,:.•-
was made. The occasion was the debate upez
Report of the Secret Committee of the /loose.
that Report the state of Scotland was esFressiy
ded to, and Glasgow was particularly mentier
and yet it was objected, that the statement w;.s
called for! So far from this, he felt that if lte
omitted to state what so materially served to fu.
the House with an important fact relative to ire
tuation of the country, he would have been
a gloss breach of duty--(Hear, hear.) So fnua
that charge against him.—With respect to tly
ceedings m the case of M'Kinlay, although he it -
enter fully into all the material circumstances. !e!
would not trouble the House with the details et
the.evidence led in that case. The charge 3il
M'Kinlay was for administering an unlawful e
several persons at secret meetings ; the :'sue of '
trialswai a verdict of sot proven. He spoke
hearing of several Honourable and Learned
men on the other side of the House who were -
sant with the laws of Scotland, and knew the
tion which those laws made between a verdict
'guilty and a verdict of not proven. rle
was this—that where the evidence was strong en,
'to satisfy the Jury that there was corpus de:/ a.
there was guilt en the part of the prisoner, bet s%
was not sufficiently brought home to him to str.
a conviction—the verdict was not prowl,. 0: -•
other hand, where it did nct appear fr,la
deuce that there was corpus dclidi, and 'she"
thing criminal came out in which the prisms.:
implicated, the verdict was not guilt;. 'fherel.7.
the verdict in M.Kinlayia case, the adtr.ir:strr.:
the oath was proved, but not proved
At least, therefore, it turned out, that tic
he last year read to the House was no imps F'
had really been administered in the way
had then thought it his duty to state. As to tieli•-
cipal part of the charge preferred by the N..b.e
namely, the communication of the Lord Abv.
with witnesses, he begged to state the re,'sors..ll:
the Lord Advocate of Scotland was, by
his duties, placed in a different situation 5.:17.
to witnesses, from that in which the Attor::eske!.
rat of England stood. That differes.ce o: s
arose from the circumstance of Scotland.bc
a separate government, without 2ny
nistration; and cougequently the duties o

,sate involved an attention to the internal state
e ountee,
and a superintendence of its • police.
y," Lord" Advocate was almost dilly applied to by
estretes for advice on subjects relative to die-pre-
aeon of the public peace ; and the person to whom
Najesty's Ministers look for information on the
1 state of Scotland, is the King's Advocate.
the respect then there was a great distinction be-
, the duties of the Lord Advocate as compared
lose of the Attorney-General. In short, the
Advocate in Scotland :Weald take every mea-
relative to the state of Scotland which it was
recent for the Secretary of State to take in Eng-
which, if the Attorney General were to do, he
be usurping the Secretary of State's powers.
e respect to the institution of the criminal prose-
• iu Scotland the Lord Advocate was in fact the
Id Jury of that country. Proceedings there in
' cases were commenced by what is called a
; a process taken before the Sheriff, his
eor the Procurator-Fiscal. When a precog-
was taken it was transmitted directly to the
Advocate, who was to pass his opinion ou .the
'ty of the proceedings under it ; and if upon
reining it he saw that the witnesses had not been
ly examined, or that the necessary witnesses
not been examined, he was to direct that the
:dings should be amended or renewed. These
an of the duties of the Lord Advocate. The
p . 4
tCt of what he had done in the present instance
'es examining witnesses under confinement. That,
a proceeding was justifiable he would prove
I good precedents in good times. In 17$8.nne
'Lord President Forbes (and there was a similar
ease under the Lord President Dundas), menvic-
as took place on confessions taken in a public jail
the Lord Advocate and the other Law Officers.
is shaved that at least there yeas nothing unusual
sending Gentlemen to take the examination of
tresses, provided that examination was not impro-
rly conducted.—t Hear, hear, hear, front the Oppo-
sa.)—The Lord Advocate had a peculiar interest
treading to the proceedings on the precognitions,
if they were not properly conducted he was liable
rosecution. It was settled in the time of the Lord
lent Dundas, that if the Lord Advocate pro-
in any criminal prosecution on improper
s, and without proper evidence, he should be
.ally liable for any Injury suffered by the per-
subjected to the prosecution. With respect to,
had been done in the present case, he would not
,ate his own acts or responsibility from those of
Home Drummond. That Gentleman, who filled
dice which he held with such distinguished abi-
had, in the case of Campbell, been oblig mto
ens a very irksome duty in collecting i a-
from that person—a duty which he (the Lord
ate) regretted to be obliged to depute or assign
.ty individual ; but still it was a duty which cook'
have been omitted. The prisoners were appre-
- Glasgow, on the opinion of several most
ale persons at Glasgow, One and all of the
ems so apprehended, gave the information on
ich the indictment against M‘Kinlay had been laid ;
having brought him to trial on such grounds,
_ Lord Advoc ate)was responsible before the Court.
the persons arrested referred to Campbell, as the
who could give most important information. In
obtain that information on which the neces.
sures for the preservation of the public peace
. founded, he immediately felt it his duty to
c Mr. Drummond to go to the Castle, and ascer-
. from Campbell whether he would be induced to
a the important information in consideration of a
,rise of pardon ? When this was done, there was
. whatever of using Campbell as a witness—
, hear). Mr. Drummond had no authority to
to Campbell any situation whatever with the
of inducing him to give information ; and he
authorised to deny that Mr. Drummond ever
any such offer. In stating Mr. Drummond's
• of what passed between him and Campbell,
aware that it was opposing the statement of
Drummond, not upon oath, to that of Campbell
nth ; but he was willing that it should rest on
anent of Mr. Drummond against the oath of
eL As to the deposition read by the Noble
whose motion was before the House, it was
that Campbell had made it to disqualify him-
from appearing as a witness. Campbell had a
t interest in this disqualification, for thereby,
it might tend to the acquittal of M'Kinlay ;
ndly, it would prevent any of that danger with
:h at one time he said his life was threatened.—
. great charge was, that he should have possessed
mself of what was likely to be the sum of Camp-
J's evidence. If to do so were a crime, he would
A an Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite to say
Tether he and two of his friends were not acquaint-
with the evidence which was to be given, bi-
ell—(Eher, hear, hear)? He held in his hand
statement of the proceedings on the trial which
this, in which Mr. Jeffery, the Counsel for
prisoner, said he would be able step by step
corroborate the whole evidence of Campbelle-,-
• he would wish the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
opposite to say,, whether he and his friends had
rewarded Campbell for furnishing them with
t evidence ?—(The Leaned Lord parsed sonic time
a reply--:tsene 11042 i walk.) Campbell when ask •
information, said, that he dared not give it, be-
_if he did, his life would be endangered. 8 ,
ea safe passers to the Continent was- offered to
t?, to secure his life against the danger of giving,
to:Dutton; and this offer was no sooner made than
said, that if it were fulfilled, be would not only
' information, but evidence upon the trial. Pre-
nu to reeking this offer he had consulted with the
Officen of the Crown on the propriety of making
and they were unanimously of opinion that it
4 their duty to protect Campbell against the dan-
of giving information or evidence, and to pro-
bin in that way which he thought would be
st available. The prisoner soon after expressed
.tech apprehension on account of his wife, who was
ea near her time of confinement, and applied for
' money to relieve her. This, and every other
nation for money, was positively refused ; but
z Which humanity dictated was done, and the
nort
et's wife was ordered to be conveyed to Edin-
, and this was done openly, for the Magis-
tes of Glasgow were directed to, take a place for
to a stage coach. With respect to the promises
to Campbell, whether they were legal or not,
e! were made on a principle of strict duty. If he
the,
re teemillegal, the very last thing
which

he would have done would have been to send for Sr
S. Hate, and to have made the promises its his pre-
sence, when they might have been made with the
utmost secrecy, so as never to rise in judgment against
him. When the thing could have been done secretly, is
it conceivable that if there was any notion of illegality
in the proceiiiiing, he should have chosen that it
should take place in a way to place it ors the records
of the Court ? (The Learned Lord then read from a'
report of the trial an account of what took place be-
fore the Sheriff, Sir William Rae). It appeared that
the Sheriff burned the first deposition. This shews
that the Sheriff, at least, did not think the offer of
protection illegal, for if he did, the very last act
which he ought tothave done was to burn the deposi-,
tion. Two promises of protection were made to!
Campbell ; the one to give him the means of going
to the Continent, the other to give him the means of
going to some of the colonies. In the first deposition
the first promise was made. If it was illegal, the
second was equally so ; and the deposition taken un-
der the second promise and recorded, was as illegal as
that taken under the first, which was destroyed. So
much for the facts. Now for 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 prisoner ?" if the answer was in the af-
firmative, the Court would proceed to inquire what
was the nature of the malice, and whether it was such
es would affect the evidence of the witness. The case
was the same with the second initiatory question—
" Have you been told what to say ?" The third ques-
tion 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 reward was such as to
affect the testimony of the witness—( Hear, hew )
In the present case, the qnestiou arose on this third
point. 11 the principle contended for on the <ether
aide were true, no socius criminis could even be ad-
Mined as a witness. And yet nothing was more
clearly established than that the evidence of socius
crintiais, who came forward as a witness under a gift
of pardon, was good evidence. He referred to a pas
sage in the Treatise of Burnet, page 416, and to the
case of Home, v.—, Bth December, 1799, in which
it was decided, that " a promise of a certain reward
to a witness, if he would speak out, does not amount
to a disqualification of the witness." The Noble Lori
had been completely misinformed as to the Law of
Scotland on this subject. In Lord Melville's trial a
,question arose on the admissibility of the testimony
'of Mr. Trotter, on the ground of its being given un-
der promise of reward, and the opinion of the Twelve
Judges was taken upon it. The third part of that
npiwon distinctly stated that no promise of reward for
!peaking " the full truth," amounted to a disqualifica-
tion of a. witness. This was not merely the Law of
Scotland ; it was one of the great principles of the
Constitutional Law of the Country. But the Noble
Lord contended that the prosecutor ought not to,
examine before hand any witness at all. ((Hear.)—
He would disprove this by an unexceptionable autho-
rity—no less than the authority of this }louse in the
case of Lord Melville, whpre Mr. Trotter was called
before the Committee of Managers, and questioned
touchini7 the evidence which he was likely to give on
the trim These were authorities which he hoped the
House would think amply justified his conduct is tha'
case of Campbell, and which more thazTjustified it,
by pointing out to him that conduct as his duty.
(Hear, hear, hear.) One part of the deposition of
Campbell was read by the Noble Lord in which it
was expressly stated, that " nothing had been said to'
him to instruct him in the evidence which he should
give on the trial." On the whole, therefore, he trusted
that he had made out to the satisfaction of the House,
that the private examination was no objection to the
witness, and if no objection to the witness, that there
was no illegality on the part of those who advised or
conducted that examination.—(Hear, hear.)—The
Learned Lord then referred to the declaration made
by Campbell, " that he had been treated by all the
Counsel for the Crown, but especially by the Lord
Advocate, with the utmost kindness and humanity."
The Noble Lord (A. Hamilton) had stated that the ob-
ject was to keep the private examination secret. Se-
cret! Was the taking of the deposition before Sir Wm.
Rae, the Sheriff, like a wish to keep it secret?—
On the contrary, did it not manifest an intention that
to give it publicity was the sole object of having it
before the Sheriff, because he felt that by doing it so,
and by having the whole entered upon the Records
in the Crown Office, he permanently fixed the re-
sponsibility of the whole transaction upon himself, is
order that if there were blame, it might be attached
to the proper person ? It had been said, too, that
Campbell was brought forward by him for the pur•
pose of hanging M'Kinlay. The disproof of this was
to the circumstance, that Campbell was not called
apon as a witness until that stage of the trial when
MiCinlay was out of jeopardy. On the whole, there-
fore, he thought no ground was made out for the
-present motion. In addition to all other reasons
against:it, by bringing the question before' Parlia-
ment, the relief to which the person professing to be
aggrieved was entitled before a Court of Justice was
interfered with. He therefore trusted that the House
would now follow the precedent established in its
decision in 1794, on the motion to produce the re-
cords of the trial of Palmer and others, where, al-
though above twenty objections to the trial were
made, the House decided that the records should not
be produced—(Hear, hear).
Mr: J. P. GRANT said that it would have given
him much pleasure if the Noble Lord had succeeded
in removing the impression which must be pro-
duced by the evidence of Campbell. He approach-
ed the consideration of this question with much
pain, because it involved the conduct of persons for
whom he was disposed on many accounts to entertain
the highest respect. He would concede in the pre-
sent case that the person accused was the most guilty
of.mankind, still that would not weigh one feather
' in the balance; for the interest concerned was that
1 of the public at large, and the subject was the admi-
nistration of justice in a question concerning the
rights and liberties of the people—(Hear, hear.) He
denied that a Parliameatary discussion of this quit- 1
' tion interfered with the remedy which any of the
' . persons concerned might have in a Court of Justice.
'!Parliament was entrusted with the guardianship of
f . the liberties of the people—with the jealous observ-,
ance of the adrainistration of justice—with above
• all, the jealous observance of his Majesty's Mini's-
', tcrs—and y:: was it to be said, that the present was

one in w!licli Parliament ought not to interfere—
that persons might have their private actions at
law, and Parliament was not called upon to do any,
thing in the matter? The charge preferred against the'
Law Officers of the Grown in Scotland was two-fold.

-Ist, That of t:srapeting with witne'ces to influence
theis testimony. tedly, That of calling upon a wit-
ness, who before his testimony could be received
must answer a certain question in the negative, which
they knew he could not answer in the negative with-
out perjury—{hear, dean)—He did not mean to say
these charges were proved ; but these were the charges.
They are made on authority which must be received
in this House: they were recorded in the Justiciary
Court, and were uncontroverted by any thing except
the statement of the Learned Lord. It was therefore
but fair to the Learned Lord—it was but fair to the
House--it was but fair to the

- - -
it ion of the
majesty's 1
state
was respect.
the duo
,• those of
. Advoca
relative ti
t for
; which, if
old be new
eh respect tc
-mu in Stoll
.d Jury of
~vial cases
. ..tion ;
Age, or the
;on was take
Advocau
.tatty of ti
mining it
ly exam
d not been i
.ceedings sh
re part of tl
ject of what
his examb
ch a Meet'
.ro good pre
Lord Pros
de mule;
took pia'
di: Lord A
• shelved t
sending G
messes, pro
'y conduct
attending
if they we
prosecutim
ident Du
ded in at
. ads, and
;may lia
subjected
r..t had bee;
~orate his o•
r. Home Di
e office whit
r. had, in t
norm a ver
from tha
drocate) reg
any individ
:hive been
.ded at Gla
ctable pe;
cons so ap
'di the inch;
for having
(the Lord Ad
the person
who coul
,er to obtain
, measures
be found
-ect Mr. Drs
'7. from Can
re the impo
anise of pa
ilea whate
car, hear).
rr to Cam
or of indt
authorise
ale any suc
count of wl
was aware
r. Drummc
roa oath ; t
statement
pbell.
ord, whose
ain that Co
1 from ap
in intere;
.st, it mig
condly, it
ich at on
e great
' 'mself of
eviden
sk an Hon.
;tether he
with the
pbell
statement
• ed this,
• prisoner;
corrobora
'ow he wo•
aPposi,
. reward
at evident
• rePIY—
• informat
if he c
is a safe p
to secs
ormanon
said, tha
ye inform;
rain to ma,
w Officer;
.; and the,
as their du
T of givii
rt him in
ant availat
.uch appre
len near he
• ..e money
.lication
which
• erls
gh, and
of Gla
rit a stag
.• • e to Cal
r et were rr,
d th0.T.1.1