rose and said, that, previous to his making the motion of which he had formerly given notice, he wished that the extracts of the letters upon which he meant to found his accusation against the rt. hon. lord advocate of Scotland should be read by the clerk. The letters were accordingly read, and are as follows:

"Copy from the Public Record of the County of Banff, of a Letter signed 'C. Hope;' dated Edit^r 30 Dec. 1803: Also; of a Letter or Recommendation from the Sheriff Substitute of the County of Banff, addressed to the Sheriff Clerk, thereto subjoined, signed 'Geo. Forbes,' and of the same date.

"SIR,—I return you the memorial, with my opinion; and in the circumstances of this case I decline taking any fee, which I also return to you. The case in the memorial, is one of those for which unfortunately no provision is made in any of the Volunteer acts, and therefore of course a person who neglects his master's work, on account of attending drills or reviews, is I am afraid in the same situation with a servant doing so from any other cause.—The conduct of Morison however is most atrocious, and every possible means ought to be take to stigmatize him, and to punish him by the scorn and contempt of all the respectable men in the county, who ought to enter into a resolution to have no Communication or dealings with him whatever.—And further, as I consider that Morison's conduct can only have arisen from a secret spirit of disaffection and disloyalty, it is my orders to you, as sheriff substitute of the county, that on the first Frenchman landing in Scotland, you do immediately apprehend and secure Morison as a suspected person; and you will not liberate him without a communication with me; and you may inform him of these my orders.—And further, that I shall do all I can, to prevent him from receiving any compensation for any part Of his property which may be either destroyed by the enemy, or by the King's troops to prevent it from falling into the enemy's hands.—I am, Sir, Yours, &c. &c. (Signed) C. HOPE. Addressed George Forbes, Esq." Sheriff Substitute of Bamffshire.—"I recommend the Sheriff Clerk to transcribe this letter, and send the copy to Mr. Morison, keeping the principal in the record of court.—Signed, Geo. Forbes. Edinburgh, 30th Dec. 1803.—What is contained in the preceding are just and true copies of the letter, and recommendation thereon written; faithfully transcribed in obedience to the order of the House of Commons, dated 6th June, 1804, and reported to the house accordingly.—PAT. ROSE, Sheriff Clerk of Beamffshire."

rose, and addressed the house to the following effect—Sir; these papers having now been entered, as read, in the Journals of the House, it is my intention to make them the ground of an accusation against the rt. hon. gent. opposite (the lord advocate of Scotland), whom I am happy to see this day in his place. In the observations which I shall feel it my duty to submit to the house, I trust that I shall come to the discussion with that coolness and impartiality which the important and interesting nature of the subject so strongly demands. Though at the first moment that the business was communicated to me I did feel very warm on the subject; though, the more I have considered it with the gravest attention, I have continued to feel equally strongly, yet I hope I shall discuss the subject at this time without either passion or prejudice. I trust that, before I sit down, it will appear that I have not been led away by the warmth of my feelings, but that the motion with which I shall feel it my duty to conclude, is one fairly and justly deducible from the papers now on your table. I have said, that it gives me sincere pleasure to see the rt. hon. gent. in his place, for on this, as on every other similar occasion, I am anxious for the application of that grand principle of the law of this country, that the accused shall, in all cases, be confronted with his accuser. The rt. hon. gent. being in his place, will hear what are the grounds of my accusation, and no step will be taken against him till he shall have been fully heard in his defence. Though the house of commons have taken up this subject, he will not be at all precluded from any exertion to shrew that the whole charge is totally without foundation. The matter having, however, come under our consideration, I do not at all see that we can, by any possibility, avoid coming to some decision. The house having ordered the papers to be produced, we are called on, by every consideration of duty, of honour, and of justice, to say aye or no, whether the charges which I mean to found on them, are or are not well founded. This is a decision which we owe in justice to the people of Scotland, whose interests and whose rights it so naturally involves. It is a decision due to the character of the rt. hon. gent., whose conduct is subjected to a serious imputation. It is a decision which we are called on to give injustice to the cause of the liberty and independence of every order in the community. A decision must, then, on all these grounds, be come to, either that my proposition is false and groundless, or that it has been substantiated, and that the people of Scotland are liable to a species of gross injustice and oppression, against which it is incumbent on this house to shelter them. In the outset it may be proper for me to state the precise words in which my intended motion will be couched. While we do this, it is also proper for me to add that I shall not confine myself to this first motion if it should meet with the support of the house. I should feel that I stopped far short of my duty, if I did not follow it up by another motion, clearly founded on the first proposition which I shall have the honour to submit to the house. My first motion will be, "that the conduct of the rt. hon. the lord advocate of Scotland, in writing the letter to James Morison which has been read and entered on the Journals this evening, was oppressive, illegal, and contrary to his professional duties." The house, Sir, are aware of the powers vested in the rt. hon. gent. as lord advocate of Scotland, are of a very enlarged description. Great, however, as they are, I cannot allow myself for a moment to believe, that they are as great as those which the language of the letter in question appears to claim. But allowing me to grant, for a moment, a thing which I utterly dispute and disclaim, that the powers invested in the lord advocated were as ample as the letter would require, still I should contend, that the conduct of the lord advocate, in writing it, might be legal, but still was most grossly oppressive to Morison, the person who had preferred his complaint. Let me suppose the monstrous power, merely for the sake of argument, for in no other light can it be listened to for a single moment, that the lord advocate had the power, without having any defence, without at all taking the trouble to make the least inquiry into taking grounds of accusation, of cutting off any individual, from the comforts of civilized life, and reducing him to the situation of a mere wretch on the face of the earth; let me suppose all this to be consistent with the powers of the lord advocate, and still I shall not have come up to the powers pretended to be exercised in the case which I am to bring under the consideration of the house. Here the lord advocate, without even the shadow of reasonable accusation, without even deigning to consider, that, by the law of this country, defence was allowed to the accused not only endeavoured to cut off Morison from all the comforts of society, but orders him to be apprehended, not to be released in the ordinary course of law, but to be detained in close custody till his own pleasure on the subject should be expressed. The lord advocate of Scotland is not satisfied with carrying his power thus far, but, anticipating invasion as an event near at hand, and knowing that property was liable, in such an event to destruction, he actually declares, that he shall take special care to prevent Morison, in any case whatever, from receiving compensation for any loss of property which he might sustain, from whatever causes that loss should arise. Such is the general nature of his charge against the lord advocate of Scotland, and if I can substantiate it, I will then leave it to the house to determine, whether the rt. hon. gent.'s conduct was not, in every point of view, grossly oppressive. It is not my wish to detain the house long, on the subject of the earlier transactions of this business, but the rt., hon. gent., being now in his place, I hope I shall be indulged the opportunity of submitting to the house a very brief statement. It appears that Garrow, the servant of Mr. Morison, whose discharge gave rise to the opinion and letter of the lord advocate, had, contrary to the consent of his master, entered himself a private in the 2d battalion of Bamffshire volunteers. On a particular day he had left his business to attend an inspection of the corps, and for this, as being expressly contrary to his master's orders, he was discharged. Under these circumstances, he wished to ascertain whether he was intuited to recover from his master, wages for the whole time that he had contracted to serve him, or only for the time that he had actually served. A memorial was sent to the lord advocate, requesting his opinion on this case, and in his answer he does not pretend to say, that in dismissing the servant, Morison had been at all guilty of any thing illegal. Even in that opinion, however, an indirect libel is conveyed on Morison's character, of which I do strongly disapprove. I am not disputing the right of a counsel to introduce into an opinion addressed to a client, observations which may affect the character of the opposite party, but where this is made a public document, it unquestionably assumes a new character and form. It is in this point of view then, that I object to the manner in which the opinion of the lord advocate of Scotland was conveyed. But, Sir, it is of the letter, of the rt. hon. gent. that I principally complain. Has the conduct of Morison been proved to be illegal? On the contrary, the lord advocate admits that it is legal. Has there been adduced the slightest presumption of his disloyalty? Not a single insinuation to this effect appears on the whole face of the transaction. Under these circumstances, how is it that the rt. hon. gent. proceeds? Without calling a single person to explain to him Morison's general character for loyalty and respectability, without taking the opinion of a single human being on the subject; in total ignorance of any one ground by which criminality could be attached to the conduct of Morison, he, without the slightest delay, consigns him over to the severest pains and penalties. I call, Sir, on the lawyers of England, I call on the lawyers of Scotland to deliver their opinions on this subject, and not to suffer so foul a stigma on the law of the country as this, to pass without the severest censure. The rt. hon. gent., while in the exercise of this most illegal and oppressive conduct had not a single motive of reasonable justification. He had no proof of misbehavior on the part of Morison in the particular transaction under consideration; and it surely was but fair to believe that Morison was a man of loyal principles, at a moment when all ranks of the community partook of a general feeling of ardor and patriotism in the defence of the liberties and independence of their common country. What right, then, had the rt. hon. gent. to presume that Morison was a man of nefarious or dangerous principles? From the internal evidence of the letter, it appears to me that the rt. hon. gent. was determined to represent Morison as a dangerous individual; but not a title of evidence then existed, nor, as far as I know, now exists, to shew that Morison was a man at all of discontented principles. This is at least clear, that not one overt act manifested such a disposition to have existed on his mind. The rt. hon. gent. indeed says, in his letter, that the conduct of Morison had originated from a secret spirit of dissatisfaction with the govt. This spirit of disaffection has indeed, Sir, been so very secret, that not one act proves its existence, or has to this hour been recorded; while there are a number of gentlemen of the greatest respectability, who have known Morison for a number of years, and who are ready to testify their belief of the loyalty of his political principles. In this view then, the charge of secret disaffection is altogether illegal, as well as unjustifiable. But here, Sir, I wish to say a few words as to the specific cause for which Garrow was discharged from Morison's service. If the information which has been transmitted to me on this subject be correct, I have no hesitation in saying, that the circumstance which gave rise to Garrow's discharge, would have justified me or any other gent. in this house in discharging a servant on similar grounds. It has been stated to me, that Mr. Morison is a farmer who holds a very respectable character, and that his character for loyalty in particular had never been called, in question. This was indeed, according to my information, fully proved a few years ago, when disaffection to govt. was supposed to be much more extensive than it will surely be represented at the present moment. Garrow, his servant, had, contrary to Morison's consent, entered into a volunteer corps at a distance of about 7 miles from Morison's residence. He had, contrary to his master's orders, continued his attendance. A day or two previous to the day of his discharge he had been employed in thatching a barn, and Morison had informed him that if he absented himself from his work he should dismiss him from his service. After this distinct intimation Garrow did absent himself, and the consequence was, that he was accordingly discharged. Now, Sir, I do contend that Morison in this case had an excellent reason for turning off his servant, under all the circumstances. When we think of the season of the year that this work of thatching the barn was going On, and what material inconvenience might have resulted from its being delayed, it is easy to see that Morison might have been perfectly justifiable in insisting on the constant attendance of the servant for the purpose of completing this piece of work, the urgency of which could not be disputed. Let me remind the house, too, that this was the first instance in which Morison had positively interfered with his servant's attendance at the drills of the corps. Not a single symptom of disloyalty beyond this fair exercise of his authority as a master had been attempted to be alleged against him. Are we, Sir, to have such charges as this adduced without a single pretence of their being founded in truth, or are such insinuations at all consistent with the spirit of the volunteer establishment? Are we, Sir, to be dragooned into volunteer corps; and are masters who happen to discharge servants under circumstances similar to those which I have stated, to be charged as hostile to the govt. and the safety of their country? Surely, Sir, it is of the very essence of the volunteer system that it should be exempted from all restraint; and, sure I am, that in this country, the doctrines attempted to be inculcated by the rt. hon. gent. would be universally reprobated. If such doctrines were tolerated for a moment, it is impossible to decide to what extent oppression and persecution might be carried. I am equally persuaded that they would be as strongly resisted in Scotland, and that there, as here, the letter of the rt. hon. gent. cannot fail to be regarded as equally illegal and oppressive.—But, Sir, there is another circumstance connected with this business which it is important for me to state to the house, and which certainly places the conduct of the rt. hon. gent. in a still more aggravated point of view. I am informed, that after the rt. hon. gent's letter had been published in Bamffshire, Morison actually applied by letter wishing to have the harsh statements which it contained retracted—[the lord advocate whispered across the table that no letter was received]. Well then, Sir, perhaps I am misinformed as to the precise mode of the application, but that an application generally to this effect, was made, will not, I am sure, be denied. The application was refused in the most peremptory manner, and the right hon. gent. proud of the vast powers which he possessed, and knowing that Morison had, no means of making a stand against him, seemed determined to shew him how far his uncontrolled authority could carry him. I have felt it my duty, Sir, to state this, for if, in the first instance, the conduct of the rt. hon. gent. in writing the letter was illegal, surely his conduct in refusing to retract his original statement, and to give Morison some compensation for the unfounded charges made against his character, shewed no less strongly the rt. hon. gent. had failed most unjustifiably in the exercise of his professional duties. While, Sir, I am thoroughly convinced of this conduct being highly oppressive, I am no less clear that it is grossly illegal. As lord advocate of Scotland, I deny that the powers claimed in the letter can at all be exercised, consistently with the strict unequivocal enactments of law. I am not disposed to go into any detail on the laws of Scotland; but permit me to state this, the liberty of the subject in Scotland is guarded by a variety of statutes, of which it is impossible for a person of the rt. hon. gent.'s professional talents to be ignorant. I might allude to several of these statutes, but one particularly, passed in the reign of William, soon after the revolution, is on this point particularly worthy of consideration. By this statute, Sir, it is in the first place declared, that no man shall be imprisoned without having the grounds of his arrest explained to him. It is true, indeed, that in cases of extraordinary emergency the imprisonment of persons, without in the first instance assigning these grounds, is permitted. In these cases, however, perhaps strong ground of suspicion might exist, though it might not be prudent at once to disclose it. In the case of Morison, however, there was no information lodged against him. There was no presumption of his guilt. There was no pretence for threatening him with the deprivation of his liberty. There was no warrant or writ pretended to be executed. The whole business was conducted in a way fatal to the very existence of personal liberty. I am sure the rt. hon. gent. will not pretend to support the legality of the transaction, and this I will assert without fear of contradiction, that if the instructions of the right hon. gent. had been attempted to be carried into effect, and Morison had attempted resistance, and individuals had been killed in the affray, no trial for murder could have taken place. But, Sir, the conduct of the rt. hon. gent. is illegal, not merely so far as the imprisonment of Morison is concerned. By the act to which I have alluded, persons imprisoned had a right to demand their trial after the expiration of 40 days, and for certain offences bail might even be accepted. But how has the rt. hon. gent. here proceeded in the case of Morison? Why, Sir, he tells the sheriff of Bamffshire that Morison must not only be arrested, but that he must be kept in durance vile as long as he himself thought proper, and that for his liberation they must wait for his precise orders. It is contended perhaps that, in the event of a threatened invasion, imprisonment of suspected persons may take place on the ground of responsibility; but, Sir, even here the statute to which I have referred does not leave the subject without a certain degree of relief against oppression. That relief, however, the rt. hon. gent. is determined to with-hold, and Mr. Morison is to be punished just to whatever extent the rt. hon. gent. may be pleased to appoint. I am not now, Sir, challenging the policy of that part of the law of Scotland which vests in the lord advocate the powers granted in this country to grand juries and coroners' inquests, the value and importance of which our ancestors so properly estimated. I may be permitted, however, to say a few words on the extent of these powers. Let it be recollected, Sir, that let a matter of accusation be ever so grave and serious, it remains with the lord advocate to determine whether it is a subject fit to be brought before a court for legal investigation. Even in cases where persons most interested actually solicit such an investigation, it was in the power of the rt. hon. gent. to refuse compliance with their solicitation. With such extensive and almost unparalleled powers, it is needless, merely, Sir, to enlarge on the importance of the person holding it being actuated by the soundest discretion. If there are cases where the rt. hon. gent has either abstained improperly from the exercise of the powers vested in him, or in other instances has carried them beyond the bounds of justice or discretion, it is certainly fit that his conduct should be fully scrutinized. This Sir, is the charge which I bring against the rt. hon. gent. opposite, and I confess myself at a loss to anticipate what the nature of his defence will be. I shall only hope, that it may be of a nature which will rescue the character of the rt. hon. gent. against the very serious charge now brought against his conduct. It appears to me, that this can only be effectually done by shewing, that the whole of my statements are wholly without foundation. Viewing the rt. hon. gent.'s conduct to Morison as equally illegal and oppressive, I must add, that it seems to me to have been wholly unnecessary. There was no fair pretext for severity to Morison on any supposed ground of danger. If invasion did not take place, but was expected, it would have been easy to have seized him, if really of a suspicious character, independent of the instructions contained in the letter. If, on the other hand, invasion did take place, Morison could do no harm, as he was surrounded by thousands of men distinguished for their loyalty and public spirit. It was quite superfluous therefore, for the rt. hon. gent. to have recourse to such an unnecessary stretch of power. As to the responsibility about which we shall probably hear a good deal, it appears to me a mere joke under the circumstances of the case. The fact was, that if the injustice which Morison had experienced had not been brought under review, this responsibility would have been kept altogether in the back view. But what I particularly complain of in the whole of this business is, that this very letter, which will not now be defended on the ground of its legality, was sent forth to the public as perfectly legal, constitutional, and expedient. As to the motives which may have given rise to the rt. hon. gent.'s conduct, it is not at all my wish to apply any harsh epithets, I have no reason to think that they were not in their nature the most pure. Perhaps they originated from great strength of zeal, inflamed by the particular situation of the country. I must be allowed, however, to say, that they betray the strongest indiscretion in a great public officer, whose mind ought to be kept wholly free from all impressions of prejudice, partiality, or want of due reflexion. Under all the circumstances of the case, I think that the house ought to mark the conduct of the rt. hon. gent in terms of severe reprobation. The motion with which I shall conclude appears to me, therefore, one which is equally due to the honour and dignity of the house; to the protection which the people of Scotland have a right to expect of us; and to the great cause of national liberty and justice.—The hon. gent. was about to read his first motion, declaring the conduct of the lord advocate of Scotland unjust, illegal, and oppressive, when

interrupted him by stating, that as he preferred a complaint against a member of the house, the regular mode of proceeding would be to hear that rt. hon. and learned friend in his defence. After he finished his speech, then the hon. gent. might submit his motion to the consideration of the house. Thereupon

rose, and replied as follows:—It seldom has happened to fall to my lot to stand in the character of a person accused, and certainly I little expected that I should this day feel it necessary to rise in my place in this house to answer to any charge of injustice and oppression. I do assure the hon. gent. who has brought forward this charge, that, whatever opinion he, who knows me not, may entertain of my official conduct, a charge of injustice or oppression, was never before coupled with the name I bear. It is a consolation to me, Sir, that though the hon. member is not acquainted with my public character, I have, never been without the approbation of those who have known me best in my own country. With the hon. gent., and others not acquainted with the character which it has been my good fortune to sustain, this charge may have obtained a temporary belief; but I can say, with a safe conscience, that had the same charge been promulgated in that city in which my lot is cast, a hundred thousand tongues would be raised against it, and not a few arms against him by whom it might be preferred. It is also another consolation to me, that if I have been guilty of injustice or oppression to Morison, Morison and his friends have in their turn grievously retaliated. I must be allowed to state it, as a most extraordinary circumstance, that after passing two months in London, either present or ready to be present in my place in this house, not one word was said of the charge now preferred against me, though six months have elapsed since the letter which has been made the ground of so much animadversion has been publicly known in that part of the country which was so materially interested in the subject. In saying this, let me be understood as conveying no sort of insinuation against the hon. gent. opposite, as to the time when the business has been agitated. He, I am confident, is incapable of any mean or unjustifiable manœuvers to take me by surprise, or to put me to any unnecessary inconvenience. Of any such motives I do most sincerely and fully acquit him. I believe that the hon. gent. brought forward the business as soon as he received the information on which the charge was founded, and that in bringing it forward he acted fairly and honorably. When I have stated this, I have to declare my opinion that some kind friend, no doubt with the best motives, contrived to get the business introduced just at the time that my presence in another part of the kingdom was the most necessary, and when my professional duties called for my most unremitting exertions. It is under these peculiar circumstances that I am now forced to return to London to answer a charge of the gravest and most serious kind. If, in this case, I have not had reason to complain of the horrors and the terrors of imprisonment, at least I have a fair right to complain of a pretty severe share of punishment.—Before, Sir, I enter at large into the subject it may be proper for me at the outset to say a few words on a supposed letter sent from Mr. Morison wishing me to retract the sentiments contained in my letter to the sheriff substitute of Bamffshire. It is not true that I ever received from Morison any such letter. It is true, indeed; the writer employed by Morison in Edinburgh to manage his business, for certainly in point of property Morison is a respectable man, did, about three weeks after the publication of my letter, call on me, wishing me to retract my former statement, and assuring me that they had occasioned Morison a great deal of uneasiness. At this interview he assured me that as far as he knew, Morison was a loyal man, and altogether a person of unexceptionable character. To this proposition my reply was short and simple. Previous to any retraction on my part, I required that Morison should offer an apology for his conduct; and this I conceived indispensably necessary, before I humbled myself so far as to go on my knees to any individual whatever. Whether I was right in following this line of conduct will depend on a review of those circumstances which it will be necessary for me to state before I close my observations on this very serious charge. This only it is proper for me to add on this point, that from the day that this interview took place, I received no explanation, and that I never heard more of the business till it was first agitated in this house.—Having made these preliminary observations, I should now proceed to the merits of the case. Before, however, I do this, it will be necessary to introduce some general observations, which will materially assist the house in comprehending the real nature of the proceedings which I thought it my duty to adopt, so far as Morison was concerned. In the first place, I wish to direct the attention of the house to the period of the year at which the letter in question was written, and the means of defence which Scotland at that time possessed, as applicable to the formidable danger with which the country was threatened. It will be necessary for me, before I sit down, to dwell somewhat at large on the nature of the duties connected with the office of lord advocate for Scotland; but even now it is proper that I should incidentally allude to it. I must first of all say, then, that in the circumstances under which the letter was written, I acted under the gravest responsibility. I have to state, that at that period the means of defence in Scotland were totally inadequate to its defence. When I say that Scotland was then almost wholly left to itself, I mean to throw out no charge either against the king's late ministers, or the illustrious persons at the head of the army.—The effect of this however was, that very considerable alarm and dissatisfaction did prevail in Scotland, though the wisest and more reflecting part of the community were convinced of the necessity of concentrating the troops in the vicinity of the capital. The house are sufficiently aware what a large proportion of the recruits for the regular army are at all times obtained from Scotland. Notwithstanding this I have now to mention, that, at the period to which I am referring, there were only, in all Scotland, two weak battalions of the army of reserve, without clothing and without arms, and one solitary regiment of dragoons. In this respect, then, we were solely left to ourselves. But, Sir, this was not all. At that very moment the noble lord, at the head of the troops in Scotland, had actually received orders to detach some part of our force to Ireland, and two of our best appointed and most steady regiments of militia were actually under marching orders for a district in Northumberland. We had then only thirteen battalions of militia; the supplementary militia were then hardly in the ranks, and of the volunteers a great proportion were also destitute of arms, and in every point of view unprepared for service, on the east coast of Scotland. When I mention that under two major generals there were only two regiments, I think I must convey to the house a tolerable picture of military defence of Scotland at the time when this letter, on which so much animadversion has passed, was written. With regard to the north of Scotland, its whole safety depended upon the voluntary exertions of the people. The noble lord at the head of the forces felt it his duty to concentrate what troops he could collect for the defence of Edinburgh, and therefore the defenceless state of the northern part of the island could not, at that moment, be possibly avoided. I appeal then, Sir, to the candour of the house, what my feelings must have been, when called on to offer an opinion respecting the conduct of an individual, whose proceedings went to the direct discouragement of the exertions of the volunteers, on whom the safety of the North of Scotland depended. Am I to be severely condemned for not having guided myself wholly by the cold formal terms of law? The more we felt the necessity of concentrating the troops in the vicinity of Edinburgh, the more did we see the expedience of encouraging, by every possible means, the exertions of the volunteers in the Northern part of the island. Unquestionably it was the duty of every man to discourage any attempt to damp the ardor of the volunteers, and though I have no idea of dragooning men into volunteers, I certainly did feel, that the conduct of Morison, under all the circumstances of the case, was highly to be reprobated. So much I have conceived it necessary to say as to the means of defence possessed by Scotland, at the period when the letter was written. The next point to which I wish to advert is, the means of information with regard, to the probable attempt at invasion, at the period to which I have been referring. At that time it was almost universally understood among all the deputy lieutenants, or at least among all the lords lieutenants of counties, that invasion might be expected from day to day. The noble lord at the head of the troops strongly represented the immediate probability of the attempt, and even went so far as to read a letter from the secretary of state, intimating that government, from their knowledge of the enemy's preparations, were in daily expectation of the enemy endeavouring to effect a landing on our shores. So far, indeed, did the noble lord and I carry our views on this subject, that not contented with precautions for the readiness of the troops, we carried them even so far as to our own persons. I can state to the house, that the noble lord was so scrupulous on this point, that he determined not to sleep even one night out of Edinburgh. He even went so far as to refrain to sleep at Dalkeith, the seat of the Duke of Buccleugh, though only six miles from Edinburgh, from the apprehension that the signal for the approach of the enemy might be hoisted, and even an hour should not be lost in leading the troops against the invaders. It was under such circumstances and such impressions, that I sat down to consider the case of Morison, and in the answer which I gave to the memorial submitted for my opinion, as well as in the letter to the sheriff of Bamffshire, I certainly did deliver my sentiments under the impression that the enemy might have landed in Scotland, even before my letter reached its destination.—Having put the house in possession of the real state of thing, so far as our information respecting the time when invasion might have been expected in Scotland, I proceed to make a few observations on the nature of the office which it is my duty to hold, and which may tend to enable the house more fairly and impartially to judge of the question at issue. They, Sir, who judge of the office of lord advocate for Scotland by a comparison with the dry, formal office of attorney-general in this country, have, indeed, formed a most erroneous opinion on the subject. The hon. gent has professed his inability to explain to the house the various and complicated duties of this office. I wish that I could within any reasonable compass define its duties, and then I can assure the house that though extensive, almost beyond conception, they would afford me ease and retirement, compared with the endless succession of duties which now successively pass under my review. It will be necessary for me to say a few words here respecting the executive govt. in Scotland, previous to the union. At that period the lord high chancellor, the lord justice general, the lord justice clerk, the lord privy seal, and the lord advocate, were the constituent members of administration. From a variety of causes these had successively disappeared. The lord high chancellor was no longer in existence. The lord privy seal existed merely for the purpose of appending the seal of Scotland. The lord chief justice general is the mere nominal head of a court at which he never presides. By a special act of parliament the lord justice clerk can have no seat in the house, and is wholly confined to his own court.—Under these circumstances, Sir, the whole of the duties connected with these various departments have now entirely devolved on the lord advocate of Scotland. To him all inferior officers look for advice and decision, and with the greatest propriety it may be said that he possesses the whole of the executive government of Scotland under his particular care. I, Sir, have found in my own experience how boundless are the duties which this office imposes. It has fallen to my lot in a thousand instances not only to give advice on subjects connected with my professional pursuits, but on subjects altogether foreign from my habits of life. I have often been under the necessity of giving advice on matters purely military, and to endeavour to remove difficulties which had occurred in arranging the means of national defence. I may state, without exaggeration, that since the first passing of the acts for the defence of the country, I have given to lord lieutenants and others employed in carrying these acts into effect, no less than eight hundred different opinions on the subject of military arrangements. This I have been called to do from the difference of habits and manners in different districts of Scotland, to which no general legislative opinion could ever reach. While I am on this subject, I may with the utmost propriety add, that, since the arrival of the present commander in chief in Scotland (Earl Moira), I have been in a great measure relieved from this very fatiguing part of my public duty. That gallant nobleman possesses not only the utmost perfection of, military science, but unites so much civil and political knowledge, that he has conciliated and endeared all hearts. Under his auspices we have not only begun to feel no dread of invasion, but have imbibed confidence in ourselves. We have not only adopted this confidence, but we have been inspired with an enthusiastic desire to prove ourselves worthy of our illustrious commander, and by our blood to add new glory to his fame in arms. I am proud, Sir, to boast of the confidence which the noble lord has been pleased to repose in me, and I will put it with fairness to the house, whether, if my public conduct had ever been marked with severity, wantonness or oppression, it is at all likely that I should have continued to enjoy the good opinion of one so much distinguished by his public and his private virtues. Will the house credit the possibility of the noble lord's at all times honouring with his regard an individual under whose administration the people of Scotland were reduced to the degrading state which the hon. gent. who introduced the charge seemed to represent? In judging of my public conduct, the house ought to bear in mind the duties which I have to perform and the scene on which I am called on to act. It should be remembered that, with the exception of the legislature, Scotland is still to all intents and purposes a separate kingdom. Its laws, its customs, and its manners have undergone no change. In the application of general acts much local explanation is required, and therefore the lord advocate of Scotland must frequently act on his responsibility. This is the sort of conduct which every one in this situation is necessarily compelled to pursue. Cases do occur when nothing but responsibility can enable a lord advocate of Scotland firmly and honestly to perform his duty to the public. In the American war, a noble lord (Lord Melville) who then filled the situation, acted on one occasion on this principle in a way that did him the highest honour. The instance to which I allude was the case of several vessels about to sail from Greenock and Port-patrick for New York and Boston. If these vessels had been permitted to sail, the consequence would have been that a number of British subjects would have been totally lost to this country. What then did the noble lord do under these circumstances? He did precisely that which his public duty imperiously required of him. He incurred a grand responsibility, immediately sent orders to the custom-house officers at the ports from which the vessels were to sail, and had them all embargoed. Thus, by incurring responsibility, an important public object was obtained, though the act in itself was not strictly legal. Another case, which is also strongly in point, occurred during the administration of my predecessor in office. It so happened that he received intelligence that a letter would be sent from the post office at Perth, and would reach Edinburgh on a particular day. In this case, if legal forms had been adhered to, an order from the secretary of state's office must have been obtained before the letter could be stopped. But what had his hon. friend done at such a crisis? he felt that he must and ought to stand upon his responsibility. He did follow this course. He intercepted the letter, and from the information it contained he was enabled to detect and bring Watt, the traitor, to condign punishment. In my own experience I have also felt it my duty to stand on my responsibility, when it appeared to me that the public service was interested. Information reached me, that several vessels were about to sail from ports in the west of Scotland, with a number of emigrants on board, bound to America, and that the amount of provisions was not much more than one-third of what was necessary to provide for even an ordinary voyage. Here I did not hesitate a moment, but immediately, by orders to the custom-house officers, had them embargoed, till a proper supply of provisions was obtained. The action was not strictly legal, but my own sense of public duty represented to me the necessity of resorting to it and awaiting the consequences. No fault was found with my conduct, and if I had thought that it would have been blamed, I could only have come to this house for an act of indemnity. I felt it my duty to act on the same principles in July last, when the insurrection broke out in Dublin. At that time I was apprized that numbers of Irishmen were arriving at Port Patrick, from Ireland. I naturally supposed, as was the case, a bill would pass, enabling the Irish govt. to prevent any person leaving Ireland without a passport. There was no similar law against their reception here; but, acting on the principle that this act was meant to be reciprocal, I immediately sent orders to prevent any persons but women and children from landing in any port of this kingdom, without a passport; and those who had no passport I immediately ordered to be sent back again to Ireland. Here, to be sure, I did not act in conformity to the strict letter of the law. Carrying the matter to strict interpretation, an action of false imprisonment would, perhaps, have lain against me. But I should have been ashamed of myself if, from an apprehension of any such consequences, I had at all dreaded to encounter responsibility, or to answer for my conduct with my head. On these principles I have always proceeded, and on these grounds it is my determination always to act.—It did occur to me, in the event of the enemy appearing off the coast and evidencing an intention of landing, that it would be impossible to go on in the common mode of administering justice, and I therefore, in conformity to the opinion of the noble commander in chief, applied to government for the appointment of a conditional committee, for declaring martial law in the event of the enemy's landing.—Feeling that the noble secretary of state was apprehensive that the knowledge of such a measure might create unnecessary alarm, I desired himself only to say so, that I would take the whole responsibility on myself, would burn his letter on the subject, would on my own responsibility take every step that was necessary for the public safety, and would throw myself on the candour of this house. If, however, the house be inclined to take on themselves the responsibility which had always been understood to attach to the character of lord advocate, I shall feel happy, and thank them for the relief. There is another thing which may give some idea of the situation in which Scotland stood at the moment when that letter was written, and of the degree of responsibility which the imperious necessity of the times called on me to undertake. At that time Edinburgh was in the greatest state of alarm, and was by no means adequately defended, such as by the exertions of the noble lord to whom I have so often alluded it now is, nor could it at that moment have resisted an attack of five thousand men. In this situation, the banks and private bankers had provided the necessary accommodations for retreating with all their effects. I was here again forced to interpose my responsibility. If the enemy should land, what in that case would become of the payment of the troops, the banks having fled with all their cash? I caused a military chest to be erected, in which all the cash of the country should be deposited. I told them that I would take the responsibility on myself. The pay of, 20,000 troops, while an enemy was in the country, could not be suffered to depend on a check or bill on London. Such was the responsibility in which I stood, and such the character in which I acted. It was not as public prosecutor that I wrote the letter in question; it was not my object to have Mr. Morison apprehended as a suspected person, but I felt it a duty incumbent on me, from the situation I held, arising from the official information which I had received.—The hon. gent. says that my opinion and my letter were very different. They, indeed, were so, for they were founded on very different information, and were given under very different circumstances. The one was an opinion delivered by me to a client; the other was a letter written in consequence of a communication made to me in my official capacity, by a person holding an official situation in the county in which the transaction occurred. The memorial or statement, on which my opinion was formed, was not laid before me by the sheriff substitute, but by the private agent of Garrow. It stated the fact of the service, of Garrow's dismissal, and concluded with the question, "is he entitled to payment for his service during the period of his service?" The letter, on the other hand, was written in consequence of a communication made to me officially by Mr. Forbes, sheriff substitute of the county, whose business it is to impart to me such occurrences in the county as he may deem of any public importance, or as likely to aid or impede the public service. He thought it a business of such a nature as called on him to wait on me, and communicate to me the circumstances under which it occurred. I shall state that information to the house, and then let them judge of the dilemma in which the lord advocate of Scotland must stand, if, with the high responsibility to which he is subjected, he is to be liable to charges like the present. Were I to wish to shelter myself under a vile insinuation against Morison that I had received information against him, which, independent of the circumstances attending the dismissal, would warrant the conduct which I had adopted, would the house ask me to divulge my private information? It unquestionably would not. If it did, there would be an end to all communications of the kind, as none would be found in such circumstances ready to give any information. If I ask for indemnity, is it necessary to shew that I have acted legally? Of what use, then, would be an application for indemnity? If I produced prima facie evidence of being actuated by no sinister or improper, motive, I would not be required to divulge the real grounds on which my conduct was founded. If a disclosure of such secret grounds of opinion were at all required, they would not be called for openly, but in a secret committee. It is not my wish, however, to screen myself under such an allegation. Justice to Mr. Morison requires me to declare, that I have no cause to impute any improper conduct or motives to him, farther than was communicated to me by the sheriff substitute regarding this affair. Feeling the bad effects which the conduct of Morison had, and was likely to have in that part of the country, the sheriff substitute, on his own part, and on the part of the other magistrates of the county, came to me, and stated how materially the public service had been injured. He informed me that the servant had not entered against the will, but without obtaining the consent of his master. That his master had seen him attend drill for four months without objecting to it, he having done it at extraordinary hours. Having thus qualified himself for the service, and entitled to avail himself of his attendance, he asked leave of his master to go, but was refused, a particular piece of work being at the same time pointed out to him, which he must perform. So great was his zeal for the public service, and at the same time his desire not to neglect his master's work, he rose during the night-time, and completed the task assigned him. Having done so, he shewed it to his master, again asked leave to go, and was again refused. This, probably, was the first time he had worn his uniform, desirous, most likely of figuring before some of his female acquaintance, and anxious, no doubt, to profit by the attendance which he had formerly given, he did attend the inspection, expecting at the very most that he would receive a scold for his disobedience. In this, however, he was deceived, his master dismissed him, although he offered to work extra hours, or any additional day at the expiration of his agreement. But how was he turned away? Was he turned away as the hon. gent. would dismiss one of his servants who had deservedly offended him? Were his wages honestly and fairly paid to him? No, he and his family were turned to the door without a single farthing of wages, even for the time he had actually served, which he did not latterly recover, but through a decree of the sheriff. Dismissal of a servant in Scotland, it is to be observed, is very different in its effects from a similar line of conduct in this country. In Scotland servants were not engaged by the day or week, but by the half year, at two stated terms, when every servant necessary for that half year's work, is engaged. It was therefore not to be expected that he should get a place for the remainder of the winter. There are, besides, no poor rates in Scotland, of course no alternative seemed to await him but to beg or to starve. These are the circumstances on which I proceeded, communicated to me not by the servant, but officially by the chief magistrate of the county, impressed with the conviction of the mischievous effects which such conduct had produced on the public service. Is there then a man in this house who will now hesitate where to apply the terms injustice and oppression? I do say, that I, at this moment, consider the conduct of Morison to have been unjust and oppressive in the extreme; and, on mature and calm deliberation, if I doubt of any part of my conduct in that business, it is how far my legal opinion, that he was warranted in dismissing his servant, was well founded. The circumstances were stated to me as guardian of the laws of Scotland. In what light could I view the conduct of Morison? The hon. gent. says, that I was not entitled, however, to read a man's motives in his conduct; as if there was one man in the North of Scotland in the pay of France, in what manner could he act to denote his character more clearly than Morison had here done? The hon. gent. has completely misplaced those sentiments of commiseration and compassion on which he had so largely dwelt. This, however, I am convinced proceeded from a partial and incomplete information of the facts of the case. Had he known them fully, he must have seen that his compassion was far more justly due to the servant than to the master. There is, however, another circumstance, of which I then had information, with which the conduct of Morison exactly corresponded, nor was I at all unwarranted in supposing him to be a person of that description. I was not ignorant that there had existed at Portsay, within a mile or two of the place where this gent. lived, a society called "the Society for Universal Liberty," founded on the principle of never ceasing to promote their chimerical and visionary plans, so long as a member of it existed. The conduct of this society had been such as to induce the sheriff to inform them, that he must have the honours of the sittings at the after meetings, and on this notification they had thought proper to dissolve. That they did, however, still continue to meet in small parties, for feditious purposes, and that one of their objects was to discountenance and discourage volunteering among servants, was known. I was well aware that the premium mobile, the principal instigator and promoter of this society, was a person very likely to have influence over Mr. Morison. What then was I to think, when I saw him so wantonly and undisguised impeding the public service, but that he was one of the persons who had adopted this as their grand and systematic object? My mind, probably, is not properly constructed, but such was my feeling and persuasion on the occasion. Let me ask, if a person had sold himself into the service of France, and were to put the question to the First Consul, how he could best serve him, what would he answer? "You live in a remote part of the country, where you can expect little aid from the regular force, which must necessarily be kept near the capital. Intelligence you can send me none; therefore, the most essential service you can render me is, to do every thing you can to discourage, impede, and defeat the volunteering." If, therefore, Morison had been in the direct pay of France, he could have done nothing more effectually to serve it than he actually had done.—Having now gone through, at much greater length than I intended, the conduct of Morison, as stated by the sheriff substitute, I shall proceed to make a few remarks on the letter. The hon. gent. has divided this branch into three distinct points. There is one on which he has not touched, which, as it may militate against me with some of the legal gentlemen near me, whose good wishes I am eager to reconcile, I must explain. The passage I allude to is that in which I state, that I have returned the fee; a practice, I can assure my learned friends and the hon. gent., by no means common in my country, and one which I shall be sorry to extend to the hon. gent. should he be ever pleased to employ me. The first part of the letter touched on by the hon. gent. is that in which I state the conduct of Morison to be of an atrocious nature, and that the gentlemen of the county should enter into a resolution not to associate with him. When I first suggested this to the sheriff substitute, he told me that this was already in a great measure the case. I told him then, the power of punishing was in their own hands, and if they required my testimony in support of their conduct, they should have it. That sentiment I still retain. Will this house entertain a complaint against a public officer for libeling a private individual? To an action of damages, I am sensible, if I have libelled Mr. Morison, I am liable, and even that my official situation might be a ground for enhancing them. But, with such a question, this house has nothing to do. I have expressed my opinion of his conduct. In that opinion I still persevere. The very act of sending the letter may amount to publication of the libel, if it be one. Let Mr. Morison bring his proper action, and I shall be ready to answer to it. As to the idea that my advice to the gentlemen of the county not to associate with Mr. Morison, was to produce that sentiment, can the house believe that such would have been the effect, had not such an idea corresponded with their own feelings? A pretty satisfactory proof of this feeling manifested itself at a quarterly county meeting, where one gent. was found willing to bring my letter under consideration; the motion, however, was thrown over the table. Was I the only person not entitled to express this opinion? or does the hon. gent. think, that I was bound to recommend him to the notice and respect of the gentlemen of the county, and to advice them to take him cordially by the hand? standing in the situation in which I did, and told officially, by a public officer, what effect his conduct had produced, what other step could I have adopted? the next point touched on, by the hon. gent., was that part, in which I recommend, that in case of a landing of the enemy, Morison should be apprehended. On this head, the hon. gent. remarks, what would be the effect, if, in resisting such attempt, he should commit murder? offence, says the hon. gent. would not be punishable, he would have been apprehended without a warrant! The hon. gent. has clearly misconceived this part of the case. My letter would not have been the warrant, on which, in the event of a landing, Morison would have been apprehended. It could only have served as the authority or mandate to the sheriff, or other officer, to issue the proper warrant, and to which, therefore, the objection of the hon. gent. will not apply. But, says the hon. gent., if you did think this act necessary, you have even exceeded it; for, not content with apprehending, you have also ordered him to be detained. If this had not been ordered, what use could there have been, in ordering him, or any suspicious person, to be apprehended? it could be of no use whatever; if not detained till the enemy were driven from the coast, what beneficial effect could arise from apprehending him on the first landing of the enemy. On this subject, the act of 1791 had been referred to, and I feel happy in seeing that act alluded to and read. It proves that the liberties of my country are fixed on as solid a foundation as those of England are, by the boasted habeas corpus. But the hon. gent. ought to have observed, that times of invasion or rebellion, are expressly excepted in the act. The warrants however, it is to be remarked, are ordered to be issued, under the orders of five members of the privy council. Unfortunately there is now none such in Scotland, and if I, who now bear on my shoulders the whole weight of the privy council of Scotland, am not entitled to grant such authority, Scotland is in the unhappy situation or possessing no remedy against this evil. If it is on this narrow ground, that the hon. gent. wishes to propose a censure upon me, I shall, most willingly, submit. This letter, however, it was never in my contemplation should go out of the pocket of the person to whom it was written, unless in case of it being necessary to apprehend Morison. Then it would have been a justification to the person who issued the warrant. But I desire it either to be put on record, or a notarial copy to be made of it. But the hon. gent. says that I am liable for any consequence which may result from the writing of this letter, whether I could have divined the consequence or not. This is rather a new and dangerous principle to maintain. It was equally impossible that I could figure that this letter could have been put on record, as that a letter written by the hon. gent. or by either of our wives, should have found its way thither. But the hon. gent. might say, now that we are in possession of the fact, that you really have such suspicious characters, let us see that you have no more of them. Let us see your green boxes, and we will tell you how far you are well founded. This, indeed, would be exceedingly convenient, as there would then be no responsibility. What if Morison had been apprehended—would gentlemen have said, make out a legal case? Then there would have been no occasion for indemnity.—Having thus laid the case before the house, having stated the danger of the country at the period when the letter was written, having pointed out the responsibility of my own situation. I leave it to the house to determine whether I have not made out such a case as must satisfy them. I trust I have already said enough to shew that, in the very critical situation I was placed, and with such information as was then before me, I might have undertaken, on my own responsibility, to have Mr. Morison arrested in the event of invasion. I am now assured that Mr. Morison is a loyal and respectable man. It may be so; but in time of great danger we must act for the safety of the state, on the evidence then before us.—The rt. hon. gent. concluded by throwing himself upon the candour of the house, and apologizing for having so long detained it. The lord advocate then withdrew from the house.

then moved, "that it appears to this house that the conduct of the rt. hon. Charles Hope, his majesty's advocate for Scotland, in writing the said letter, has been oppressive, illegal, and contrary to his official duty." The question being put,

rose and stated that he thought the first sentence which had fallen from the noble lord in his defence, was an aggravation of his offence. His lordship had said, that if Mr. Morison had apologized to him, all might have been well. Mr. Morison's conduct he did not admire, but the conduct of the lord advocate did not the less deserve his reprobation. After what he had heard, he could not deny that the powers of the lord advocate were great, but he was not the less on that account called on to be circumspect in his conduct. It was not the conduct of Morison, but that of the lord advocate which was now before the house, and though the conduct of Morison might be calculated to impede the voluntary exertions, it could hardly be contended that the mode in which the lord advocate had conducted himself, was calculated to inspirit them. He had said that the letter was not intended to go out of the pocket of the person to whom it had been sent. How, in that case, could it hold him out to the contempt and odium it professed for its object? Keeping the letter secret, his lordship rather thought an aggravation of the injury, for in that way it must have come on him like a thunderbolt, without any previous expectation, and while he thought himself secure, he must, without being heard in his defence, have been deprived both of his liberty and property.

was of opinion, that after what they had heard from the rt. hon. and learned lord himself any thing they he could say, could add but little to his justification. The learned lord had stated, that, as a lawyer, he had founded his opinion on the private information of an individual, but in regard to the question now before the house, he had acted on the information of the sheriff, and not on the information of a private individual. The principal objection to the conduct of the learned lord, he stated, arose from an idea that it was oppressive to the individual: but, even allowing this objection its full force, all would, at the same time, admit, that this was not a case that required the interference of the house. The laws of the country were already sufficient for the redress of such grievances. He would be the last man, he said, to say, that the expressions contained in the letter, were all justifiable. Many of them, on the contrary, on re-consideration, would be found blamable, but he did not think that those expressions could form a sufficient ground for the interference of parliament. From the statement that had been so distinctly given, he could easily conceive why Morison would rather apply for redress in this way, than in any other. It would have been no wise proceeding in Morison, he conceived to have had recourse to law, in the usual manner, not because there was no law in his favour, but because, from all circumstances, it was probable that he might not have had damages. If the case really led to so great damages as was represented, Morison had an opportunity to have them, as the law was open to him, and competent in ever respect for redress. In regard to indemnity, it was not usual for an officer to apply, prospectively, for any security of this kind. But the fact requiring indemnity, had really not been committed. The learned lord, had only given orders that such a fact should take place, and no indemnity, therefore, became necessary.—The hon. and learned gent. then directed the attention of the house, to the passage in the letter respecting compensation. The law, no doubt, provided, he said, that compensation should be made to sufferers, but here also, distinctions were to be made. If such sufferers had not been careful to preserve their property, if they had not used every means in their power against the common enemy, if they had even prevented the operation of measures for the general defence, what degree of compensation could such men expect? the opinion of the learned lord seemed to originate in this principle, but it was only an opinion, and could not operate to the prejudice of the supposed sufferer, as it could have no legal effect. Suppose the case ever could have existed, it must afterwards have come before a court to be tried, before which the learned lord could only lay the circumstances, such as he understood them, and with whom he could have no influence, but only in so far as his opinion corresponded with those circumstances. But the house ought to attend to the circumstances of the country, and the situation it was then in, which he did not think by any means a matter of so little importance as the noble lord (A. Hamilton) seemed to do. The house ought certainly to view the matter with great consideration, but at the same time he could not see that any fair ground was made out for their interference. He disagreed with the noble lord opposite, that the conduct of the learned lord could impede the services of the volunteers. The hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Whitbread), had said that the volunteers were a good thing, but that we were not to be dragooned into volunteering; but if we were not to be dragooned into volunteering, we certainly ought not to be dragooned out of it. Whets it was known that the servant rose in the night time, and did the work that stood for the day, the house, he thought, would alter their opinions in some respect as to the general question. If Morison's case appeared to be in some instances a hard one, that of the servant could not be considered as less so, and he had no doubt, that had the hon. gent. considered all the circumstances, he would have said to Morison, it is unnecessary to apply to parliament, take the usual course of law. If the learned lord was really convinced that the conduct of Morison proceeded from disaffection, he certainly could not be to blame for the manner in which he had acted, He had been anxious for the defence and safety of the country, and what he had done had been the effect of that anxiety. So far, therefore, was he from approving the present motion, that he would rather move that the other orders of the day be now read. The rt. hon. and learned gent. then concluded with moving an amendment to that effect.

rose and addressed the house in the following terms:—I feel, Sir, no degree of surprise that it should be the wish of some gentlemen to get rid of the motion of my hon. friend; but I confess that I am much astonished at the manner in which it is proposed to get rid of it, and this surprise is heightened by the representation which the learned mover of the amendment has given of this important transaction. If any thing could add to the deep regret that the whole of this affair has excited in my mind, it would be the light terms in which it has been spoken of, and the sort of defence set up for it by a learned gent. holding a high public office in the country—a gent. upon whom the pure administration of justice so very much depends. Into the defence offered for his conduct by the noble lord who is the subject of the motion, so far as it refers to the alleged misbehavior of Mr. Morison, I will not enter, nor do I think it necessary in the consideration of this great question, with which it has little or nothing to do; the point for the decision of the house being simply this, whether the lord advocate of Scotland has, in the exercise of his office, been guilty of oppression and illegality? The noble and learned lord has thought proper to go into a very long detail of the nature of the office which he holds, and the old authorities from which he derives his various powers. Through this detail I will not follow him. It is not now necessary, for whether he enjoys such a combination of power is not for us now to inquire; but whether he has, in the instance before the house, exercised his authority with discretion, and a due regard to the sacred and immutable precepts of justice. The noble lord has stated many acts done by lord advocates which were not legal, and yet were not deemed censurable; but in none of the cases alluded to can I discover any precedent at all analogous to that of which he is now accused, for in each of those a necessity appeared to call for the line of proceeding resorted to. When persons were about to emigrate to America, as the learned lord stated, in order to find their way to the ranks of the enemy, it was unquestionably right to prevent it; and to prohibit ships to sail which were not supplied with sufficient provisions for the sustenance of their crews, was what humanity must approve. The interposition of the lord advocate to intercept a treasonable correspondence through the medium of the post-office, and the recent interdict against the landing of Irishmen in Scotland, without a passport from Ireland, were acts to be supported by strong reasons, but I contend that there is not, in the character of any of those acts, the least similitude to the transaction which the learned lord supposes them satisfactory precedents to justify. They were cases in which the prompt exercise of authority was necessary, or the public interest might have suffered, and the public safety been endangered: but I would ask, whether any such consequences could have ensued from delay in this affair? Can any men pretend to plead that in defence of the conduct of the learned lord on this occasion? Can it be argued that any injury could result to the public, or to any individual, had the learned lord, when he received the information respecting Morison, waited until he had made full inquiry, and given the accused, that of which the learned lord has availed himself this night; namely, an opportunity to resist the charge alleged against him? There was no occasion for a sudden decision upon this question. Would it not then have been becoming the high office which the learned lord holds, and his character as a man, to have taken time to investigate the whole merits of the charge before he attempted to stigmatize the character and endanger the liberty of a British subject? If it be said that the conduct of Morison was reprehensible, as it tended to impede the progress of the volunteer system, I would tell gentlemen, that the conduct of a public officer is much more reprehensible, who by an abuse of power, by oppressive and illegal acts, damps and discourages the spirit of the people, which cherishes and sustains that system. Any inattention to, much more outrage upon the rights of the people, must naturally render them less anxious for the defence of the power which sanctions it. The principal use and object of power is the protection of popular liberty; when it is employed for a contrary purpose its existence is an evil, and the people living under it cannot be interested in its security. What then is so likely to be the effect of such an act as that which is the subject of this debate? To state it is enough to excite reprobation; and serious must be the consequences if it should be overlooked in the way the mover of the amendment would recommend. As to the learned lord's statement respecting the situation of Scotland at the time he wrote this unjustifiable letter to Mr. Morison, I believe it to be strictly true; and if the learned lord states that 5000 of the enemy could have taken possession of Edinburgh, I can assure him that that city was not more defenceless at that period than were many other districts of the kingdom; for, to my knowledge, 5000 men could have very easily possessed themselves of all the valuable collieries in the vicinity of the Tyne. Such was the injudicious distribution of our public force! However, this injudicious distribution or scarcity of our force only serves to shew, that there was a great call for exertion, and that circumstance, far from operating to extenuate, much less to justify the act of the learned lord, places his conduct in a more aggravated point of view, because it had a direct tendency to check exertion and to disgust the public feeling. The learned mover of the amendment considered this subject in two points of view: first, as to the degree of private injury which the letter was likely to inflict upon Morison, and next as to the public consequence which belongs to the transaction. As to the first, I would ask of any man, whether any thing can be imagined more particularly calculated to do a serious injury to any individual in the circumstances of Morison than to affix such a stigma to his character as this letter contains, to hold him out as a person unfit to be associated with, to excite all his neighbors to conspire against him? Surely the mere statement of such an attempt is sufficient evidence of the intent to do material injury to the individual, and the power of the person attempting it to effect his purpose, cannot be denied: but what aggravates this attempt is this, that the man against whom it was made was refused the opportunity of repelling the charge that led to it; and the still farther aggravation is, that the letter concludes with a paragraph that no compensation would be allowed to Morison for any property of his which might be destroyed in the event of invasion; a pretty good hint this, by the bye, when combined with the manner in which the man's character was marked out, that his property might, in such an event, be destroyed with impunity. Upon the whole of the business, then, I would submit to any candid man, whether any private injury could have been more flagrant? The learned mover of the amendment says, that Morison may have his redress for any private injury by an appeal at law; but I would wish to know how is that redress to be obtained? If an application be to the criminal law, I would have the house to understand, that in Scotland the lord advocate is the only criminal prosecutor, and there is no grand jury to whom a bill of indictment can be preferred. In the person of the lord advocate centers the power of criminal prosecutor and grand jury. How, then, is Morison to proceed? If an action for damages were recommended, I would only beg the house to consider what success a man was likely to have, who should be described to a Scotch court as Morison has been, and who should stand forward as the adversary of the lord advocate? Besides, it would not be quite prudent for the man to expose himself to still farther resentment by such a mode of proceeding. The learned mover of the amendment has argued, as if the house should not take notice of this letter, because it only related to something to be done in a certain contingency, and because the act was not complete, therefore, according to the learned gent., not of any serious consequence; but the house must be aware, that its first duty is to watch over the public officers, to prevent them from abusing their authority, and whenever the disposition to such abuse appears, immediately to interfere. That a case has been made out in this instance to call for such interference, and that the house is bound to notice it, I entertain not the least doubt.—The learned lord mentioned in one part of his speech, that this letter was a private order to the sheriff substitute of Bamff, and not meant to be made public; but how does this square with a statement in another part of the learned lord's speech, that he on the day the letter was dated, had a personal communication with that sheriff at Edinburgh? If the order was meant to be private, it might have been communicated at that meeting, and there could have been no necessity for a a letter to be afterwards transmitted to the sheriff's clerk, for the purpose of being inscribed upon the registers of the county. That such a letter as this was not written with a view to publicity, it would be quite absurd to suppose. The very terms of the letter itself, particularly that which related to the exclusion of Morison from the society of his neighbors, was sufficient demonstration of that, and the manner in which the thing was done, with the pretences upon which it was grounded, is enough, if any thing were necessary, to enhance the guilt of the whole transaction. It is pretended, that Morison was a suspected person; but upon what ground he was suspected is not even insinuated. This calls to my remembrance an expression used by a noble lord, not now in this house, who, in the course of an impressive speech upon the enormities of the French revolution, stated, that the majority of the persons arrested and proscribed in France, had no other charge against them, than the "suspicion of being suspected." This seemed to be precisely the case of Mr. Morison. The learned lord states, that there was a society of disaffected persons in Scotland professing universal liberty for their object, and this he mentions with a view to justify the existence of his suspicion; but, although he charges Morison with endeavouring to impede the volunteers, he does not venture to connect him with this disaffected society; he urges nothing against him on this head, and the absence of such information may be very fairly deemed a presumption in favour of Morison.—The learned lord still insists that the behavior of Morison was suspicious; but I hope the day is far distant in this country when a man's acting according to the letter of the law, particularly in the exercise of his domestic authority, should expose himself to the charge of disaffection, and this I take to have been the only ground of charge against Morison. If such a charge upon such grounds were to be sustained, every gent. who has any knowledge of the country must be aware to what an extent it would reach, and if the disputes between masters and servants were thus to be inflamed by the conduct of magistrates, how melancholy would be the prospect for the country at this critical period? It is said that Mr. Morison wished his servant, Garrow, to stop at home to thatch a barn, when he disobeyed him to go to a parade; but in answer it is alleged by those who are anxious for the crimination of Morison, that a barn was not so material for that season of the year. This, however, is a mistake, as that is the precise time when a barn is most necessary after the harvest, for thrashing, housing the corn, &c. The learned lord describes the industry and zeal of Garrow, the servant, to be such, that he rose out of bed a little after midnight in Oct., and thatched the barn before morning, in order to be able to go to the parade. On this night I suppose there was a good moonlight, but that a man should do as much work in three or four hours as he could during the whole day, was a mockery to think of. I see no reason, however, to presume that the man's disobedience to this order respecting the parade was the sole cause of his dismissal. Upon the master's remonstrating with him high words might have arisen, and from such words perhaps the insolence of the servant might have proceeded the dismissal. I state this merely to shew the impropriety of issuing such an order as that under consideration, without ample inquiry into the circumstances. Even after this order I beg the house to recollect how the learned lord acted, and this will afford some criterion to judge of the possibility of Morison's succeeding in any application for redress in Scotland. When he applied to the lord advocate, did he receive even the promise of redress? No. Was he told that upon explaining his innocence justice-would be done him? No. But he was informed that he must confess himself guilty of the misconduct charged upon him before any attention could be paid to his request; that is, that his acquiescence in the censures of the lord advocate, in the propriety of excommunication from society pronounced against him, must be a preliminary to the grant of pardon. Such were the arbitrary terms proposed to an oppressed man, as a condition of his release from oppression!—Under all the circumstances of this question, I hope the house will not suffer it to go abroad that it would sanction the principle of punishing a man upon the presumption of his criminality, and upon mere exparte evidence. I must say that the way proposed by the amendment get rid of the motion is not consistent with decency. If the defence offered by the learned lord be satisfactory, why go to the order of the day to evade a decision upon it? I cannot approve of the motive tendency of such an evasion; and, as I am of opinion that the purity of pubic justice, the liberty of the subject, the protection of private character, the defence of loyalty, and the due encouragement of the volunteer spirit, depends on the fate of the original motion, I shall certainly give it my vote.

felt it a duty he owed to the public, to that house, and the learned lord who was the principal subject of the debate, to deliver his sentiments upon the question under discussion. If the original motion were adopted, he thought the house would pledge itself to the other proposition which the hon. gent. had announced his intention of bringing forward. Indeed the hon. gent. would desert his duty if he did not follow the adoption of the one by the proposition of the other; and the house would scandalously betray their duty if they should refuse their assent to the one after the adoption of the other. The learned gent. denied that it was right to separate the conduct of Morison from a consideration of that of the lord advocate; for they were necessarily connected. With respect to the words of the motion, he argued that the act of the lord advocate was neither illegal nor oppressive; and so convinced was he of that, that he would not, were he invested with power, or even if he were not, hesitate to use his utmost end avours to procure the arrest of any man suspected of disaffection, and likely, in the event of invasion, to promote the views of the enemy. No impaction of rancor or personal prejudice could attach to the lord advocate in this affair. His motive was as evidently of a pure public nature, and had no view to oppression. Morison he thought to be a disaffected man, and that his thought was not unfounded in a great degree appeared from the cause assigned by Morison for wishing to prevent his servant from attending the volunteer parade. The cause the thatching of a barn. What! at a time that the enemy was hourly expected in the country, a volunteer should be withdrawn from his corps to attend to the thatching of a barn; and that his master should dismiss him, after such an evidence of zeal and animation as the poor man evinced in rising at such an hour to perform his task. From a fair review of the case, he thought it manifest that Morison was actuated by a spirit of disaffection, and that the whole of his conduct afforded grounds for suspicion. So persuaded was he of this, and of course of the reasons which justified the conduct of the lord advocate towards him, that he had no doubt, were Morison, or such a man, to apply to the Court of King's Bench in this country, for a criminal information against a person acting towards him as the lord advocate had done, the court would say to him, "Your conduct has been such, that you have been treated as you deserved, and you have no right to look for any thing from us; for whatever the conduct of the public officer may have been, your conduct has been worse." The learned gent. went on to state, that he respected the motives and applauded the conduct of the learned lord, and believing him to have been influenced by the most honourable feelings, he declared that he would most heartily support a vote of thanks to the learned gent. for the very act to which the original motion referred.

was surprised that after the manly avowal of the lord advocate himself, it should be proposed to the house to come to an indirect vote upon this question, to give it a kind of go-by. Connected as he was with the country over which the learned lord possessed a dominion so important, he implored the house, for the satisfaction of the people of that country, and for the sake of the character of the learned lord himself, not to assent to the proposition for evading the subject. He begged the house to recollect the conduct of the accused upon a late occasion in that house (Colonel Patten's motion). There an attempt was made to pass by the question, by the proposition of the previous question; but the noble lord, who then held a high office in the administration, rejected that proposition with disdain. He felt that when the character of a public officer was charged in that house, he should meet the charge fairly, and the house should directly decide upon it. This was the course which he would advise the real friends of the learned lord, if he had any, to pursue upon this occasion, and not to allow his character to suffer by an insidious evasion. Although the disaffection of Morison was the alleged cause of the persecution practised upon him, he asked if there was one gentleman on the other side who could state any ground for suspecting Morison's loyalty? He called upon any that would be bold enough to state it, and he knew there were gentlemen on that side would be hold enough to state any thing for which a shadow of excuse could be found.

rose, and enumerated briefly the leading points of the lord advocate's defence, and put it to the consideration of any impartial and candid man, to consider the true circumstances. Busied with the duties of his own profession, harassed with the perpetual applications made to him from the nature of his official situation, at this peculiar crisis, and fired with an ardent zeal for the support of the volunteer service, it was not to be expected, that in a moment of warmth he should precisely keep his temper on such a subject, and in all respects be perfectly cold, correct, and accurate. He could state the high character of that noble lord, the life of services he had conduced to his country, which could not be sullied by the transactions now before the house. He appealed to the opinion entertained of him by the noble commander in chief of his Majesty's forces in Scotland, the Earl of Moira, who differing widely, perhaps, in politics, from the noble lord, had given such decided testimony to his public merits. He commanded the Edinburgh battalions, who had, by dint of his energy, been brought forward to such excellence as to have been pronounced by that noble earl equal to regulars. Having done so much for the public service, was it wonderful that his keen and a dent feelings should, in a single instance, go to a little excess? Was it too much to ask the house to look upon such a circumstance with a favourable eye? Had all done as Morison had done, where would have been our volunteers? And where the means for the defence of the country? He wished likewise to correct, before he sat down, an error respecting the consent of the lord advocate, in bringing a prosecution. That consent was never refused; though his personal management of the prosecution might be refused by him.

said, he would not have troubled the house, but for the observations that were made by the learned gent. (Mr. Dallas.) The last gentleman had indeed made out the best case that had been made for the noble lord, since, in his speech, there was something like apology. But the learned gent. had attempted a justification and on such principles as he thought, would never have been attempted to be maintained by any English lawyer. He could not but suppose the learned gent. what he affirmed that the conduct of the lord advocate of Scotland was not illegal, must have alluded only to the laws of Scotland. If such be the laws of Scotland, the hon. gent. said, he, for one, should be extremely sorry to live under them. He had asked, who would stand up and say that Morison's conduct had nothing to do with the business? He would stand up and affirm it; for the lord advocate had proceeded upon ex parte evidence, and, for aught he knew, every word of it might be wrong and untrue. But supposing it were to be true, if his private opinion were asked upon the subject, he should certainly not feel it his duty to continue his intercourse with him; but what was his private opinion on the matter compared with the public declaration of a great public officer?

said, it was doubtless true that gentlemen ought to come to the discussion of the present subject cool and dispassionate, but still it was natural that their feelings should be warmed by it, though that warmth was not such as to disqualify them from forming an impartial judgment. He, as well as others, participated in that kind of passion, which various parts of the proceeding before the house was calculated to excite. There was an anecdote current at the bar in this country, founded on the saying of a distinguished judge, that he who undertakes the defence of his own cause, seldom had a very wise man for his client. Of this the speech of the learned lord afforded a very strong illustration, which was confirmed by the succeeding defence of some of his friends. Among the defenders of the learned lord there was considerable variety. Some breathed high, some low; some on the trumpet, top, some on the gentler notes of the lute. The lower tone he thought much the most suitable to the occasion; and as he approved the bringing forward of the subject, he was disposed to concur in the motion with which, it was followed. Among other things in the speech of the learned lord, he was surprised at the extraordinary powers with which his Majesty's advocate in Scotland was invested. Indeed he seemed to combine in his own person all the functions of the constitution. He united all the prerogative of the cabinet, the privy council, and various legal offices. This vast and extraordinary power present all the various considerations applicable to the question; and above all, it might be highly deserving the attention of parliament to decide whether such great and undefined powers should any where centre in one individual. If so much power was to be granted, it was the more necessary, in proportion to its extent, that there should be a real responsibility for its exercise. People might be allowed to use walking-sticks as they pleased, but it was not safe to go out with loaded guns. If then great power has been abused, it adds to the responsibility and criminality. In the present instance it is evident how much the difficulty of redress is increased by the power of the person who has done the wrong, and this is a reason why parliament should be careful in exceeding its control in such cases. If such power too is to exist, it becomes a grave question, whether such a person as the learned lord, in his defence has described himself to be, is fit to be the depository of so great an authority. The learned lord, indeed, though he often spoke of responsibility, seemed to think it was his prerogative to act without rule or law, and to be called to account for none of his proceedings. It was not to be disputed that on great occasions, extraordinary exertions of power were absolutely necessary. An honourable friend of his had spoken of a vigour beyond the law. He was glad the words had been mentioned, because the explanation of them would tend to illustrate the present question. It might be said, that there was a vigour beyond the law, in circumstances where the laws were wholly silent, and were overpowered by the violence of war and conflict. There might be cases of a vigour beyond the law, when occasions demanded immediate action, and when, therefore, it was impossible to consult the law, and wait for its authority. Neither is it disputed that there may be a vigour beyond the law, when, in the moment of necessity it was requisite to supply what the law had not provided for. The cases quoted by the learned lord proved this. But, in these cases, the deviations from law, were admitted and justified by the necessity. That, however, was a very different thing from a vigour beyond the law, straining it beyond its spirit, and applying it to cases for which it was never intended. To come then to the case in hand, let me ask them if there ever existed such a degree of danger, or fair presumption of danger, as to justify the learned lord in those measures which he had thought fit to take? The learned lord put as a sort of dilemma, "If I had got secret information from the sheriff substitute, and if I had acted upon it, would the house have called upon me to disclose that information? Could they then do any thing against me?" It was true that there was always some difficulty in laying open the sources of information necessary to the public safety; but on the other hand, was parliament to suffer a public magistrate to do whatever he pleased on the pretence that grounds on which he had acted could not be revealed? In that case there could be no redress for any crime a great magistrate might choose to commit. As to the conduct of Morison, what was there in it that could be considered so illegal or improper? It was clear that he had for months allowed his servant to attend drills, and on a particular day he refused his consent. But the servant, it seems, rose and thatched the barn by candle-light. [Here it was answered on the other side by moonlight.] But how is it proved that he did so by moonlight, or that he did it in a proper manner at all? The contrary seems to be the presumption. There had been a quarrel between Morison and his servant, but was it not usual for farmers and their servants to quarrel, and when they did, who was to say that it was a suspicious circumstance? Morison's turning away his servant was no proof of being disaffected or in the pay of France. To prove an act criminal, or even suspicious, it was necessary to shew that naturally could not have been done without a bad motive. But was that the case here? The fact was, that the lord advocate resolved to make an example of Morison, in terrorem; but surely, however reasonable it might be to wish that the volunteer system should be extended and improved, yet it was not fit that the effect should be obtained by such motives. There appeared then to be two questions, First, as to the propriety of the discussion at all; and next, what was proper to be done now that it was before the house; and he could see no course more proper than disposing of it completely. It had been justly observed, that some of arguments in the defence had been drawn from climates different from our own; and perhaps the connexion which the honourable and learned gentleman opposite had with the person who had spoken at the bar what was more suitable to Asia, might account for so much Asiatic doctrine in his speech (alluding to Mr. D. having been counsel for Mr. Hastings). As to the redress which might be obtained for abuse of power, it might be extremely different if it was to be sought at law. The great might be safely left to seek their redress against the weak, at law; but the weak in a much worse situation, when they had no redress but actions at law against the great. Indeed, after what the learned lord had stated of his enormous powers, to talk of Morison having redress at common law was a mockery. As to private character, it ought not to be counted against evident misconduct and maladministration. It was said, indeed, by the learned lord himself, that had the present charge been brought forward at Edinburgh, not only 100,000 tongues, but many thousand arms would have been raised in his defence. If then the life of the hon. mover would have been in danger in opening this business, how ridiculous to tell Morison of his action at common law.—No, the real action of damage at common law was in favour of the violated law and jurisprudence of the country. As to the letter not being intended for publication, it could not be doubted for a moment that it was, and the nature of the contents could leave no doubt of the fact. Indeed, it was clear that the lord advocate could not entertain any serious apprehension of Morison, who had only done an act strictly legal, and the whole, therefore, was for example. In a word, then, after hearing such sentiments avowed; after hearing such principles as the learned lord's systematically laid down; was it becoming in the House of Commons to allow such a person to continue the exercise of powers, which he had evinced so little disposition to use with moderation? The state of Scotland, too, ought not to be forgotten on the present occasion. A writer of that country had remarked, that Scotland had attained the liberal arts long before she made considerable advances in the mechanic arts. There seemed to be a similar disparity between the northern and southern parts of the island, with regard to the practical parts of the constitution. The Scots enjoyed the blessings of the constitution, and reasoned well on its general principles; but it did not seem to have entirely entered the system, to have penetrated into the character of the people. In that state of Scotland, it was the more necessary to guard the people against oppression; and, indeed, this was the more necessary, after they had this night heard from the lord advocate, sentiments which no English attorney-general for the last two hundred years would have avowed. If the motion was set aside by the previous question; if no vote of censure were to pass, it would argue an indifference to the situation of Scotland, and might in its consequences, doom hundreds, without redress, to tyranny and oppression; and a refusal to censure, would be to sanction the conduct complained of.

maintained that no case had beep made out sufficient to warrant an address for the dismissal of the noble lord, which was the ultimate object of this motion, nor any for the present motion itself. He recalled to the house the nature and extent of the lord advocate's office, the situation of the volunteers, and the relative state of the country at that time, compared with the danger of the enemy's appearance. Had Morison been arrested on the grounds now stated, he should have supported an indemnity, leaving open the question as to the malice. The whole of the business narrowed itself to the indignant part of the letter, and there every gentleman must see from all the circumstances, that were the noble lord to write it over again, he would certainly de it in more temperate terms; but at that moment he could feel only indignation at any attempt to check the public defence.

said, that it was sufficient reason to vote for the motion of the hon. mover, that it had been proved that one of his Majesty's subjects had been doomed to the severest punishment unheard; and that the learned lord had rejected the opportunity offered by Morison's agent to inquire into the case, to hear the exculpations, and to retract his violent and unjust sentence. It had been complained, that this motion was not made till four or six months after the fact which gave rise to it. A much stronger complaint, however, lay against the lord advocate, who having time to weigh maturely what he had done rashly, had yet with held all redress and apology. It was said by the learned lord, that his duties were large. Large, indeed, they were, at least in receiving accusation, however limited in receiving exculpations. What, then, must be the state of a country, when all accusations were welcomed, and all defence rejected?—After a few judicious and spirited remarks, his lordship concluded with giving his hearty assent to the motion.

thought it was in favour of the learned lord that no charge had been brought against him that he had acted from any private or selfish view. The conclusion, therefore, must be honourable to the learned lord, that his only motive, was the public good.

hoped sincerely that the doctrines broached on the other side of the house would be generally reprobated. The whole argument, he thought, might be reduced to the simple question, whether Morison had done more than the law authorized? If he had not, for what reason should he be punished? The powers of masters over servants, in regard to their entering or attending volunteer corps, had been repeatedly under the discussion of the house, and when a clause restraining that power had been at last introduced, it was rejected by the lords, and that amendment again approved of by the house, so that this privilege of masters in regard to their servants remained the same as formerly. He thought it for the interest both of Scotland and Ireland, that the question should be fairly canvassed, and the opinion of the house fairly expressed, as public officers in both those countries were less careful of the rights of the people than those more closely under the inspection of government. When complaints, of this nature came before them, they ought not to dismiss them without the most serious attention.

asserted, that if those bills against which the hon. brat. had so loudly declaimed, had not been passed, and if the Irish magistracy had not acted with that extraordinary firmness the danger and urgency of that crisis demanded, the country of Ireland would at this moment be in the possession of France.

.—Sir; the hon. gent. who spoke last has put the question upon its true grounds. He has stated the proceedings which took place in Ireland, pending a rebellion, in justification of the conduct of the learned ford. It is not my intention, Sir, at present to inquire whether those proceedings were strictly legal and constitutional. We are not ignorant that torture of various kinds has been inflicted on many persons in Ireland, and that bills of indemnity have been passed to relieve all the actors in such transactions from the pains and penalties they had subjected themselves to; but I would ask the hon. colonel, does he wish all those wholesome severities should be exercised in Scotland? I am persuaded he does not. The learned lord has certainly brought the question to a fair issue; he has defended his conduct in a fair, manly manner; he has in some manner challenged the house to decide upon the bare fact, and has deprecated, as became him, any intention of recurring to the previous question. I shall not now inquire what the precise nature of the office the learned lord fills is, and whether he possesses all the powers of the ancient privy council of Scotland. If the powers of his official character be so very extensive, that is the best reason for their being used with discretion and moderation, for the greater the power, the greater the responsibility. But let us, Sir, examine a little into the nature of the offence committed by Mr. Morison, who has had no opportunity afforded him of exculpating himself: why, if I comprehend it, nothing more than this—that he insisted that his servant should employ himself in thatching his barn, when he shewed a disposition to attend a review in preference, or to oppose the enemy, as it has been said in the course of this debate; and that having disobeyed his master's commands, he was dismissed from his service. Is there any thing extraordinary in this? Have not all the volunteer acts that have been passed recognized this right as inherent in the master? Can any thing be more natural than that he should possess that control over him? Sir, it is the very essence of their contract; if my servant does not obey my legal orders, and execute that duty which I have hired him to perform, I certainly have, by every principle of justice, a right to discharge him. Now this, Sir, is the "very head and front" of Morison's offence, and what does the lord advocate do on the occasion? Why, he recommends that no one in his neighborhood should hold any intercourse with him; expressions which, taken in their extensive sense, mean totally ruining the man. I have heard of laws against intercommuning in the reign of Charles II. which were put into execution by that very privy council the learned lord states himself to represent; but really, Sir, I did not imagine we should have a new edition of those obsolete and tyrannical statutes published at this day. Now as to another part of this curious letter, I mean that part of it which enjoins imprisonment in case of a landing being effected by the enemy; oh, say the advocates of the learned lord, that was merely a threat which was never intended to be put into execution. What, Sir, is there no harm in casting such a stigma on a man, and holding him out as a suspicious character to the whole country? I do not like this law by which a man may be imprisoned, and the motives for his confinement be yet concealed from him. Sir, if the lord advocate have power to do it, as in this instance, he has the power to imprison the greatest men in Scotland, an authority which I am persuaded he will never venture to exercise. The lower the situation of the man and the greater his poverty, the greater his claim on the protection of the legislature and the interposition of parliament. It is, Sir, our duty to protect him, for he cannot receive it elsewhere. Which of the courts of law in Scotland would give him damages? But the learned lord, in his defence, states, that a very wicked society existed about ten years ago in Scotland in the neighborhood where Mr. Morison resides. Does it appear that he was one of that society? No such thing. Several smaller societies have since emanated from that; is he proved to have been a member of any of those? By no means: and yet all those societies are said to have been patronized and encouraged by an opulent landholder, whose tenant he was, without his being ever proved to have been influenced to enrol his name in any one of them. I do not know, contending with the influence and solicitation that might have been employed to seduce him into those societies, that more steady loyalty could have been shewn than has been by this persecuted man, who, it seems, is to be shut out from society, than which, with the exception of torture, I know no greater punishment; and for what? for doing that which parliament has recognized he had a right to do, dismissing a disobedient and refractory servant. It is contended that it was above the learned lord's jurisdiction and power to do this. I am very glad of it. But in cases of this sort, to endeavour to do all you can, though in the end it may turn our you can do nothing indecent and intolerable, but in the greatest law officer of the crown, is a crime of so scandalous and aggravated a nature, that it deserves the marked reprobation of the legislature. The office which the learned lord fills is certainly of a most curious, and, at the same time, most formidable character. For punishment he is every thing, there he consenters in himself the powers of councils and of magistrates; and for exculpation he is nothing. When he was accused of official misconduct, he says; "Oh! I am only a simple individual, you may bring your action against me if you please." The learned lord has rested much of his defence upon his general character. He says, "apply to the commander in chief, he has known me for six months, and will give a favourable report of me." Sir, there is no man in the country who would pay more respect and deference that may be advanced by that noble lord, than I should but on questions of personal reputation, the less the general character is referred to the better. We are told by the friends of the learned lord that he is a warm man, that those were hot words; why, Sir, that is the very reason I wish to put it out of his power, or out of any other man's power to practise any abuse of such formidable authority in future.—Scotland may again be in danger, and other Morisons may be exposed to similar treatment. It is said that Morison meant to oppress this man; that he would not pay him his wages. In my apprehension, it would be much easier for Garrow to obtain redress against Morison, than for Morison to succeed in an action against the lord advocate. Is the refusal to pay a man his wages, which I admit to be an act of dishonesty, strictly speaking, such a crime as should authorize the imprisonment of a man? But, says the learned lord, Mr. Morison did not go on his knees to me. Why, Sir, he might have done all that, and here been not the less mischievous subject still. The learned gentleman (Mr. Dallas) who spoke from an opposite bench, and no one respects him in his profession more than I do, has objected to Morison, that he was not unstained, that he was not rectus incuria, and therefore not entitled to the interference of a court of law. Now, Sir, I will put a case: suppose some one had said or written, "Mr. Fox has done every thing in his power to discourage volunteering; he is not a loyal man.; he is in the pay of the French," and that I had applied to the Court of King's Bench for an information for a libel—Would the court tell me, "You, Sir, have been guilty of turning off your servants at various times, because they entered into volunteer corps, and shall meet with no redress from us." Why, Sir, if that court could be guilty of such a monstrous act of injustice, they would be soon in their proper place expiating their guilt at that bar. As to setting up in the month of October, and thatching by night, and all that trash that has been urged in favour of this servant, it is really, Sir, unworthy of serious consideration, and in this new agricultural regulation of doing the work by night instead of day, will not, I believe, much conduce to the improvement of our husbandry. Sir, I will not longer trespass on the patience of the house, but I will contend that a sufficient case has been made out to warrant the interference of parliament, and that if the house does not come to that decision which is proposed to it, we abdicate our duty.

—I believe, or one will dispute with the hon. gent. the proposition he has laid down, that it is the duty of parliament to interfere, on all occasions, where a flagrant violation of justice has taken place; and had such a case been made out, as I contend it has not, I should not be found opposing the motion of the hon. member over against me. But, Sir, the case that has been made out does not, in my opinion, warrant the interference of the legislature. I will not attempt to justify every part of the transaction. There are some things which I wish had not been done, and which I am persuaded there is very little danger of their ever happening again. However, we may criticise and disapprove certain parts of these proceedings, there is not sufficient to induce the house to cast a censure upon the conduct of a great public officer, who has long served his Sovereign and the state with a zeal and ability that have seldom been exceeded. Sir, the hon. gent. who last spoke, has deviated from his usual candour, by very unnecessarily introducing, in my opinion, into this discussion, the unhappy circumstances which took place in Ireland, which, however justified by necessity, we must all lament, as well as the occasion which gave birth to them. I do not see any immediate connexion between those events and the question before us, and I think it would have been wise in the hon. gent. to have abstained from referring to them. But, I perceive in gentlemen a wish to urge the circumstances of this case with the same violence now, that they did when they first brought it forward. I own I am rather disappointed at this, for I would ask, is there a man in the house, who, after having heard a speech of the learned lord, can possibly entertain the same impression of this case, that he did when it was first introduced by the hon. member? If there be, Sir, he has different feelings from those I possess, and I can assure the gentleman, that I feel no great desire to participate in them. Sir, this is not an act proceeding from the learned lord, in consequence of a consultation which he has had with a client in his chambers; but it is the result of an information lain before him by a judicial officer, the sheriff, and which he was officially bound to notice. It is contended, that the conduct of the learned lord was not only unnecessarily severe, but that he stepped out of his province in this particular exercise of it. Sir, if we are to draw to any analogy between this and other acts, I think occasions may occur, where it may be as necessary to prevent the thinning of those ranks that were to oppose the enemy, as it was to prohibit the departure of men who intended to swell the ranks of the enemy. As to Morison's conduct, I see not upon what grounds of justice, it can be defended. It is acknowledged, that he discharged this man, although he had done the work he was ordered to perform, and that at a time of the year when he must have remained six months out of employment, and in aggravation of this inhumanity, he has the dishonesty to refuse him the payment of his wages. As to the argument that his attending that muster was of no consequence, that I most peremptorily deny. What when it was to be inspected by the commanding officer of the district, and that at a time when, from every information that had been received, an attempt at landing might have been hourly expected from the enemy! Placed in the arduous and responsible situation that the learned lord was, was it not natural that he should employ all the reasonable means in his power to discountenance the possibility of such practices in others? Here was no sentence, no trial. Suppose that the signal was actually flying that the enemy were landing, was this Mr. Morison to say his servant, "no; you shan't march to oppose the enemy, you shall stay and thatch my barn." Why, Sir, if such were the conduct of one of those agricultural philosophers, I should consider such apathy, at such a moment, as something bordering on disaffection, I had almost said treason. If the learned lord had shewn such apathy in providing for the defence and security of the country, he would ill deserve the high situation he holds, and which I trust he will long continue to hold, if not disabled by a vote of this house. There were three grounds of accusation against him, extracted from his letter to the sheriff depute. The first which recommended that no persons should associate with him, or, in other words, that he should be sent to Coventry, as it is said, cannot fall under the censure of illegality. There is no law against the practice that ever I have heard of. I will not say that circumstances may be connected with it, which may include it within the law against libel, and may therefore become the subject of an action for damages. As to that part of the charge which respects the destruction of his property, the house cannot be ignorant, that no person but such as whose name has been enrolled, and who shall be proved to have done his best to protect that property, would be entitled to any indemnity for the loss of it. One would suppose that the learned lord had been inciting the populace to the destruction of this property, when he could have meant nothing more, but that in case Morrison should claim an indemnity, he would think it his duty to state against it. Who were to destroy this property? It is not likely the army would do it in consequence of this letter, and from the enemy he could have no apprehension on that score, for the circumstance of his being suspected of disaffection would plead in his favour with them, and entitle him to exemption. Upon the whole, Sir, I will allow, that it was the intention of the letter, that community with him should be prohibited. As to apprehending him, that was only eventually to take place as in case of actual invasion, and the order which was issued was in contemplation of that event; but it is said, why did he not write to London for orders? Certainly he might by so doing, have shifted the responsibility from himself, and thrown it on the minister, who should give such order; but his conduct would not have been the more legal on that account. I will not, Sir, as I said before, endeavour to justify the whole of that letter; but I trust, that an ardent zeal for the public service, operating upon a sanguine and active mind, will not, in times like those we live in, be deemed deserving the censure and disapprobation of the legislature.

replied to the different arguments that had been urged against his motion. After which, the question being loudly called for, the house divided on the Attorney-General's motion — Ayes 159, Noes 82—Majority 77 against Mr. Whitbread's motion.—Adjourned at three o'clock on Saturday morning.