Mr. Kennedy renewed his attempt to improve the constitution of Scotch Juries in criminal cases, and with better success than in the former year. In moving for leave to bring in a bill for this purpose, Mr. Kennedy stated to the House, that the mode of administering criminal justice in Scotland, was very different from that pursued in England. Except in charges of high treason, Scotland had not the benefit of the intervention of a grand jury; the lord advocate proceeded by a course similar to that of an ex officio information. A jury of fifteen persons decided upon the guilt or innocence of the accused; but in this decision it was not necessary that they should be unanimous, a majority of them being sufficient. On the day of trial 45 persons appeared, from whom the jury was afterwards selected. Now, the measure which he intended to submit would not object to the man

gislate, as in this bill, retrospectively with respect to such marriages.

2nd. Because the House, having refused to insert clauses in the bill sav

ing vested rights, and rights acquired by purchasers of estates for good or valuable considerations, from persons by the law of the land entitled to sell or settle such estates, appears to me, by this measure, to have acted contrary to the principles which have hitherto secured to the subjects of this country their property, and to have rendered the bill, if otherwise fit to pass into a law, such as no reasoning car sanction, and no precedents can justify.

"ELDON, C.
"SHAFTESBURY.
"COLCHESTER."

"For the second reason:

"VERULAM. "SIDNEY. "STOWELL. "CAMDEN."

ner in which those 45 persons were brought into court, but to the mode in which the 15 who were to try the case were selected; namely, by the presiding judge. They were taken by fives and fives; and being thus selected, they sat down to try the case. The parties accused were not allowed to object to the selection as such ; for that would be to impute an improper motive to the judge, which would not be admitted. The only objections, which could be made on the part of the accused, were certain legal ones. They might object to persons against whom a conviction for any crime had been recorded; to parties as bearing spite and malice against the accused; and to persons who were deaf or dumb, or who were under age. All these, no doubt, were very proper objections, where they could be made, but he believed it rarely occurred that they were made. The alteration, which his bill would make, was small in appearance; but he considered it important in principle. It was, that instead of the selection of 15 being made by the presiding judge, 45; and he would also propose, it should be by ballot out of the

that both to the accused and the

prosecutor,certain challenges should be allowed.

On the second reading of Mr. Kennedy's bill, it was opposed strenuously by the lord advocate, and lord Binning, whose only argument was, that the proposed innovation was unnecessary, inasmuch as criminal justice was perfectly well administered in Scotland. On the other hand, it was contended with much truth, that a system liable to great abuse ought not to be continued, because it had not yet been perverted to mis

chievous ends. The fate of the measure, however, was decided by the opinion expressed by Mr. Peel, that the judges should retain the power of selecting the jurymen, but that the accuser and the accused should have the privilege of making peremptory challenges. Accordingly the bill was read a second time, and, being modified in the committee according to Mr. Peel's ideas, it was finally passed. It empowered the lords of justiciary to summon more than fortyfive jurors, and the prosecutor and each panel respectively to challenge five of the jurors without assigning any reason.

On the 25th of June Mr. Abercrombie moved for a committee to inquire into the conduct of the lord advocate, and other law officers of the crown, in Scotland, with respect to the public press, and more especially as regarded the trial of Mr.W. Borthwick. In a very long, and not very temperate speech, Mr. Abercromby detailed a series of charges against the lord advocate and his deputies. The accusation consisted of two parts; first, the lord advocate's connexion with the libellous part of the press; and secondly, certain oppressions alleged to have been committed upon a person named Borthwick, in order, as was stated by Mr. Abercromby, to raise a prejudice against Mr. Stuart upon his trial for the murder of sir Alexander Boswell. [See Appendix to Chronicle, p. 407]. In proof of the first part of his charge Mr. Abercromby referred to a bond, given by the lord advocate and others, for the establishment and support of the "Beacon" newspaper journal which he described as in the highest degree calumniatory; and to a commendatory letter,

a

signed by the lord advocate, and several other persons, in favour of the "Clydesdale Journal," which Mr. Abercromby characterized as equally scandalous with the "Beacon." The learned gentleman also referred to some late transactions connected with the

Edinburgh Correspondent," in which he endeavoured to prove that the lord advocate was implicated. With respect to this part of the charge, the lord advocate insisted on his right, as a private individual, to contribute to the establishment of a paper, which, like "The Beacon," at its first foundation, professed legitimate and honourable principles; and claimed approbation for having abandoned that paper, when he found its conduct swerve from its professions. With respect to the "Clydesdale Journal," he at first doubted, whether he had ever signed the letter recommending it; but upon his signature being shown to him, he admitted it, and explained that he was induced to affix his name to the letter by the list of respectable names which preceded it, without any knowledge of the merits or demerits of the paper. Of the transactions with "the Edinburgh Correspondent" he denied all knowledge.

The accusations made by Mr. Abercromby with respect to the treatment of Borthwick, were to the following effect: Borthwick was proprietor and editor of the Clydesdale Journal, in November, 1820, when he first had the honour of receiving the countenance and protection of the hon. and learned lord, and he had then some connexion with a person named Alexander. In November, 1821, they were engaged in publishing the

firm of Alexander and Borthwick. It was not very clear how this connexion was first broken; but it had been stated on the part of Borthwick, that he was dissatisfied with the manner in which the paper was conducted, and was alarmed on account of the prosecutions instituted against it. This much at least was evident, that Borthwick being dissatisfied, proposed to dissolve the partnership. Accordingly, in the same month of November, 1821, Borthwick and Alexander entered into an agreement to that effect, accompanied by certain conditions. The conditions were, that Borthwick should .receive 201. in money to be paid down, and 90%. in bills upon good security. These bills were to be paid on a day named, and to be delivered before the 8th of December. Alexander accordingly paid the 201., and gave one bill for a small amount; but on the 18th December Borthwick not having been able to obtain the fulfilment of the conditions, instituted a proceeding before the magistrates at Glasgow, with a view of having the contract performed and carried into execution; or, in case of not procuring the fulfilment of such contract, then that the magistrates would cause him to be re-instated in the possession of his property, which he had surrendered to Alexander on the faith of those conditions. Judgment was pronounced by the magistrates of Glasgow on the 14th of Feb. following; when they ordained, that Alexander, within six days from that date, should deliver to Borthwick the bills mentioned in the petition; or if he failed to do so, that Borthwick should be re-instated in his former property and interest in the paper in question.

Borthwick did not take possession on Feb. 20, as he was entitled to do; but on the 1st of March following, armed with this judgment in his favour, entered on the premises where the business was carried on, and remained there for 10 hours. He carried with him his own key, opened with it the safe, of which he was thus the legal proprietor, and took those papers which he found, and which it seemed fitting to him, as the proprietor of the concern, to carry away. From the 20th of February to the 1st of March, Alexander took no steps to impeach either the judgment of the magistrates or the acts of Borthwick under its sanction, but on the 2nd of March procured Borthwick to be arrested for a pretended debt. Borthwick was imprisoned in the gaol of Glasgow, and liberated on the 10th of March.

The first use that he made of his recovered freedom, was to enter the premises of the partnership, and take away some papers belonging to it. Alexander then charged Borthwick with theft; but the magistrates of Glasgow dismissed the accusation. In the mean time, the documents, which Borthwick had remoyed, furnished proof that sir Alexander Boswell, a keen partisan of the ministry, was the author of certain libels against a Mr. Stuart, who was an equally keen adherent of opposition. duel between Mr. Stuart and sir Alexander ensued; in which the latter fell. Borthwick, it was alleged, now became an object of vengeance, to the party whose tool he had previously been; and Mr. John Hope, deputy advocate, issued a warrant for his apprehension. Being arrested at Dundee, he was brought in irons to Edinburgh, indicted for a capital felony, and

A

afterwards transferred to Glasgow. His trial, however, was delayed from time to time; till at last, after more than a month's confinement, Mr. Hope abandoned the prosecution. Was Borthwick then liberated? No, Alexander now became the prosecutor by his counsel Mr. Menzies; the lord advocate granted his concurrence to this law officer, Mr. Menzies, to carry on a prosecution which he dared not in his own person bring to the decision of a jury; and Borthwick was again carried from Glasgow to Edinburgh, to stand his trial for a capital offence on the 10th of June, at the instance of his partner, Alexander, who had failed in persuading the magistrates of Glasgow that any offence whatever had been committed. The day and the place fixed upon for the trial were the very day and place like wise fixed upon for the trial of Mr. Stuart. Mr. Stuart had the preference, and Borthwick's trial was postponed to the 17th; Mr. Menzies, however, took care that it should not be forgotten, that the latter was connected with the former. Mr. Stuart was honour ably acquitted, and two days afterwards Borthwick was unconditionally liberated-liberated without explanation or reason assigned, after 70 days confinement. after twice preparing for trial-after being immured like the greatest criminal, in dungeons and close confinement.

The lord advocate defended himself against this charge, on the ground that Mr. Hope had done only what his duty required; that there was no intention or wish to oppress Borthwick; and that, according to the statements made to the law officers, and supported by evidence, there at first appeared

strong reason for sending that individual before a jury of his countrymen.

Mr. Peel justified the conduct of the lord advocate. Sir James Mackintosh pronounced a keen philippic against all ministerial satires and libels. The marquis of Londonderry admitted, that it would have been more discreet in the learned lord to have abstained from all connexion with newspapers, and animadverted in a very sarcastic strain upon the vigilance and zeal, with which gentlemen in opposition could detect and prosecute the errors of the press, when employed against themselves; notwithstanding that upon all other occasions they professed themselves its devoted and enthusiastic champions.-The House then divided, when the numbers were-for the motion 95, against it 120.

Mr. Abercromby, in his speech on this occasion, used some strong language concerning Mr. Hope and Mr. Menzies; which produced two letters in reply, one from each of these gentlemen. Mr. Menzies letter was addressed to the editor of an evening paper, and contained a direct denial of the accuracy of the statements in the report of Mr. Abercromby's speech. Mr. Hope's letter was very long, and was addressed to Mr. Abercromby himself. The language used in it was vehement; but it proved satisfactorily, that many of Mr. Abercromby's assertions had been made without reason.

On the 9th of July Mr. Courtenay called the attention of the House to these two letters. After some passages selected from Mr. Hope's letter had been read, Mr. Courtenay moved, that they were a gross breach of privilege.

The Marquis of Londonderry