FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

SERIES III.

VOL. V.	B E T H A N Y, APRIL, 1848.	NO. IV.

      My last advices from Scotland are down to the 24th March. I left with my attorney, in Glasgow, the right to prosecute for false imprisonment. This, of course, will need, to some persons, and especially to our brethren, a word of explanation. Having clearly anticipated the result of the case, appealed to Lord Murray on the legality of my arrest and imprisonment, under the writ from the Sheriff's Court; and knowing, also, the wiles of the enemy, anticipating that the calumny of having libelled a Reverend Gentleman, in Edinburgh, would be carefully detailed to my disparagement, and that of the cause with which my reputation is identified, I never hesitated one moment as to the necessity of preventing the slander obtaining currency--'that I escaped from the penalty of a libel through the informality of the prosecution.' Having reasons, also, to conclude that Mr. Robertson would never try the merits of the case, but simply continue it orr the docket, and in just such a form as to propagate the aforesaid slander. On consulting with the brethren and friends, and learned counsel, in the case, I had but one way to foil my adversary and disappoint his machinations, and this would be to compel him to try the issue, or wholly withdraw it. This I could achieve only by authorizing a suit for false imprisonment; not at all for taking vengeance under any supposed fine that might be imposed on him, but for the sake of a complete victory over him; not because of the simple illegality of the procedure, but because of the absolute falsehood and injustice of the imputation of libel.

      Circumstances have occurred to justify this course. He has even refused to pay the costs, and will stand a suit for these; and no doubt but the matter would now be abandoned, leaving my adversary in [226] possession of the aforesaid slander. I will, therefore, give no occasion to the enemy to speak reproachfully, and will constrain a trial of the merits of the allegata. I seek not vengeance, and will not receive from him, in any shape, one penny or ten thousand pounds, as a fine or consideration for his persecution and final imprisonment of me; but I will come out of this furnace without the smell of fire upon my garments; and make manifest the church and the party who have thus, in pretence of justice and humanity, sought to silence my pleadings for primitive Christianity, or to impair my reputation amongst my contemporaries and posterity. I cherish no ill will to any man under the broad heavens; but I will maintain, I hope, a pure conscience and a good character while I live, and leave the latter as the best legacy that I can bequeath to those most dear to me in the flesh and in the Lord.

      My counsel have prepared my defence, and it is now on file to meet the case on its merits, as entered by Mr. Robertson, the pursuer. I have not heard that my friends have yet entered suit for false imprisonment, but presume it will be done immediately; and, then, the issue on the merits will be, on his part, unavoidable. A printed copy of it was received per last mail, from Brother Alexander Paton, of Glasgow, and is in the following words:

Defences for the Rev. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, President of the Bethany College,

Virginia, United States of America; to the SUMMONS of DAMAGES raised against him at the instance of the Rev. JAMES ROBERTSON, residing at No. 27, Gilmour Place, Edinburgh.

      THIS is an action at the instance of a party styling himself as the Reverend James Robertson, residing at No. 27, Gilmour Place, Edinburgh, concluding against the defender for damages for certain alleged written and verbal slander. The documents complained of as libellous consist of a letter addressed by the defender to an Edinburgh newspaper, and a placard said to have been published in Dundee; and the verbal slander complained of is said to have been contained in two lectures, one delivered at Falkirk, and the other at Glasgow, in which the substance of the letter and the placard above mentioned is said to have been repeated.

      The defender has no intention of going into any detail in regard to the discussion with the pursuer, out of which this action has originated. The defender was sent as a deputation from the Baptist Church in Virginia to this country, for the purpose of enforcing certain theological opinions entertained by that body. ¹ The object of his visit to this country had no relation, direct or indirect, with [227] the subject of slavery; but having in the course of his mission been followed most perseveringly by the pursuer and others, and assailed with contumely and reproach, on account of his opinions on that subject, he was induced to consider the propriety of publicly defending the views on which he was thus openly assailed.

      One of the most vehement in his abuse of the defender was the present pursuer. On arriving at Dundee, the defender found that the streets of the town had been covered with placards of the most abusive and scurrilous description, directed against himself. On the other hand, it appears that parties opposed to the views of the pursuer put up a counter placard, being that quoted in the summons, with the publication of this placard the defender had no connection or concern whatever. But having been publicly challenged by the pursuer to discuss the question of slavery with him, he wrote the letter which is quoted at length in the summons. If he made any allusion to the subject of this placard or letter in the subsequent lectures, it was merely explanatory of the circumstances connected with the pursuer's challenge.

      The defender denies altogether that the letter in question contains any actionable matter. It had come to the ears of the defender that a party of similar name to the pursuer had been turned out of the Baptist Church, and for the offence referred to in the letter in question. How far this statement was true, the defender had, at the time, no means of knowing. Neither had the defender any means of knowing whether the pursuer was the individual to whom this event had happened. But he thought himself entitled, before meeting him as a public antagonist, to know the standing and character of his opponent; surf therefore he made it, a condition of his so meeting the pursuer, that he should not be the party who had been thus expelled from the Baptist Church. He imagines there can be no doubt that he was entitled to make this stipulation.

      In regard to the other passages of the letter, there is nothing whatever of a slanderous or a calumnious nature contained in them.

P L E A S   I N   L A W.

      1. The expression alleged to have been made use of by the defender are not actionable, and the summons is not relevant to support its conclusions.

      2. The defender not having published, or having in any way concurred with the publication of the placard libelled, cannot be made responsible for its contents.

      3. Under the circumstances, the defender was entitled to use, and was justified in using, the expressions complained of.

      4. At least the defender had probable cause for the use of these expressions, and the same afford no ground of action against him.

	Under protestation to add and eik.
J. MONCREIFF.

      There can be no doubt from the opinions expressed and hinted by the Lords in Session, that my counsel will maintain the ground which they have assumed. From the perusal of the defence, I presume any one may see the real issue on its proper merits. I predict that [228] Messrs. Robertson and friends will not meet my counsel before the Court of Queen's Bench, as set forth in these well digested "pleas in law."

[The Millennial Harbinger, Third Series, 5 (April 1848): 226-229.]