FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

SERIES III.

VOL. IV.	B E T H A N Y, NOVEMBER, 1847.	NO. XI.

      My dear Clarinda--HAVING, after visiting. Aberdeen, Banff, Montrose, Dundee, Cupar, Auchtermuchty, Dumferline, Falkirk, Paisley, and Glasgow; and finding, with the exception of Aberdeen and Banff, every place [641] filled with these placards, you may judge what difficulties I had to encounter in obtaining a candid hearing amongst a people wholly superexcited by such inflammatory productions. I, however, succeeded beyond measure, and will give you the particulars again. Meantime, the Rev. Secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society, finding that the placards were losing their power and procuring me larger congregations, took the field himself and determined to follow me in person from city to city. Accordingly he arrived at Dundee as I was about to leave it. But, finding in the old city of Dundee a reception from the citizens which he little expected; and their meeting not only with a public discomfiture in his assaults upon me, but also with my letter in the Edinburgh Weekly Journal, he resolved on another way of annoying me. As you will see in reading said letter, I agree to meet in discussion any one endorsed by the Anti Slavery Society, even Mr. Robertson himself, with one single provision. There were, as I saw while in Edinburgh, in the City Register, no less than three Rev. James Robertsons. Of one of these I had heard a bad report, and not knowing which of the three Reverends had been guilty of violating the fifth commandment, and on that account, cast out of the Baptist church, I, of course, excepted that gentlemen as not being to me an acceptable antagonist.--I affirmed nothing of any one of that name, only that he was the only Reverend James Robertson in Edinburgh that I would not meet, although endorsed by the Anti-Slavery Society. The Anti-Slavery Society held a meeting the next Monday after my leaving Edinburgh, and passed a vote of thanks to Mr. Robertson for placarding me, and for his ability in opposing my labors while in Scotland. This being so, I excepted from my list of honorable opponents only one person whom they might endorse, as before described, presuming that he, whoever he was, would not obtrude himself upon my attention; and thus prove himself to be the person so alluded to. While at Dundee, on seeing the letter, he threatened to sue me for ruining his reputation; assuming, of course, that he was the person so alluded to. I could not think it possible that any one would be either so foolish or wicked, under the garb of a Christian minister, as to make that the occasion of stultifying himself, or of prosecuting me. But in this, it seems, I too highly appreciated the sagacity and sincerity of the Secretary; for he hastens to Glasgow, and makes oath that I had injured him to the amount of £5000 sterling, some twenty-four thousand dollars, and issues a fugae warrant to prevent me from leaving Scotland unless I gave bond to abide the issue of a suit of damages claimed for my saying that I would meet any Rev. James Robertson in Edinburg, or Scotland, endorsed by the Anti-Slavery Society, one only excepted. He thus assumes to be that person, and swears as aforesaid. Accordingly the warrant to prevent my leaving Scotland was presented me by the Sheriff of Lanark. I called for counsel; and on entering upon the investigation of the case, he demurred on the warrant. It was tried before one of the Sheriffs of the county, and by him, confessedly with some distrust, decided that the warrant was legal. My agent, a very sensible and acute lawyer, appealed to the High Sheriff [642] of said county of Lanark--a county including some 440,000 people; Glasgow, with its 340,000, being its capital. Of course his Lordship, the Sheriff, must be what we call in Scotland a clever man. He is, indeed, a very clever man, being Mr. Alison, the historian of Europe. Still my Attorney, Mr. Clark, disputed the case with him for some time, and constrained him to reduce the warrant to £200 instead of 5000; which Mr. Robertson agreed to; and so the warrant was judged by High Sheriff, Mr. Alison, a legal one. My counsel, however, appealed to the Superior Court of Scotland, at Edinburgh--to the Lord Ordinary, who happened then to be Lord Murray; and employed, as Attorney for me, the son of Lord Moncrieff, one of the best Attorneys in Edinburgh. Meantime, however, there must intervene no less than ten days before the case can be tried before Lord Murray. And now the question with me was, Shall I give security, or go to prison? Security was kindly offered me; but that relieved me not as respected my duty to the Lord, his cause, and people. I felt myself persecuted for righteousness' sake, and I could not find in my heart to buy myself off from imprisonment by tendering the required security. I thought it might be of great value to the cause of my Master, if I should give myself into the hands of my persecutors, and thus give them an opportunity of showing their love of liberty, of truth and righteousness, by their treatment of myself in the relations I sustain to mankind as a Christian and a Christian teacher--an advocate of the Apostles' doctrine in Scotland-- in its capital cities; I therefore placed myself in the hands of these superlative philanthropists, the Anti-Slavery Society of the whole kingdom. I felt the idea of imprisonment in all its horrors--of being immured in a cell, or cold dark dungeon, for an indefinite period; I thought of my appointments in Ireland, and of all that might be lost by not fulfilling them: I thought, too, of the dangers to my health, greatly impaired by one hundred days incessant talking. But, casting myself upon the Lord, I said, to the astonishment of my friends around me, 'I believe that in all this I am persecuted for the truth's sake. I stand for the Bible doctrine in faith, in piety, and in morality, and I am resolved to give no security. I will rather go to prison.'

      Mr. Robertson's counsel, fearing the consequences, said if I would pledge my word that I would return from Ireland within the time, he would take my word for it. Thanking the gentleman for his kindness, I replied, 'Sir, I shall still be a prisoner, and obliged to return. I cannot consent to return on the warrant issued. I will go to Ireland, sir, with your permission, and without promise of return.' He said he could not grant that. 'Then,' said I, 'your pleasure be done.' He walked into another room. Mr. Robertson and the Sheriff followed him. The sheriff asked Mr. Robertson what he should do. Mr. Robertson told him to inquire of Mr. Jameson his counsel. Mr. Jameson sent the Sheriff to Mr. Robertson for his mandate, refusing any. Mr. Robertson said, "Take him to jail"--and to jail I went.

      Several brethren accompanied me; amongst whom were brethren Henshall, Paton, and Stalker. I found it a cold stone castle, small rooms, little light, and no comforts, save a stool and a small table, with two feet by four [643] carpet, on a very cold stone floor. It is one of the debtors' rooms which I occupy. I came in on Monday, and this being Saturday, I have spent almost one week in this dismal place.

      I have, however, enjoyed much comfort here. I feel much more pleasure than in a palace, so far as my mind is concerned. I have, however, despite of all my prudence and care, found a cold accumulating in my person. Still I am cheerful, and read and write a good deal every day. It has already spread all over the kingdom. I receive much sympathy. I have received letters of the kindest affection from Mollington, Nottingham, Huddersfield, Dundee, Auchermuchty, Edinburgh, Paisley, Liverpool--in short, from all the churches and brethren that have heard of it. In the city I find all that the kindliest relations could do for me. The sister Patons, from whose residence I removed to prison, one of whom, with a cousin Gilmour, from Ireland, were baptized since I came here, together with young sister Dron from Auchtermuchty, niece of the brother John Dron, whom you will remember, minister to my wants every day. Sisters Patons and sister Dron have waited on me with all the comforts that they could bestow, and more than I need. I was saying to them the other day, that I was better off than Elijah--the ravens fed him, but the doves feed me. The Jailer showed me unusual favor. The law, in general, allows but two persons at once to visit a prisoner, and only at two hours during the day. But I have had eleven in my cell at one time, and they are coming and going from 9 in the morning to 9 at night. My only mental pain is, that I have caused much pain and many tears to many brethren and sisters. But I have gained some invaluable experience here, and a point is already secured of much value to this generation. They have thought that one could not be persecuted for the truth's sake to bonds and imprisonment; but that point is now fully decided, and that too by a religious priesthood, superlatively philanthropic and exquisitely sympathetic even unto Africa and America--this, too, in Scotland, a land that boasts that not one Papist was killed during her revolution and transition from Popery to Protestantism. But I must hasten to a close. I intend to demonstrate in my next letter that this is a case of imprisonment or persecution neither for word nor deed immoral, but for pure difference of opinion on points of Christian doctrine. But here I must again say farewell.

      P.S.--Port Patrick, Sept. 16, 1847.--You will see I am discharged from prison. Lord Murray decided that my imprisonment on the warrant was illegal, and ordered my discharge. I am, therefore, on my way to Ireland but a tremendous wind has blown on the Channel for the last two days, and it is impassable except at the risk of life. I may sail to-morrow, should the wind fall--of which there is not much appearance at present. My deliverance causes great joy to all who have heard of it. My imprisonment will, I hope, enlighten the public. The people needed something to [644] arouse them, and I am glad they are awakened. I spoke on Lord's day, at Paisley, to a fine audience; but the cold has taken away my voice, and I have been very unwell ever since quitting the prison. I had to show myself in the City Hall of Glasgow on Lord's day evening, where thousands had assembled to hear me; but I could not speak a word. They were informed that it was in consequence of my imprisonment. I had at my last address there a great assemblage. It is said to be the largest room in Great Britain. I must again say adieu.

      Since writing the above I have been furnished with a copy of the decision of Lord Murray on my appeal. I will present it as a part of the history of this extraordinary proceeding:--

BILL CHAMBER.--SEPT. 13.

SUSPENSION.--REV. A. CAMPBELL v. REV. J. ROBERTSON.

      A note of suspension and liberation was presented for the Rev. Alexander Campbell, President of the Bethany College, Virginia, United States of America, presently in Glasgow, on the 7th instant, against the Rev. James Robertson, residing at 27, Gilmour Place, Edinburgh--setting forth that, on the 31st August, a petition was presented to the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, at Mr. Robertson's instance, against Mr. Campbell as being in meditatione fugae, and praying for warrant for imprisonment until he should find caution to abide the issue of any action to be instituted by Mr. Robertson for damages and solatium; whereupon the Sheriff-substitute pronounced an interlocutor, in virtue of which the complainer was, at the date of presenting his note of suspension, detained in custody or confined in prison.

      The complainer's statement went to show that he was a native of Ireland, but long resident in the United States; and that he came to Scotland a very short time ago, and had not yet acquired a domicile in this country. On the 1st or 2d September current, he was apprehended at Mr. Robertson's instance, under a warrant issued on a complaint setting forth that he was indebted to Mr. Robertson in the sum of £5,000, and was about to leave Scotland, and put himself beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of this country. The ground of this claim appears to be, that Mr. Campbell, on 22d August, published in the Edinburgh Journal a letter addressed to the Editor, containing a number of false and calumnious statements, highly prejudicial to the private character of Mr. Robertson, and calculated to injure his usefulness as a minister of the gospel; and that at different places, both in public and in private, he had made statements regarding Mr. Robertson of a slanderous and calumnious nature, and calculated to injure him both privately and as a minister.

      It was alleged by the suspender that no copy of the Edinburgh Journal had been produced to the Judge; that the suspender owed no debt for damages to Mr. Robertson; and that the terms of the claim were so vague that the suspender could not identify it, or recognize what was meant, especially the loose allegation "at various times and places both in public and in private." It appears that in [645] the course of the procedure before the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, the Sheriff-Depute was of opinion that the description of the debt, so far as founded on the general statement of defamation in public and in private at various times and places was insufficient; but he thought the first part of the statement sufficient in particulars; and therefore thought the complaint should be entertained to a restricted sum, and pronounced accordingly. A restriction of the demand for caution was put upon record, limiting it to £200. The Sheriff-Substitute finally disposed of the case on the merits, on resuming consideration of the petition with the defender's judicial declaration and whole process. He found that the defender had not denied being in meditatione fugae, and held him as confessed as being so accordingly; and granted warrant of imprisonment until he found caution de judicio sisti, appointing the office of the Sheriff Clerk Depute, in Glasgow, as a domicile where he might be sisted, but superseded execution of the warrant for ten days, to enable the defender to apply to the Court of Session, by bill of suspension, provided he should find caution in the meantime to abide the issue of such bill.

      The suspender's pleas in law were to the effect--

      1. That the description of the debt did not fulfill the terms of Act of Sederunt, 10th July, 1839, s. 140, rendering it necessary that a summary application should be prepared as specifically as a summons.

      2. That the description did not fulfill the terms of the case of Pratt, 30th June, 1826, (S. and D., vol. 4,) or the texts of Bell, Tait, and M'Glashan, the authorities on the subject prior to the Act of Sederunt.

      3. That the description of the debt was so vague and general, it would be impossible to convict the petitioner of perjury, however unfounded his oath might be.

      4. The looseness of description would involve abuses of diligence, especially a party might be apprehended and detained in jail in reference to one debt sworn to, and ultimately rendered liable to another.

      5. A party is entitled to know the nature of the debt for which he is detained in prison, because it may be more or less easy to find caution according to its nature.

      6. That even the first part of the complaint is insufficient, as not giving the subject matter of the defamation, the paper referred to not having been produced.

      7. That one or other of the grounds of the debt being insufficiently stated, the action ought to be dismissed.

      8. That the judgment of the Sheriff-Substitute is disconform to the petition, and inconsistent with the opinion of the Sheriff-Depute.

      9. The suspender being a foreigner, without a domicile in Scotland, it ought to have been specially set forth that the debt was contracted in Scotland.

      The Lord Ordinary, (Murray,) by an interlocutor of the same date with the note of suspension, appointed parties to be heard within [646] forty-eight hours after intimation, and the proceedings referred to, to be previously produced.

      Thereafter his Lordship pronounced the following interlocutor and note:--

      "Edinburgh, 13th Sept., 1847.--The Lord Ordinary having heard counsel for the parties, and considered the note, passes the note, and grants warrant of liberation as craved.

(Signed)

JOHN A. MURRAY."

      "It appears to the Lord Ordinary that there is no such specification of debt as entitles a party to obtain a meditatione fugae warrant. The oath says that Mr. Campbell, the person complained upon, is indebted to the deponent in a sum of £5,000 of damages for injury sustained by the published letter referred to, and by statements made in lectures in Scotland. This published letter referred to is said, in the petition, to contain 'a number of false and slanderous statements, highly prejudicial to the private character of the petitioner.' This leaves it perfectly vague, and matter of inquiry what were the particular false and slanderous statements, or what had been said in the lectures which constituted the injury and debt. Whether in any case a meditatione fugae warrant might issue an account of damages due for any slanders specified in the oath or petition, is a question which the Lord Ordinary does not feel himself called upon to decide; but he conceives that any statement so general as to make it matter of conjecture and examination what are the particular slanders which form the ground of debt, cannot authorize such proceedings. In the case of Pratt v. Flett (20th June, 1826) there was something more nearly approaching to a specification of particular debt than in the present case.

(Initialed)

J. A. M.

      From the preceding statements which contain a correct though a hasty and unadorned narrative, rather than a development of the case, I presume most of my readers will concur with myself in regarding it as an indisputable case of anti-slavery persecution, and that, too, not because I am either a slave-holder, or an apologist for any system of slave-holding by law established in any country on earth;--not because I had taught, or presumed to teach, any thing upon the subject, pro or con, in any town or city in Great Britain; but because when an inquisitorial committee in dark disguise interrogated me on my views of the Christian doctrine relating to the subject, I presumed to express an opinion different from that of the Anti-Slavery Society of Scotland.

      It is true that partizan and sectarian tenets of religion, or the spirit of proselytism, may have instigated that Anti-Slavery committee to single me out as its victim, and to instigate against me a crusade--a systematic proscription and persecution; still that does not in the least change the character of that persecution as respects either the spirit or the efforts of the anti-slavery proceedings in the cause; for these were formally commenced, carried through, and consummated under the auspices, by the direction, and with the [647] approbation of the Anti-slavery Society, and merely on account of my dissent from anti-slavery orthodoxy.

      Had the Anti-Slavery society, by its chairman, called a meeting and reprobated that committee and the proceedings of its secretary, then, indeed, it would have been a case of an individual or a few individuals, acting on his or their own individual responsibility; but so far from this, a meeting was called after the persecution commenced, and votes of thanks were lavishly bestowed on the secretary, and encouragements offered him to proceed in the work, as he has since faithfully done.

      This is an important fact in moral science.--It is a proof of the tyranny of opinionism, not only under a general profession of liberality and philanthropy, but under a very special remonstrance and combination against tyranny and oppression in any case affecting personal freedom. It is a proof that men may be tyrants themselves while denouncing tyrants. I was incarcerated because of mere speculative and doctrinal dissent from the opinion of a certain class of anti-slavery men. My liberty was taken away by liberty men. A reverend declaimer on liberty gave the order--"Take him to jail."

      I am aware that it will be said I was imprisoned for a libel. But who libelled me from Edinburgh to Banff!! I libelled no man--I spoke the truth. There were three Rev. James Robertsons in Edinburgh, and one of them was accused of insulting and abusing his mother. His exclusion from a Baptist church for that offence is matter of record in the Scotch Baptist church of Dundee.

      I did not specify any one of the three Rev. James Robertsons.--Why did only one of them accuse himself by professing to be the man? Why did not the other two find cause for a libel. The truth is no libel in Scotland. It is not, in fact, a libel any where. The truth never can be a lie.--A true bill is, therefore, not a lie-bill.

      But the Anti-slavery Society found no man to meet me in debate on my Edinburgh Weekly Journal challenge. They may, perhaps, be guilty of a libel against their own secretary, by admitting him to be the man, in the simple fact of not electing him to meet me. It was in their power to choose him. I was pledged to meet him on their choice, provided he was not that unfortunate and ungrateful Christian son who smote his mother. He has placed himself in this dilemma. The Anti-Slavery Society regarded him either morally or intellectually incompetent. If he had honored his mother and was competent they would have chosen him. Mr. Robertson may decide whether his brethren demurred on account of his intellectual incompotency, or because he had broken the fifth commandment.

[The Millennial Harbinger, Third Series, 4 (November 1847): 641-648.]