patriotic sentiments and virtuous conduct, and | zine; not one of whom knew that he was alive, to have been deluded by the villany of spies, were beheaded as traitors who had endangered the State! It was only as an introduction to the affecting account given by the Glasgow publication of these men's fate, that the brief history of the previous conspiracy of 1816-17 was given in the original work and in the Magazine. Mr Kirkman Finlay having published an abusive letter in the newspapers, denying in general the accuracy of what was stated in that article, on the authority of the Glasgow publication | reviewed, absolving Lord Sidmouth from the charge of originating the Spy System in the west of Scotland, and taking it upon himself, a severe answer to Mr Finlay's letter was printed by Mr Tait, in the Magazine for June 1833. In that answer, Richmond's deeds are again alluded to. Towards the end of June, Mr Tait received a long letter, dated the 17th June, from Richmond, sent, as he said, "by the advice of his legal advisers," that Mr Tait might have the opportunity of inserting it verbatim, in the Magazine for next month, (July,) if Mr Tait thought it proper so to do. The Magazine having been made up, and Mr Tait being from home, insertion of the letter was delayed till the succeeding month; and a leaf at the end of the July number devoted to a notice of the letter. In reply to that notice, the following letter was received: I am advised to notice, and merely notice, the additional libel against my character, which you have thought desirable to publish in your Magazine for this month. Your thirst for evidence shall be satisfied. I pledge myself to furnish you with the means,-the truth of History demands it. but it shall be before a Jury, where you will have an opportunity of justifying, if justification you will dare to attempt, those gratuitous assumptions, and unfounded assertions, in which you have so largely and so scandalously indulged-and which, however bitterly and sarcastically expressed, cannot be received as evidence of guilt, based upon such authority. Let the public, therefore, suspend their judgment, and abide the issue. I make no appeal to your generosityforewarned, my life and character would be safer under the uplifted dagger of the assassin, than dependant on your tender mercies. But if you possess any of that justice of which you boast, although your redundancy, even in that attribute, may be fairly doubted, you will append this to my former le ter, which you promise to publish in the next number of your Magzine.-I am, &c. &c. A. B. RICHMOND. This letter was referred to in the Magazine for August 1833; in which number Richmond's letter of 17th June was printed verbatim, at his request; but accompanied with extracts from his own Narrative, and ample commentaries, in vindication of the truth of the previous articles in the Magazine. These four numbers of the Magazine-May, June, July, and August 1833-contain the alleged libels. For some months it was thought that Richmond would not dare to go into court. Indeed, that he should have come forward to challenge the first article at all, was matter of extreme wonderment to all connected with Tuit's Maga VOL. L-NO. XII. or supposed it possible that, if so, he could be in this country, bearing the same name which figured so much in the west of Scotland. Mr Tait heard no more of the threatened or intimated action till February; when, being apprized that Richmond had moved in it, by giving in a Declaration,-pleas were lodged for the defendants, taking the bold ground of justifying the alleged libels; a dangerous course, and one never adopted except when the defendant is certain he has done no wrong. To enable him to examine many witnesses, without the expense of sending them to London, Mr Tait obtained a Commission to take evidence in Glasgow and Edinburgh. But to the surprise of everybody, Richmond made his appearance on the scene of his old exploits, and rendered the Commission of no avail. He had refused to join in the benefit and expense of the Commission; and, therefore, was only entitled to cross-examine. But the Commissioner, allowing Richmond to make as many speeches as he pleased, and to exhibit, make the witness read, and put in as many newspapers, letters, &c. as he pleased, to crossexamine as long as he pleased, and to ask any questions, however obviously irrelevant, as he pleased,—Richmond most amply availed himself of the means thus afforded him of defeating the objects of the Commission. The examination of Mr Peter Mackenzie was protracted for about twenty hours, not more than two of which were occupied by Mr Tait's questions; the rest of the time being filled with in terruptions and speeches by Richmond, and a cross-examination, for length and irrelevancy, done with the witness. But such conduct, on the without any precedent. Still he was not nearly part of Richmond, tolerated by the Commissioner with a seeming impartiality, productive of real injustice, could not be longer borne. An adjournment and a Report by the Commissioner to the English Court, of Richmond's conduct, and his own toleration of it, were insisted for. Baron Gurney referred the Report to the whole Court. This caused delay, and no less than seven adjournments of the Commission. But it now plainly appearing that, with Richmond for cross-examiobjects of the Commission would be wholly frusner, and Mr Morrison for Commissioner, the trated, Mr Tait's agent caused the Commission to be closed on 11th November, and Mr Tait returned to Edinburgh, assured by the Commissioner that his Report would be despatched by the mail of next morning. But the remarkable history of this burked Commission, which cost Mr Tait about £100, is not yet done. It will be best learned from the correspondence which follows : above all, Richmond having still persisted in his plan of bury- | accordingly requested to endeavour to procure such informa ing all evidence in a mass of rubbish, by a most harassing and vexatious system of cross interrogation, which seemed to be interminable, the ends of the Commission were entirely frustrated, and I therefore closed it. The Report of Productions will be transmitted by the Commissioner to Mr Baron Parke, by this mail, and therefore you may make arrangements for seeing the whole as speedily as possible, and communicate with Mr Tait. Messrs FINLAY and REDDIE's Note. Note for Kirkman Finlay of Castle Toward, and James Reddie, Advocate. With reference to the summons and requisition served upon them, to appear and give evidence as witnesses, and to produce certain alleged documents, before Alexander Morrison, Esq., Writer in Glasgow, as Commissioner, appointed by the Barons of Exchequer, at Westminster, in the suit depending before the said Barons, between Alexander Baillie Richmond, plaintiff, and Richard Marshall and John Miles, defendants; Mr Finlay and Mr Reddie submit to the Commissioner the following short statement of the circumstances in which they are placed; to be transmitted to London, for the cousideration of the Court. Mr Finlay and Mr Reddie are advised, they cannot be compelled to appear before the Commissioner, and undergo examination as witnesses, under the Act I. Will. IV. c. 22, or otherwise; from the want of the requisite jurisdiction in Scotland. But they have no wish to avail themselves of any such objection; being quite disposed, in their private capacity, as individuals, to give their evidence, at the instance of any party, to the best of their recollection. They are advised, however, that, in the circumstances in which they stand, they cannot, consistently with their legal duty, submit to an exami nation, or answer interrogatories, relative to the share they had in the transactions out of which the present suit appears to have arisen. In the winter of 1816-1817, the local authorities had reason to believe an exter sive combination and conspiracy existed among the operatives in the manufacturing districts of the West of Scotland, in connection with a similar combination in Lancashire and other parts of England; and that the object of this combination. connected by secret oaths, was to overturn the government, or, at least, to effect some great change by physical force. In these circumstances, the late Sheriff of Lanarkshire, Mr Robert Hamilton, it is believed, by direction of the Lord Advocate for Scotland, caused various inquiries to be made secretly, with the view of ascertaining the real nature, object, and extent of this combination, and of obtainjog such previous information as might enable the local authorities to be on their guard, and prevent the local mischief threatened; and, also, such evidence as might lead to a conviction, and enable the Lord Advocate thereby to put down the combination As the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, at that time, Iboured under severe bodily infirmity, and as the then Lord Provost of Glasgow was far advanced in life, Mr Reddie, first town clerk of Glasgow, and legal assessor to the magistrates, was requested to give, and did give, his assistance officially. Further, as the combination had assumed rather an alarming aspect, Mr Finlay, then member for the city of Glasgow, was requested by the then Secretary of State, to lend his aid, as a County Magistrate. A short time before this, Mr Jeffrey, now Lord Jeffrey, then a distinguished counsel at the Scotch bar, having obtained the acquittal of Mr A. B. Richmond, then an operative weaver, from a charge of combination to raise wages, and being struck with his intelligence, had requested Mr Finlay to procure employment for him; and Mr Finlay had actually made an application in his behalf, to the cotton mill establishment at Lanark. In these circumstances, it naturally occurred to Mr Finlay, as well as to the Sheriff, and Mr Reddie, that Mr Richmond might be useful in procoring the information desired by Government. He was, tion; of course, in a justifiable way. He agreed to do so; and communicated information, which was considered material, such as to entitle him to suitable remuneration; and which contributed greatly to the prevention of local mischief, but did not lead to the conviction of any individual. And, without entering into any further detail, M Finlay and Mr Reddie submit, and leave it to the Court to determine whether, agreeably to the principles, not merely of the law of Scotland, but of the law of England, as recently particularly recognised in the case of Home v. Lord F. C. Bentinck, 17th June 1820-Brad and Pringle, vol. ii. page 130-it be or be not their legal duty, at the instance of any private party, to undergo any examination relative to the transactions before noticed; in which they acted solely in their official and public capacity under government; and which involved matters of public policy, affecting the safety of the state and the peace of the country. On the behalf, and as authorized by Mr Kirkman Finlay, and for myself. JAS. REDDIE. Glasgow, 12th Nov. 1834. (Signed) Mr TAIT to Mr KERR. Edinburgh, 13th November 1834. I cannot allow Messrs Finlay and Reddie's Note to form part of the commissioners' report. But I am ready to open the Commission again, and examine them myself, if they will appear and answer. It is absurd to suppose that the Court of Exchequer would give an opinion as to the course these gentlemen ought to pursue, when it has no power to enforce their attendance before the commissioners, or their answering all questions. Messrs Finlay and Reddie will therefore have the goodness to say plainly, YES, or No; and the Commissioner I trust, will delay sending off the Report, until it be known whether they will appear to be examined as witnesses or not. Send a copy of this to Messrs Richmond, Fiulay, Reddie, and Morrison. By the early post of the 14th November, Mr Tait sent Mr Morrison a brief but strong emonstrance against his forwarding Messrs Reddie and Finlay's Note; and, by the evening post of the same day, agreeably to intimation in the first letter, a second and longer remonstrance, in the following terms: Mr TAIT to Mr MORRISON. Edinburgh, 14th November 1834. I must protest against your making any Report of the behaviour out of doors, of the witness Mr P. Mackenzie, or your making any allusion to proceedings of his-which neither took place while he was under examination, nor during an interval between the diets of his examination-as a matter decidedly beyond the line of your duty as Commissioner. In still stronger terms, must I protest against what Mr Kerr informs me has since occurred. The commission was closed in presence of the parties, and their agents, on Tuesday, before one o'clock. Instead of instan ly despatching your report, that is, by the mail of Wednesday morning, I hear you have allowed yourself to be prevailed on by Mir Reddie, to delay despatching it, that Messrs Reddie and Finlay's Note might be despatched along with the other papers. You, yesterday, received a copy of a letter I sent Mr Kerr, objecting in the strongest terms, against your receiving and forwarding the Note in any way. Atter ciosing the Commission, in presence of the parties, your functions, as Commissioner, were at an end. As Mr Alexander Morrison, I maintain that you have no right to interfere in this matter. You were not entitled to receive, or acknowledge, or forward even a simple declinature to attend, from any witnesses summoned. (Yet I should not have objected to that.) But, after closing the Report, dismissing the parties, and being "functus officii your receiving testimony from men who would not suoant to examination-testimony, while out of the reach of crossexamination-is a proceeding against which I must pro test, as altogether unwarranted, and obviously unjust. must have escaped your observation, that the Note of Mes rs Finlay & Reddie contains a statement of alleged facts, and also of opinions, calculated, so far as received as correct. to operate in Richmond's favour. The Note contains all which these gentlemen could possibly say in Richmond's favour. Look at it again. It What right have these gentlemen, after failing to appear when cited as witnesses, and only offering to appear, after the commission was closed-clogging their offer, at the same time, with an impossible condition-what right have they, I say, to offer a Statement of facts, (important, if correct, but which I maintain are incorrect,) and their opinions as to Richmond's conduct: thus giving testimony, while appearing to doubt the propriety of their giving any? And, with all due respect, allow me to a-k what right have you to allow testimony, (of an informal kind, I admit, but calculated to benefit one and injure the other of the parties.) to be conveyed to the English court, through your means? I trust you will yet return the Note to the gentlemen who proffer it; and decline rece ving more than a simple declinature to appear, in consequence of their having acted in official capacities; if they choose to append that alleged reason to their declinature, as Mr Salmond did. It is surely unnecessary for me to add, that you know me to be the real defendant; and that I hold a mandate from the nominal defendants. Mr RICHMOND to Mr KERR, In answer to the copy sent him, of Mr Tait's Letter to Mr Kerr, of 13th November. Eagle Inn, Glasgow, 15th Nov. 1834. Sir, Being absent from town in consequence of the death of a near relative, I have only this moment received your note of the 13th, with the inclosure. I have no knowledge whatever of the Note from Mr Finlay and Mr Reddie, referred to by Mr Tait; but if any method can be suggested whereby I can facilitate the examination of those gentlemen, I am ready to do so, to the utmost extent of my means and power. My sole object is to bring the FACTS of the case fairly before the public; and, to avoid the possibility of misconstruction, I have had no communication whatever with the two gentlemen above alluded to, since long before the action was brought. I can only therefore repeat, that if I can in any way contribute to compel the attendance of all parties capable of illustrating the facts, I am ready to do so; but it must be obvious, from the great injury I have sustained, by being kept so long absent from my family and business, that any measures to be adopted must be promptly executed. If you, Sir, have any suggestions to make on the subject, I shall most willingly attend to them. Mr FINLAY to Mr KERR, In answer to the copy sent him, of Mr Tait's letter to Mr Kerr, of 13th November. sure. Castle Toward, 15th Nov. 1834. Mr Finlay has received Mr Kerr's letter, with its encloHe desires, in answer, to say, that he shall not hold any communication with parties, as to his conduct, in the cause in which Mr Kerr is employed; nor shall he suffer any observation of theirs to influence him in the least, much less can he consent that any of them shall presume to dictate to him what answer he may think fit to give to the Court or its Commissioner. To further the ends of justice, Mr Finlay would cheerfully put himself to some personal inconvenience and trouble: but if the law and practice in such cases be, that examinations should not be consented to, under the circumstances in which he was then placed, Mr Finlay must, in the present instance, decline to do what all persons, under circumstances similar to this, have refused. Mr REDDIE to Mr KERR, In Answer to the copy sent him, of Mr Tait's letter to Mr Kerr, of 18th November. Glasgow, 14th November, 1834. I was favoured with your letter of yesterday evening, and, in reply, I have merely to state, that Mr Finlay and I abide by the Note in our behalf, lodged, on the 12th instant, with Mr Morrison, as Commissioner, appointed by the Barons of Exchequer in England. Mr MORRISON to Mr TAIT. Glasgow, 14th November 1834. I am favoured with your letter of this date. Before its arrival, the Commission was signed, and the Productions sealed up; but supposing the matter still open, I do not think I could, in justice to Messis Reddie and Finlay, refuse to transmit their reasons for declining to attend the Commission. If these reasons are insufficient, your counsel can argue that point before the Judge, and, if thought advisable, obtain a renewal of the Commission. Mr TAIT to Mr REDDIE. Edinburgh, 20th November 1834. You were summoned as a witness in the action, Richmond v. the London Agents for Tit's Magazine, and did not attend the Commissioner at the time appointed. After the Commission had been closed, a joint Note from you and Mr K. Finlay was handed to the commissioner, and received and forwarded to the English court by him, contrary to my repeated protests. Had that Note contained nothing but your reason for not attending the commissioner, viz. that you had been engaged in the proceedings of 1816-17. &c., in an official capacity, and thought yourself not at liberty to divulge any of these proceedings, I should not have given you this trouble; for, whether your reason for declining to give evidence be a good one or not, my London solicitors tell me, there is no means of compelling the attendance of Scottish witnesses, either before the English court, or the Scottish Commissioner. But you have actually given evidence in your Note, while seeming to decline to give any. You have voluntarily given a statement of facts, and of your opinions on the chief matters in dispute between Richmond and me. And these are all in Richmond's favour. As some of the facts and opinions are in contradiction to what is stated by Richmond himself, and to what has been the general understanding of the country, I trust you will think that common justice entitles me to ask an explanation of the apparent contradictions. After having given voluntary testimony in favour of one of the parties, I hope you will not refuse to give the other the explanations requested in the accompanying paper, which all bear direct relation to the statements in your and Mr Finlay's Note. You know that I am the real defendant in the case; besides, I hold a mandate from the nominal defendants, Richard Marshall and John Miles of London, authorizing me to act for them in this matter. (A Letter in the same terms was sent by Mr Mr Finlay.) Tait to Explanations required from James Reddie, Esq. Town Clerk and Assessor of the city of Glasgow, and Kirkman Finlay, Esq.. upon matters of fact contained in a Joint Note drawn up by them, and transmitted to the Right Honourable the Barons of Exchequer, London, as reasons for declining to compear before the Commissioner, Mr Alex. Morrison, appointed at Glasgow by the said Barons to receive evidence in the libel case, Richmond v. Marshall and Miles, now pending in the Court of Exchequer. QUERY I.—In your Note, referred to in the accompanying letter from Mr Tait, you state-after having tendered what amounts to direct and most important testimony for the Plaintiff, Richmond-that, in the secret transactions in which you were concerned with that person, Mr Finlay and yourself, the joint note writers, " acted solely in your official and public capacity under government;" and, for this reason you plead silence on subjects" which involve," as you allege, "matters of public policy, affecting the safety of the state and the peace of the country." It is respectfully requested that you will explain what you mean by your public and official capacity preventing you from being examined for the defendants, while you give testimony for the Plaintiff, as it is certain that neither you nor Mr Finlay held any situation whatever, public or private, under government, or any responsible share in the local government of the county of Lanark, or of the city of Glasgow, in the years specified? 11. In your note to the Barons, declining to give evidence for the Defendants, you, Mr Reddie, state, that you were "Town-Clerk of Glasgow, and legal Assessor to the Magistrates, and that you were requested to give your assistance officially." You are besought to explain who so requested you? You were, it is submitted, the functionary of the Magistrates and Town-Council, and no more. Now it certainly was not under their authority that you, in concurrence with Mr Finlay, assumed, as the Plaintiff, Richmond, states, "de facto, the whole local government;'-under what responsibility, then, or by whose orders did you act, and under which you now plead silence as an official personage? III. You have said in your note, that the Sheriff of the county was at this time labouring under severe bodily in. firmity, and that the Lord Provost was far advanced in life:" Will you explain if, besides these two individuals, the whole magistracy of the town and county were also incapable, from age and bodily infirmity that Mr Finlay and you, the Town-Clerk of Glasgow, found it necessary to assume their power, and to act in this matter, secretly, for the entire body of the Magistracy; without, even according to the Plaintiff, Richmond's statements, any authority from them, and without once consulting them, during what you describe in your note as a period of great alarm and public danger? IV. You state in your Note that the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, Mr Hamilton, was believed to have been directed by the Lord Advocate to cause inquiries to be made secretly about an alleged treasonable conspiracy; and that he, the Sheriff, concurred with you and Mr Finlay in engaging the Plaintiff, Richmond, for that service. "it naturally occurring" (to the Sheriff, besides to yourselves) "that the Plaintiff, Richmond, an intelligent weaver, might be useful in procuring the information desired by the Government: Now, there is no evidence to shew that the Lord Advocate ever directed the Sheriff to institute such inquiries, and, in point of fact, by the Plaintiff's own statements, the Sheriff neither did know nor could have known, and consequently could not concur in the employment of the Plaintiff as a Spy for the Government? V. You state in your Note that this secret information which you engaged Richmond to obtain "was desired by the Government." Now, Mr Kirkman Finlay, in a published lerter addressed to Mr Tait, says, that you. (or. at least, he,) the only apparent agents in this affair, in the first instance, voluntarily sent such information to the Government. This, Mr Finlay states, when compelled to clear Lord Sidmouth from the obloquy thrown upon him as a minister, by proceedings in the West of Scotland, in which it now appears he was greatly misled. How is it explained that the Government desired the information for which you employed Richmond, while Mr Finlay confesses, that he, at least, tendered to the Government the information of the far-spread, and frightul, and treasonable conspiracy, which you describe in your joint note? VI.-It is stated in that extraordinary Note, which conveys at once strong evidence for the Plaintiff, and a vindication of your own conduct, couched under a declinature. upon grounds of State policy, to be examined for the Defendants, that you acted solely in your official public capacity under Government. And you have farther stated that, in the winter of 1816-17, you were requested to give your "official assistance, the Lord Provost of Glasgow being for advanced in life, and the Sheriff suffering under severe bodily infirmity." Your attention is desired to the character under which the Plaintiff, Richmond, says that you and Mr Finlay acted-and you are urgently requested to reconcile his statement with that which you have voluntarily tendered to the Barons of Exchequer, while refusing to be examined for the Defendants, unless upon a compulsory order or judgment, which, you may well know, the said Barons have no power to give. Richmond states, page 56 of his Narrative, that you, the town clerk of Glasgow, and Mr Finlay, the then member for the Glasgow district of burghs, "had, de facto, the whole local government," in consequence of what he calls "the general imbecility;" which imbecility must, it is apprehended, mean merely the inaptitude of the city and county magistracy for obtaining secret information, and detecting treasonable conspiracies, as they were exercising all their proper functions in the usual routine. Richmond again states, at page 66 of his Narrative, that, in these secret and mysterious affairs, "Mr Reddie was substituted for the sheriff of the county ;" and, farther, page 89, that when the warrants of arrest came to be executed, (which could not be done withour the show of magisterial authority,) though the sheriff of the county had nominally the management. Mr Reddie virtually conducted the whole official details ;" and again, in note, page 111, "that none of the magistrates of Glasgow were consulted," though their authority must have been em. ployed in arresting the alleged conspirators; and also, as Richmond states, many innocent persons. An explanation of all these things is respectfully requested. VII.-You state to the Barons in your joint-note, that in the winter of 1816-17, (and, it may be remarked, in a very few weeks after the great Thrushgrove meeting for reform, which, it is universally believed, excited great alarm among the Tory party in the West of Scotland,)" the local authorities had reason to believe an extensive combination and conspiracy existed among the operatives in the manufacturing districts of the West of Scotland, in connection with a similar combination in Lancashire, and other parts of England; and that the object of this combination, connected by secret oaths, was to overturn the Government, or at least to effect some great change by physical force. Now, according to the Plaintiff Richmond, and by your own admission, you and Mr Finlay were the actual local anthorities at this time: you were " acting, as you state, in a public official capacity, from the Sheriff and the Lord Provost being, the one indisposed and the other aged, and the Magistrates, not more than these gentlemen. being in the secret. It was consequently, then, you and Mr Finlay alone that had reason to believe in this wide-spread and dreadful treasonable conspiracy; and how, or on what evidence you so believed, is of little consequence, as you have stated your belief to the Court of Exchequer, making it, among other reasons, a bar against your being examined before the Commissioner in behalf of the Defendants. You are requested to explain the grounds of your belief, if you are not now fully aware that ne such treasonable conspiracy, "connected by secret oaths, and extending over the manufacturing districts of the west of Scotland, and Lancashire, and other parts of England," ever had any existence, save in the popular frenzy excited by the acts and arts which the Plaintiff so minutely describes. You have stated that no conviction was brought home to any individual upon the secret information which you and Mr Finlay obtained. And it is certain, that, even, with the aid of spies and instigators, no conclusive evidence was obtained of the existence of even local treasons and conspiracies; as, after repeated attempts to obtain convictions the Crown Lawyers abandoned all the cases. Will you not either instantly recall your Note or correct your extraordinary statements upon this point? And he VIII. Richmond states, that when you engaged him as a secret informer, he was surprised to find that you had no other spy or confidential agent, and that he was compelled to point out for that service a person, (understood to be his friend and accomplice--Biggar;) and farther, that you depended entirely on him for information. Now, he repeatedly states, that the alleged conspiracy had no connection whatever with England," (page 81,) never extended beyond the neighbourhood of Glasgow," (page 71,) and was, in reality, contemptible; and that (before he was taken into your employment) he greatly doubted its existence at all. says he told Mr Finlay, in one of their first interviews, that he" considered uothing could better serve the purpose of the Ministry, and those opposed to every species of reform, than such an attempt, (conspiracy,) as it would serve as a pretext for throwing discredit on its advocates, and quashing the demand then so generally made for reform"--(Narrative, page 60.) That you have seen fit to represent this treasonable and revolutionary conspiracy in so appalling a light to the English Court, cannot surely be to magnify the services of the Plaintiff at that awful crisis, and to strengthen his title to what you for years laboured to obtain for him, and now call a "suitable remuneration" (given) “ for information considered material, and which contributed greatly to the prevention of local mischief" And you are respectfully requested to explain this, as the Plaintiff himself asserts, that from his schemes being thwarted, by Mr Finlay in particular, great local mischief, so far from being prevented, was created. IX. Since, in behalf of the Plaintiff, you have assuredly stepped beyond what yon seem to think the line of public official duty, and have refused to be examined for Defendants, placed by the libel law in the anomalous situation of being tried in a court having no jurisdiction in Scotland, and no power to call witnesses from that country, it is confidently expected that you will re-consider what you have said in your Note about Richinond's preventing "great local mischief," as that statement is at complete variance with the statements of the Plaintiff himself, (though he is a person not apt to underrate the value und importance of his own services,) as, according to him, the alarm was idle and artfully got up, and the danger pretended. This dreadful conspiracy, as Richmond alleges, took its rise from the Thrushgrove reform meeting. Its mysterious birth and parentage are not at present in question; but it certainly first saw the light while, according to the Plaintiff, Messrs Finlay and Reddie "had, de facto, the whole local government." Its fosterage and management, Richmond described very graphically :-" The Magistrates of Glasgow were not let into the secret. The Lord Provost was so much alarmed that he would not sleep in his own house for several nights," in consequence of rumours. Richmond asserts that these "rumours were purposely set afloat to deceive the Magistrates." Even Mr Finlay, but not Mr Reddie, sometimes quaked at the reverberation of his own thunder; or, as Richmond says, Mr Finlay, though apprized it was a part of the policy, was not always free from their influence, daily references being made to me to ascertain the truth." [Narrative, Note, p. 69.] The tactics of the extra-officials at this time is minutely described by the Plaintiff. [Narrative, pp. 65, 69.] "The system pursued," he says, "produced all the " 66 Their influence-that is the influence of "the rumours purposely set afloat to deceive the Magistrates." bad effects that can result from an organized system of espionage, without any of the good.'' The gang let loose upon this occasion belonged chiefly to the police establishment of Edinburgh, the local officers being too well known. They were not made acquainted with pirticulars, but were given to understand there were some secret measures going on against the Government, which they were to endeavour, by all means, to discover. The local officers also got a general notification, which, without being of any service, enabled them to assist in the howl, and add to the mass of misrepresentation." This cannot be called prevention of mischief, either local or general. The Plaintiff states, that there was no real cause whatever for these false alarms; there certainly can be no justification of the means which, he asserts, were taken to excite them. He says, there was no cause for the arrest of any man: and it is certain that many innocent men were arrested. It is undeniable, that great misery and ruin to individuals and families was the result that large sums of the public money were lavishedthat much distrust of the public justice of the country, and odium and hatred of its administrators were excited, which yet burn in the hearts of the people of Glasgow-that though the law was certainly strained to the utmost, no conviction was obtained; and that the Habens Corpus Act was in Scotland suspended without cause, as, Richmond states, the Solicitor-General himself afterwards privately acknowledged. Will Mr Reddie, therefore, be pleased to explain what is meant in the Note to the Court of Exchequer, by Richmond's secret information" contributing greatly to the prevention of local mischief," when that person again and again proclaims, that great mischief was created by his information being improperly acted upon, and by "the gang being let loose," ..the rumours being set afloat," and, finally, by the arrests made "without the Magistrates being consulted?" It is thus the Plaintiff describes the third act of the drama in which he figured, which opens after seventeen or eighteen persons, who had been inveigled to attend an illegal meeting by the Spy and accomplice Biggar, were arrested. "Warrants," he says, "were issued for the apprehension of a great number more; and so little attention was paid to the accuracy of the information, and so much anxiety was shewn to increase the apparent magnitude of the confederacy, that, in the confusion of the first few days, several were arrested who had no connection whatever with it." Will Messrs Finlay and Reddie explain in what manner great local mischief was prevented by these proceedings? X.-In relation to the assertion in the Note that great local mischief was prevented, the attention of Messrs Finlay and Reddie is farther requested to the fact asserted by Richmond, in his Narrative, p. 110, that the Lord Advocate Maconochie, after the third indictment he had drawn had failed against the persons arrested in Glasgow and arraigned for high treason, said, the blame originally was not attributable to him, the Lord Advocate, but to the local authorities in Glasgow, who had taken the people into custody without orders. Will Messrs Finlay and Reddie, who, in the winter of 1816-17, according to their Note, sent to the Court of Exchequer, acted solely in their official and public capacity under Government," in order to the "prevention of local mischief," explain, why, the first crown officer in Scotland did (according to the assertion of Richmond) complain of the line of conduct pursued in Glasgow, which in fact, produced not merely local mischief, and spread needless alarm, consternation, and misery through society, but was the cause of great national disgrace-disgrace to the Crown Lawyers, scandal to the public justice of the country, and, finally, led to a solemn investigation in the House of Commous, which, of course, was settled in the usual manner of unrepresented times: Will Messrs Fiplay and Reddie explain upon what ground the Plaintiff was entitled to remuneration from the public purse for aiding in the accomplishment of these results? XI. There are some minor errors in the joint note, which, as they are of injurious tendency to the Defendants, require explanation. The writers allude to the Plaintiff as Alexander Baillie Richmond: now, in point of fact, the person to whom they refer as having been employed by them to obtain secret information regarding a treasonable conspiracy, was named Alexander Richmond; and they farther assert, that this person, Alexander Baillie Richmond, when tried for combination, was acquitted; whereas, the truth is, that Alexander Richmond, being indicted for combination, fled and was outlawed, livet under outlawry for above two years, surrendered himself to justice, was tried, and-not acquitted, but pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to imprisonment. XII.-Messrs Finlay and Reddie have transmitted to the Court of Exchequer, through the Glasgow Commissioner, the day after the Commission had been formally closed, and after Mr Tait, who acted for the Defendants, had returned to Elinburgh, and when Mr Morrison, who had been Commissioner, had no power to act longer, a joint note, most unfairly tendered, in justification of themselves, and giving, were it correct, important testimony for the Plaintiff, while they plead, under the act 1st William IV. c. 22d, and what they call their public official capacity, for refusing to appear as witnesses, and to have the truth of their averments sifted by counsel in an examination upon oath. They indeed affect to refer to the Barons of Exchequer though, as a lawyer, Mr Reddie must know, that the Barons have no jurisdiction, and neither can nor will interfere. Upon such unprecedented proceedings, (especially upon the part of Mr Reddie, the legal assessor of the Maglstrates of Glasgow,) it is not proposed to animadvert; and all present allusion to the personal and confidential connection, friendship, and correspondence, which the Plaintiff states in his Narrative that he long held and enjoyed with that gentleman, is forborne. But it is conceived that Mr Reddie is bound to explain the Note transmitted to the Court of Exchequer, as the course he has taken now renders this, in common justice, imperatively necessary for the protection of the Defendants. It is presumed that, though the sum which Mr Reddie ultimately had the satisfaction of paying to Richmond from the public purse must, for reasons of State policy, be concealed, no public reason whatever exists for concealment of the sums which the Plaintiff demanded, and which Lord Sidmouth long refused. There can be no public reason why Messrs Reddie and Finlay should not state the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's claims of indemnity for alleged pecuniary losses and sacrifices, which they repeatedly enforced at the Home Office, especially as this is wholly a private and personal affair. XIII. It is also expected, in common fairness, that, since Messrs Finlay and Reddie have stated in their joint note, that they employed Richmond, an intelligent weaver, to obtain secret information, but, of course, in a justifiable way, that they would now exhibit a copy of their secret instructions to him for his guidance in the extraordinary duty assigned him; as these private instructions can now be no State secret, and as the Defendants have undertaken to prove, on the production of this document, that the Plaintiff acted in an unjustifiable way. That such instructions should be exhibited, is humbly conceived to be necessary to the exculpation of Messrs Finlay and Reddie themselves; and it cannot for a moment be supposed that, at an alarming crisis, they sent abroad among his Majesty's subjects a secret emissary, tempted by the offer of place, and furnished with money and a roving commission; but that on the contrary he must have received positive instructions, and that a definite line of duty was prescribed for him. Finally, Messrs Finlay and Reddie are urgently requested to do away, as far as is now possible, the bad consequences of the joint note, so unwarrantably tendered by them, and forwarded to the Court of Exchequer by the quondam Commissioner; and to atone for that act to the Defendants by ample and satisfactory explanation on all the points above alluded to. It will be seen, at a glance, of how much consequence it might have been to the defendants to obtain answers from Messrs Finlay and Reddie to these queries; for the evidence given by them, in their Note, could not fail to operate strongly in Richmond's favour, and against the defendants, if not counteracted by the cross-exami nation of these remarkable witnesses, or by their answers to the above queries, which were designed to serve as a substitute (an imperfect one, after all) for the usual legal cross-examination. Happily for the defendants, the English court, on a representation of the nature of this unprecedented Note, made by the defendants' attorneys, refused to receive the note in evidence, or even to allow office-copies to be given out; and the strict adherence of the Court to the law of evidence, prevented any allusion by the plaintiff to a document so very much in his favour; so that, after all, the Note proved neither better nor worse than so much waste paper. Whatever were the objects of its authors and its forwarder, they were all frustrated. The Note served neither the purpose of whitewashing Richmond, nor of injuring the case of the defendants. It served neither as a justification of Messrs Finlay and Reddie's connec tion with Richmond and the transactions of 1816-17, nor as an excuse for their declining to give evidence in this cause. But all this, Messrs Finlay, Reddie, and Morrison can scarcely be supposed to have anticipated; otherwise, the Note would neither have been tendered to the Commissioner by Messrs Reddie and Finlay, |