tion with his counsel or agents till he had been examined. This was on the 5th of April, and he was given to understand that his trial was fixed to take place at Glasgow on the 24th. The 24th arrived, and what did the learned Lord do? He deserted the diet pro loco et tempore, and of course the trial was not proceeded with. He did not object to the learned Lord's adopting that course, because undoubtedly he had the right so to do if he pleased. It was then intimated to the prisoner by Mr Hope, that he might be admitted to bail, and that small bail would be taken; but it was the opinion of his counsel, that as he had been arrested by the authority of the Lord Advocate, and as the prosecutor had only deserted the diet pro hac vice, and it was uncertain whether he might not proceed at a future period, it would be more advisable for him not to give bail, but to remain in prison and "run his letters," as it was termed. Borthwick was therefore re-committed to prison. On the 4th May, Alexander intimated his intention to raise an indictment at his own instance against Borthwick, in case the public prosecutor should not proceed. It was answered on the 6th, that there was no intention to bring Borthwick to trial. Here, then, there could be no doubt that the public prosecutor had abandoned all farther prosecution. How, then, did it happen that he was detained in prison by him after that date? What he wished to know from the learned Lord was this-did he direct that Borthwick should be discharged? Did he omit to direct his discharge, under the supposition that it would follow in the natural course? Did he take any pains to ascertain, in point of fact, whether Borthwick had been discharged? This was really the heaviest charge against the learned Lord, that from the 4th of May, when the counsel for the crown abandoned

the prosecution, Borthwick was kept in prison till the 4th of June, at the instance of the Lord Advocate. On the 4th of June he was, in point of fact, discharged, at the instance of the Lord Advocate, and re-committed at the instance of Alexander. Mr A. then endeavoured to shew a connection between the trial of Borthwick and that of Mr Stuart. The notice of trial was served to both on the same day. On the 10th of June, Mr Stuart was brought to trial; and at that trial Alexander instructed counsel to object to the witnesses remaining in court, because they were to be examined on the subsequent trial of Borthwick. Yet, in less than 48 hours after Mr Stuart had been acquitted, Borthwick was discharged, and never was brought to trial at all. Nothing had made a deeper impression on the public mind than the belief that Mr Stuart had acted an unwarrantable part in gaining possession of these papers; and Borthwick's case was throughout so managed, as to confirm that impression. The learned Lord was the most unfortunate man in the world, if all these coincidences had happened without design. The whole was fraught with infinite danger to the personal liberty of the people of Scotland; if such scenes were allowed to pass without the animadversion of Parliament, the case was deplorable indeed. The honourable member concluded by moving, "That the conduct and proceedings of the Lord Advocate of Scotland towards W. M. Borthwick, late printer at Hamilton, were unjust and oppressive."

and

The Lord Advocate, in reply, began by expressing his regret that the dis cussion had been so long delayed, and that the documents were not laid on the table last session. Of the manner in which the subject was brought forward last year, he had complained at the time; he complained now,

and he

should never cease to complain; for he had laboured under disadvantages of all kinds, and had not then the information now before the House, and on which he might securely rest his defence. He might then have declared a fact subsequently avowed by Mr Hope, that he himself had given an opinion against the prosecution. He scorned, however, to shrink from his official responsibility, and was certain that the acts of his learned deputy would bear the strictest inquiry. It was clear that, between men entertaining different opinions on the subject, there could be no conspiracy. Whatever were the real objects of the motion now introduced, it might be thought out of doors that its purpose was not public justice, but to crush the rising fame, and to detract from the distinguished talents, of his honourable and learned deputy. The powers of Lord Advocate had been exaggerated; he was merely the legal prosecutor; if magistrates were accustomed to ask his advice, it was optional on their part; no Lord Advocate could bring forward a prosecution, in which he was not well supported by evidence. This appeared from the circumstance, that out of 409 persons fried on an average of years, only 49 were acquitted. The population of England was about six times that of Scotland, and in that proportion the convictions in England for the higher crimes had been less numerous than in Scotland. The case of Borthwick had come regularly before Mr Hope, in consequence of a prosecution by the Procurator Fiscal. It was ordered by the Magistrates of Glasgow, that the papers taken from Alexander should be restored; but the order was disobeyed, renewed almost indefinitely, but still disobeyed. It turned out, in fact, that the whole of the papers had been carried off to Edinburgh by Mr Stuart and another gentleman. The general

result of those examinations was, that Borthwick had gone to Alexander's office, broken open his desks, and carried away a quantity of private documents. Certainly, the declaration of Borthwick himself, had at once set up a defence nearly similar to that made for him by the honourable and learned member opposite; but it was not usual, the House would be aware, to give implicit belief to the statements of accused parties; and how far Mr Borthwick was entitled to especial credit, would very shortly be shewn. Mr Borthwick's statements were proved by documents to be upon four different points untrue. Borthwick alleged that, when he took possession of the papers at Alexander's house, he did so with the sanction and approval of a magistrate. This was a direct falsehood; for he had been told by the magistrate, that he must not take possession of them. He said, that (at Alexander's) he had found the desks at which he was accustomed to write, open. On the contrary, he had found them shut, and, finding them shut, he had forced them open. In the third place, he declared that, on taking the papers from Alexander's, he had folded them up and sent them to the office of his agent. Now the fact was, that he had carried them away to the Tontine Inn, and there at once delivered them to Mr Stuart. And still further, he asserted that he had carried the papers from Alexander's house, because Alexander's brother had opposed his examining them there, when, in truth, at the time he had sent the papers out of the office, there had been no soul to oppose him, or anything but a boy (Millar) under twelve years of age. Upon these facts it was, that, long before the duel took place, Mr Hope had given his opinion that the case must be taken up by the public prosecutor. That the stealing of papers might amount to a felony, there

could be no doubt; persons indeed had suffered capitally for the offence, and he said that the papers in question (many of them private letters) had been feloniously taken away from Mr Alexander, their true owner. His whole case, he repeated, was to shew, that Mr Hope had been justified in considering the matter as fit to go to a jury. He had at first been of a different opinion from Mr Hope; but on learning the circumstances more precisely, he considered that gentleman in the right. There was no sort of intention to prejudice the trial of Mr Stuart; but that trial did not appear a sufficient reason to induce Mr Hope to go out of his way. He was quite ready to take himself the responsibility which might be supposed to attach to Mr Hope. For his own part, he

felt that his conduct needed no defence. When he took office, he found Scotland in a state of considerable ferment. There had been more political crimes tried in his administration, than in that of any of his predecessors. In no trial had they failed of convictions, either by verdict, or confession of the offenders. He left the case with the justice of the House. He had acted upon pure and conscientious motives. Were the same circumstances again to occur, he would take the same course of conduct.

Mr J. P. Grant, Mr Kennedy, and Mr M. A. Taylor, supported the mo tion; while Mr H. Drummond and Lord Binning seconded the views of the Lord Advocate. The motion was formally negatived by the majority only of six, (102 to 96.)

WHILE the main body of the empire was presenting an aspect of renewed hope and prosperity, one great and Important member exhibited features calculated to excite the deepest feelings of distress and alarm. Ireland, Lotwithstanding its extent, its natural resources, its numerous, spirited, and active population, has afforded no addition to the strength or security of that united kingdom of which it composes a part. It has given, indeed, in spite as it were of itself, brave soldiers to fight the battles of the empire. In every other respect, it would be better for Britain if this fine and noble island were sunk at the bottom of the sea. Ireland had the misfortune, from the Fat, to be completely a conquered country, never held by England upon ay other tenure than that of the word. Unfortunately, too, it never was a thorough conquest, moulding the vanquished into the form of the

victor country, and amalgamating their

manners and institutions. It was a loose and tributary dominion, keeping down all the native energies of Ireland without inspiring into her the spirit of her more improved neighbour. The Stuarts were the first who sought to become the benefactors of the sister kingdom. They improved her condition, and they gained her affections. But, that everything might be disastrous to Ireland, her attachment to this ill-fated race proved the grand source of her subsequent calamities. She espoused their sinking cause, with a dreadful and fatal zeal. Mistaken loyalty, blind bigotry, and national animosity, combined in impelling to deeds over which we anxiously cast a veil. The Irish adhered to that misguided house, even in the last extremity; and James II. reigned for some time over Ireland, after his sway in England had finally ceased. The sub

jection to William III., and to the Revolution system, was a new conquest, more difficult and more odious than the first. Not only did it place the Irish in a situation where they inevitably experienced all the humiliated and hostile feelings of a conquered people, but it left circumstances which tended to render permanent the enmity arising out of this unfortunate posi

tion.

The first of these is the difference of religion. At the time when the diffusion, through Britain, of knowledge and free inquiry, subverted the foundations of the Catholic system, Ireland remained buried in a night of darkness. Her people remained, without abatement, the bigotted adherents of a bigotted faith. England again, instead of seeking to remove this spirit by diffusing knowledge and civilization, thought only of chaining it down by severities and restrictions. The Catholics clung always the more eagerly to their persecuted creed. Their clergy, too, poor and dependent upon the people, acquired a peculiar and deep influence over them, while the Protestant clergy, amply endowed, and with little duty, became peculiarly liable to those indolent and secular habits, which form the danger to which an established clergy is always exposed. The consequence has been, that Ca. tholicism, losing ground everywhere else, has gained in Ireland; and not only the absolute number, but the relative proportion of the Catholic part of the population, has considerably increased.

The next unfavourable circumstance is, that all the great proprietors are not only Protestants, but English'; holding their estates under the odious titles of conquest and forfeiture. Sixty years ago, the north of Scotland was nearly as turbulent as Ireland is now; but the system of clanship and of strict subordination to their chief, was al.

ways a lever by which they could be moved. In Ireland, there is no tie by which the lower classes are held to the higher, most of whom are not even resident. They seek chiefs from among themselves; they govern themselves by secret associations and mystical words; there is nothing on which government can lay hold, either to punish or conciliate.

These fixed sources of discontent were roused by the French Revolution into a terrible activity. That convulsion caused the old spirit of turbulence to manifest itself under a somewhat opposite form. The attachment to the house of Stuart was exchanged for a system founded on pure democracy, a principle still more violent and unhinging in its operation. The consequence was that terrible insurrec tion which, even when suppressed, left its embers still warm. It left deadly recollections, unextinguishable enmities, and cruel resentments. The elements of society were thus arranged on two opposite sides, fixed in the most utter separation and deadly hostility.

The disturbances which now agitate Ireland, appear under a somewhat new aspect. Although the old Jacobitism, and the recent republicanism, have concurred in generating the spirit from which these disorders spring, yet political motives or theories give no longer the ruling impulse. Questions connected with national, or rather individual subsistence, were now the moving principles. This circumstance is the more remarkable, as it has occurred after the removal of those commercial restrictions to which Ireland had been most ungene. rously subjected. But, in fact, some of the new arrangements consequent upon this favourable change, bore hard upon individuals, particularly upon that class of small tenants and occupiers, of which the peasantry in the south of Ireland are almost entirely