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

cocs:dered as a reward to send a person into exile.—
was expected, like every other witness, to tell
whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; for this
had been offered protection to his person, and
nothing else had been done. He was astonished to
the opinions of five out of the eight Counsel for
prisoners, produced in that House as authority
against the Supreme Court itself. They had all done
their duty, by the assistance they afforded .to the
pannel, and though -he never witnessed such an
assemblage of Counsel on behalf of one prisoner,
• nobody could blame them for coming forward
exerting all their talents in his behalf. Hut when
arguments were brought forward to shew that
proceedings of the Learned Lord were ille
' deserved ne weight. It was remarkable, that
igh the . Learned Gentlemen found this deposi-
in a roll of tobacco, and were in possession of
the curious matter it contained, they thought
proper to object to his examination.-7(itear, hear.)—
What would have resulted from examining Sir Wm.
• ? Noshing but what the Learned Lord had ad-
mitted that night. It was quite proper for him to
in the manner he had done, and he defended him

_ all the course he had followed, beCause no decla-
ration ought to be received that was madeby another
but it did not follow that Sir V. Rae held
cilf:ir to send him abroad to be Blezal, In short,
• thing had been conducted in the most fair and
manner, and he could not imagine what advan-
„was expected to be carried by the Motion, unless
was to int,ict an unjust stigma ..on' the Learned
and other Gentlemen, not Member's of that
Wise, and therefore more entitled to protection.—
the Gentlemen who were engaged for the prises',
all joined in praise of the conduct of the Learned
; and yet, now, the Learned Gentleman u-ho
last said, nothing but a regard
.for his duty
_ have induced him to come forward and use,
inguage which he apologised for being •so strong,
.'eeling the conduct of the Learned Lord and his col-
leagues to be so deeply criminal.
Mr. WYNNE thought the question lay in a very
irrow compass. If the question had been for an
,dress to remove the Lord Advocate from his office,
should have felt that every thing told most strongly
• favour: But the case was quite different. the
lonerurahle Gentleman quoted, as a similar ease, the
of some Gentlemen, in Lancashire, in the year
~ then an evidence of the name of Lutt so con-
tradicted himself, that the Counsel for the proseco-
- shut up their briefs. He then proceeded to ad-
_ to most of the points noticed on both sides, and
contended that he wok it as a prima facie case, that
account of this deposition so given, the Court una-
nimously: determined not to receive his evideace.--
nassuid.be material to ascettain whether that part
'ie-deposition were true, which says that the first
:Drummond called on him, he told him he was
served With a notice to be a witness. lie also thought
-.singular that the man should have been examined
:all, without the common precaution that every
ustice of the Peace would take, of having a clerk
resent to take the confesskm of a man charged
h such crimes. The proced!ng after the trial of
Muir was very different, for then the House was
. . .

.41 OM to review the decision ; but here it was only
shed to examine the conduct of the servants of the
.; and that House, as the guardians of the pub-
iberty, were bound to see that the public functions
properly administered. On the whole, he
thought a sufficient case had been made out to de-
mand the attention of the House.

Lord CASTLEREAGH wished to trouble the
souse with only a very few observations. He did
think any thing had transpired that ought to in-
the House to enter into any proceedings on the
oj'ect. He could not see on what ground the 7
•Ould with propriety tall for the record. Did, they
•to look into it to see if the Officer of the Crown
_ heenauthorised in his proceedings ? He appre-
hended there could be nothing in it to thew that he
' not been justified in instituting this prosecution.
was established by the procings on the Bench,
indeed the whole course of the proceedings went
establish the fact that a conspiracy of an extended
iature did exist in the neighbourhood of Glasgow,
where persons were bound together by secret oaths.
Therefore, unless the purpose was either to punish
:ampbell for perjury, or to prosecute the Lord Ad-
vocate for the important steps he had taken, there
be no reason whatever for calling for the re-
His evidence had been considered by the

absolutely so incredible, that it could not be
entertained in any Court of law whatever—(hetr).--
. because this man's evidence was considered to-
unworthy of credence in a Court of Justice, was
be deemed worthy of credit in Parliament, and
use of there because it could be used no where
?_..(hear, hear, hear.) Then, if Campbell's evi-
is not to be believed, what evidence did the
curable Member think the Record would fur-
He apprehended that the only point that
_ be brought against him was that which ad-
ttted of no evidence in proof—the conversation be-

,weer him and the officer when no other person was
present—(Cries of no, no)—Therefore, the question of
perjury was only the imputing of an offence which
placed beyond the reach of a tribunal below.—.
suppose that the Lord Advocate was making any
not fully justified by morality and law, was
curd ; for so far from concealment, there was no.

in the transaction but what was the very re-
rcrse. The Noble Lord proceeded to argue that no
ferince contrary to this was to be drawn from the
,serrations of Sibbald or Sir W. flae, as the former
•ld be no evidence against Campbell, and though
Satter had thought proper to destroy this paper,
avowed they went with full authority to make the
of protection. How could the House examine
Campbell? Would they have the vitiated testimony
•Ich a man, in order to put Mr. Drummond on his
vial—to perjure him on his own examination against
• evidence of such a character ?—(h ear, hear, hear.)
apprehended this was a proceedineliat Parlia-
cnt never would sanction under any circumstances.
this was a conspiracy against the Ad.,oc.ate and
against his own truth ; and he was sure, if ho be.
fed Campbell's evidence went to attach suborna-
of perjury, the Noble Lord would not be a party
such a prosecution. But from the course that
ipbell pursued, he thought there was an evident'
cmspiracy between him and those that c rried the to-
co, not only to defeat the Officers of the Crown,
the ends of justice. If the *use lent themselves

to ch:q sort of trick, and :t was too muck tlie fash:on
to get up cases of this nature—(Hear.. hear, hear)—.
he must contend that the testimony of individuals
would soon not considered credible on their oaths.
On the whole, therefore, this was not a case that the
House could feel themselves called upon to inquire
into, and he trusted that they would concur in opi-
nion, that there was no reason for the motion.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, after hearing the
speech of the Noble Lord, he could not help noticing
some of his arguments. The Noble Lord had said,
the House ought not to call for' the record, unless it
were decided to institute some inquiry. But this
document was called for because it was not yet clear
to the House what course of proceedings ought to be
adopted. The printed book did not contain that ac-
count which the Noble Lord had : perhaps, indeed,
the account was in nobody's hands but the Noble
Lord's. What reason, then, could he give why the
record should not be produced. The Learned Lord
had said, that if the record were called for, they
might bring actions against him ; but if not, they
could not, because it would not be in. their power to
obtain copies: but was there any lawyer in the king-
dom who would not say that no action cguld be
brought against the Learned Lord? Who was, in
fact to bring an action? He did not see how the in-II
quiry called for by the present motion could be fairly
opposed, when the last words of one of the Learned
Judges on the Bench had declared further investiga-
tion to he desirable. The Lord Advocate of Scot-
land had wished that further investigation should
take place, het he had • withdrawn the witness.—
What had been• said by Lord Gillies of Campbell's
evidence being inadmissible, was founded, not on the
incredibility of his evidence, but on the proved mis-
conduct of the law officers of the Government. What
Lord Gillies had stated was that the trial of M,lfinlay
was then the only busineas before the Court—that it
might, on many accounts, be expedient to investigate
the matter further, but that was not to be done by
that Court. If then, it was desirable that it should
he investigated elsewhere, what were the means for
making the proposed inquiry ? A prosecution for per-
jury might have been commenced, but no such pro-
ceeding had taken place, and what then remained
but to bring the subject before the House of Com-
mons? Where, under all the circumstances, could the
case be so well investigated as in that House? The
Noble Lord had stated the evidence of Campbell to
be wholly incredible. He (Sir Samuel Romilly)- did
not see any thing in it from beginning to end that
deserved such a character ; and the Learned Lord
ought to know, that while it remained uncontradicted
he was bound to consider it entitled to belief. When
an inquiry should be made, he hoped, from the
high characters of the parties concerned, than. the
incredibility of the witness would be proved (,the
Learned Lord must excuse the expression) on„,bet-
ter evidence than that of the Lord Advdcea—
The Learned Lord in his Speech had not deniedthat
Mr. Home Drummond might have authorised some
one to offer Campbell the situation of an exciseman.
The Noble Lord had said a prosecution for perjury
could not take.place, because the Law of Scotland
requited two witnesses to the conversations alleged
to have taken place, and these could not be produced,
as the conversations referred to had occurred between
the prisoner and Mr. Home Drummond when no
other persons were present. This had been stated,
not by the Learned Lord, but by the Noble Lord
who seemed to know the motives of the Lord Advo-
cate better than he knew them himself, as the cause
of no prosecution for perjury haAng been commen-
ced. The Learned Lord had said, on the trial of
M.Kinlay, it had been proved that a treasonable
conspi-acy had erns:id,. and that unlawful oaths had
been administered to hundreds of persons at Glasgcw.
This, he contended, must be seen from the verdict of
" Not proven," which had been given. He had so
far presumed on the ignorance of the House of Com-
mons, of the laws of Scotland, as to assume from the
verdict given that every thing had been proved but
the guilt of the particular individual ; that the cora
delicti was mast satisfactorily established. He wish-
ed to know if under such circumstances he was jus-
tified in assuming this by any of the great Law Au-
thorities of Scotland ? What was understood by the
verdict of " Not Proven" was, that the party was
acquitted, but not honourably acquitted, of the of-
fence charged against him. Much had been said of
what Campbell had communicated to the Counsel
for the prisoner, and it had been made a great crime
that he had made them acquainted with the charac-
ter of evidence he intended to give. This he thought
might very properly be done in every case ; and if
on this the Noble Lord felt himself justified itt call-
ing the present question " a got np case," though he
might prevail on the majority of that House to agree
with him, he was sure he would not be able in the
same way to satisfy the majority of the People.
The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND, in ex-
planation, said he had declared in express terms, that
Mr. Drummond had not promised Campbell that he
should be made an Exciseman. He had also denied
that money had been given to him, or promised to
given till after the trial.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY had not said that it was
not denied that Mr. Drummond had promised the
witness the place of an Exciseman, but that it was
not denied that he had authorized some other person.
to do so.

The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND said he
had expressly denied that this had been done.
' Mr. J. P. GRANT understood that in his absence
he had been represented to have concurred in acorn-
pliment which had been reported, to have been paid
by Mr. Jeffery to the Law Officers of the Crown. He
denied that he had done so, and he had the authority
of Mr. Jeffery hinfsell for saying that what had fallen
from him had been incorrectly reported.
Mr. VESEY iTf.4GERALD contended it was in
vain to consider the present motion as any thing but
a censure on tho! e who had originated the late pro-
ceedingc, and nothing that he had heard had proved i
t', him that such a vote ought to be come to by the
House. He she=•ed that it had not been possible, to
prosecute Campbell for perjury, and proved from the
speeches of Lord Gillies and Lord Hermand on the
Bench (which he read), that they had held o.lat the
witness was not solelydisqualified by what had passed
between him and those who had been said to have dis-
qualified him, but that whether he spoke truth or
falsehood on that subject he was in every way disqua-
lified. Be had been offered prolection as a witness,
but no reward as an informer. It was far film .h 4

wish to screen any one from justice; but unless he
could believe Campbell, it was useless to vote for
the production of the record; and as he could not
do this, he must vote against the motion.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, the Right Hon.
Gentleman had quoted a copy of the trial which he
had not seen, and of which perhaps no man in the
country but the Lord Advocate had a copy.
Mr. VESEY FITZGERALD WAS not aware that
his copy of the trial was different from that of the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman, as he had heard
that which he held in his hand quoted from the oppo-
site side of the House.
The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND stated
the copy he had to have been published by the autho-
rized short-hand writer. It would have been pub-
lished sooner; but the Reporter having sent the
speeches of the prisoner's Counsel to them for correc-
tion, they had kept them from the month of August
till the end of January, and in the mean time a mu-
tilated and incorrect report had appeared.
Mr. J. P. GRANT explained the circumstances
under which the publications last alluded to had ap-
pea-ed. The delay which had occurred in correcting
the speeches was caused by the notes of the short-
hand writer having been so very incorrect, and so
unintelligible, that it had required great labour on
the part of the Counsel for the prisoner to correct and
make out their own reasoning. '
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he saw in
Campbell's testimony the mind of a most artful man,
who was capable of raising, on a very nnall foun-
dation of truth, a great fabric of the grossest false-
hoods. There was, certainly, as had been stated, a
great difference between the situation he had the ho-
nour to hold, and that of the Lord Advocate of Scot.
land ; but w hen it was said that he would not com-
municate with witnesses, as the Lord Advocate had
done, he wished it to be understood, that though per-
sonalty he might have no communication with them,
yet in point of fact he did communicate with them
through others, and this was necessary, not only be-
fore the parties werehrought into a Court of Justice,
but before a prosecution was determined on. (Hear.)
In a case Where a witness should say he could not
ventur' to come forward without putting his life in
danger—in such a case, whether others might decide
that his conduct would be right or wrong, he should
feel it is boturdn duty to say, “ Assure him of pro-
tection."—(hear, hear, hear.) This he would main-
tain was .not tampering with a witness--(hear, hear,
hear,)—but performing a duty to prewent bad men
by threats of violence from deterring witnesses from
coming forward for the purposes of public justice.—
It might be a convenient doctrine enough for some
persons, (he did not mean in that House, but else-
where), to have it taken for granted, that any infor-
mation obtained must always cotitaminate him who
procured it--(heer, hear, hear,)--and that to encou-
rage a witness to come forward was to tamper with
him—hear, hear, hear.) He opposed the motion, be-
cause the object of it was not to obtain the Record,
but to make it appear that in the late proceedings
there might be found almost matter of impeachment
against the Noble Lord near him. The real question
before the House was not whether the record should
be produced, but whether there was not matter
enough betbre them to justify a charge for improper
conduct, being. preferred against the Law Officer,of
Scotland ?
Mr. KIRKMAN FINLAY said, he would ask, in
reference to Mr. Home Drummond's conversaticins
with Campbell, was it usual to ask a person whether
he would choose to be examined or tot?—{Mach
cheeriNg from the Opposition.)—That Mr. Home
Drummond had a right to afford him protection he
would admit ; ,but a removal to some place abroad
seemed to him to be something more than mere pm-
tettion, and to be therefore unwarrantable—(hear,
hear). For the sake of inquiry, he must vote for the pro-
duction
of the record. He would explain his reasons.
He agreed with the Lord Advocate that the state of the
country had been alarming and dangerous; but agree-
ing with him in this opinion, he would ask, how it
happened that there had been no trial for two months
after this perind of alarm and danger, and no con-
viction at all had been obtained?—(Hear, hear.)— ,
The Honourable Member here whispered for a few
moments with a Gentleman near him, and then told
the House he should trouble them with no more ob-

• Lord A. HAMILTON in his reply, observed, that
the Attorney-General appeared very much to misunderstand the
merits of the cue. Mr. Home Drummond was never called to
offerany evidence in opposition to Campbell, nor had he (Lord
Hamilton) ever heard that Mr. Drummond considered Campbell
as a perjured witness. Nay, he never understood that the Learned
Lord himself had ever so ccnsidered him, or that even since the
trial he had ever said that Campbell was a false witness. No
such declaration, indeed, was ever heard from the Learned Lord
or his friends, notwithstanding all the obloquy and reproach to
which the discussions upon this extraordinary trial had subjected
hint throughout all Scotland. Upon what ground then, did the
Attorney-Oeneral assume that Campbell was a false and per-,
lend witness? The Learned Gentleman had, however, re-
marked, that Campbell could not be convicted of perjury, be-,
cause there could be no evidence against him but that of Mr.
Herne Drummond. The Learned Gentleman then seemed to
forget that there were many others who could contradict Camp-,
bell, if he had deposed to any falsehood—for the whom spoke
of communications with the Sheriff Substitute, the Solicitor
General, the Procurator Fiscal of Edinburgh, and a clerk ; and
Sir W. Rae had stated, that if Campbell had signed the paper
presented to him at this communication, Campbell would haye
been guilty of perjury. But the fact was, that many persons pre-
sent in Court at the trial could have contradicted Campbell, if be
had morn to any falsehood. With falsehood, however, he was
never. charged by any one connected with the prosecution ; and
among his depositions this witness distinctly alleged that the
Learned Lord and others had tampered with him by promises of
reward. Under those circumstances, it was in vain fur the Noble
Lord to calculate that any vote of that House would serve to
acquit him in the estimation of the country. The direct nature of
the motion, if indeed it should be pronounced, would, he was
confident, avail very little either for the character of the Learned
Lord or for that of the liciuse itself.

On a division, the numbers were :—For the motion,
71—Against it, 136—Majority, 65.
Mr. OGLE obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the more ef-
fectual Suppression of Gambling, and for better Regulating
1101110 of Ifla.

Mr. BEN/VETT gave notice, that on Thursday next he
should mote that the Petition from Manchester, presented the
night before, be referred to the Secret Committee. Ile then
restated two Petitions, one from the county of Durham, and
the other from Liverpool. The hut against the employment of
Cittehirg Boys, and the latter fee &firm. They were ordered
to lit on the table.

Mr.AitiertnanWOOD gave notice, that on Wednesday, the
tetb instant, be should move that a Committee be appointed to
mese Ntsurgate and the other primes in the City, and report
upon the 'object.
Mr. CURWEN asked, what measure wankd be adopted to
Witate the caning he of the Rank Tokens?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER conceived
that there Was r.O oltiiptiou or: the 04:mem:tent to take any

measure to rill in the Bank T.kees, wet
under an existing Act of Parliament in the at,
neat. He did not think any more ioconvenien
to the Public than when the Bank had withdrav
non the Dollars which it had issued, or the Cow
Silver Tokens. The Bank was fully able to isr
any amount of its Tokens sem back.
The other Orders of the Day being gone throe
adjourned at Lail after twelve o'clock-
LIST OF THE HINOEITI
Oat LOAD a. 111.1L1111.10161 MOTION OM The STATZ TIM
Abercromby,Hon.J. Fremantle W. Oina
Althorpe, iseount Gordon, Robert pawl,
Anson, Sir George Grenfell. Pascoe ": Pomo
Atherley, Arthur Guise, Sir W. B. Phillit
Barnett, James Gurney, Hudson Ridle
Bennet, lion. H. G. Heron, Sir Robert Rani
Birch, Jos. Howard, Lord IL Rune
Brand, Hon. T. Howard, Hos. W. Scudi
Brougham, Meaty Hunt, Robert Sharp
Byng, George Jereoise' Geo. P. Smith
Browne, Duns. Leader, William Smith
Burroughs, Sir W. Lyster, Richard Smith
Calcraft, J. Lytteiton, Hon. W. Semi
Calvert, Charles Methuen, Paul Tarim
. .

Calvert, Nicholas Macdonald, James 'Dem
Campbell, Hon. J. F. Mackintosh, Sir J. W.l
Carter, John Morpeth, Viscount Warn
Curwen, J. C. Markham, Admiral Webb
Douglas, Hon. F. S. Martin, Joint
I)uncannon, Visc. Mildmay, Sir It J. Wynn
Finlay, K. Milton, Viscount Wood
Fazakeriey, Mir. Mooch, Sir C.
Fitzgerald, Lard W. North, Dudley
Fitzroy, Lord J. N•Sesy Lad Mai
Folkestone, Vise. Ord, Winn Grant

THE, EVENING ST)

LONDON.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11
THE FUNDS.
PRICE OF STOCKS THIS DAT AT rims
-
Reduced 80f 81—Cons. tiat i—Cons.l
4 per Cent. 9911--.Nary Annuities IC
India Bonds 96 pr.—Exchequer Bills

The Paris Papers of Saturday arrived t

' An article under the head of Constantin
the 10th of December, states, that the I
obstinately refused to give proper satisfac
taro acts of violence committed on the cm
nish vessel, in disregard to the Sag of th.
the Members of the Diplomatic Corps
the Spanish Minister in inisting upon it
hoped attention would be paid to the en
addressed to the Reis Effeudi on the sub
MILAN', who was concerned with L.tc
conspiracy of Barcelona, is reported at C
escaped, by way of Gibraltar, to South
French 5 per Cents. on Friday 67 fr.

A Dutch Mail has arrived, from v.,h
such extracts as our limits permit:

CADIZ, JANUARY 12.
Letters from Vera Cruz of the 20th Norwell*
numerous corps of Insurgents had posted theme
ginning of that month, on the rrind from Mexico
in order to intercept a great convoy of gold and
piastres which were ient to the latter place to be
Spain. The convoy being accompanied by a
troops, a bloody bats ensued between the and
which lasted six hours, and ended will aka defy
who fled with considerable lots, leaving behind *I
cannon, with their caissons, 1200 musket; fair
600 prisoners, among whom are 50 Officers ; these
of this victory.

The Palma Reciner yesterday held
which the Recommit of LONDoN made k
the convicts under sentence of death.

Baro's THEATREe-Last night Mout
ted Il Dori Gioraxsti was revived, abll
and received with great applause. The
in nothing from that of last season except
stitution of Miss Coast for Madame CI
change not slightly adding to the isteres
of the performAnce. The house was us
particularly in the boxes, for Tuesday.
ENGLISE OPERA Housa.—Yesterday
_ .

Entertainment of the first Gathering ottl
' Clans, together with the Competition, is i
at Edinburgh, of Highland Dancers,
Players, and Pipers, was repeated at this'
the course of which the audience were del
some of the finest of the Scots melodies
amused with threesome reels, foursome
country bumpkins brawly !
Airraosomy.—New Theatre Royal, Er
House.—Mr. WA.Litaa opened this eleg
on Friday last with his interesting Lect
Eidouranion. The sublime science of A
by this ingenious and splendid ric.achi
clear and intelligible. The illnsuntions
ous and simple ; and the scenery shows
a master. The Theatre was warm and w

A melancholy circumrtarwe occurred on Sanwa
up post-coach, on its jourr•.ey from Liverpool ti
A-young WORIall, apparently about 14 Or 13 Tema
the last stage of a consumption, had been advised I
of her native air, and was proceeding to Marlin
purpose in company with her grandmother. Afte
wards of 40 miles she became quite exhausted Ira
debility, not having been enabled to take any break
the coach when it stopped for that purpose at Kr
tance 0(30 mike from Liverpool. On arriving at
Idle took a little milk, and shortly afterwards r
arm of her grandmother to sleep, in which sts
without a struggle or a groan. So unconscious
mother of hr.r .icpartore, that she only became a
it on the approach of the coach to Newcastle, wh
who was seated opposite to her, and till then b
perceived the great alteration which had take
young woman : the feelings of her grandmother
conceived ; her distress and anguish it is impossib
On the coach stopping at Newcastle, a medical nu
and though he perceived that his was extinct, k
body to be put Into a warm bed, as a means el
animation could possibly be restored. The cape
enneeestful

AMMO% AT Gazzawricn.—Several persons of
were apprehended on Monday and yesterday, on
have all been diacharged.—The Gazette of last nig
promise of a pardon to any person concerned (el
perpetrators) who shall discover, and lead to the
the murdereror murderers. A reward of 500 GI
same exception, is added on behalf of the int
Parish of Greenwich.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE T(
Morning - 10 minute
Afternoon - - 53 .........

LONDON: ()rimed and published by Levis
Place, Temple-1*

~
r
1
,
cousid
Hew
• the wl
he ha
11 • ) uothir
hear t
the pr
againi
their
I panne
i• alSelll
I yet n•
and et
their
the pr
they C
thong
• tion ar
•
all th
p•opet
• ' Witat
Rae ?
a naitted
. •
art
.trt
for all
ration
- party:
the off
i every 1
° °Pei!, r
t.tge..va
: was
Tarvrdi
I • 1 frise,
I
• Even t
ner all
J.-..rd •
spoke I
' I could 1
lingua
feelang
league:
:qr.
narrow
A .Idre;
!,, shot
in hisA
I innau
trials o
1799,1
t.
tradicti
•
con shi
vert to
rontem
on ace<
nisnow
• It
cftho-a
t'ate'D
served
i•.• sing;
i 1 1 i': ; all,
, 1
Justice
,{ '. i present
with st
7'air. Mt
called 4
.
) ,.-filted
. State;
4 lic libe
were
though
viand i
•
t
I rouse
not thi
duce tl
subjtsct
could i
wisktc
I
. ' I had be
headed
had no
This yr.
and in<
,• ‘
II to estal
!, I
nature
w!tere
Theref
'•
• Camp;
vocate
1 -
i . .• could
cord.
Court
•
enterta
• 1 And bi
tally ui
it to b<
made I
el ie ?—;
deuce i
Itonou
'
.
4 I '
r i
• ~,,1.,..
1,,
. , • ;fish
could 1
mined
l Y .
tween
present
~ ,
perjur]
was pl
To sue
t . afar t
absurd
. thing i
1 i )
verse.
a ) I trli
inferit
ilbiery
t would
the tai
1 I,t ;I he avc
, • offer c
.• Camp
of sucl
a trial—
beat- ev
i *Ale ai
ta•;int
1.
.., ?u,. ti
P,ain:
,
' lieved
tion o
to sui
. Camp
' • conspi
bacco
i . but th
, i ..
a
r• 4. .
' ..4:*:*** . .* • .
i . 4:•:,'S.4.:irkfit.,
..,_
~1.4.1,' •• 07 • .
t... 4,44!.. .
k • s 4.• •4