City of Edinburgh. William Marshall, jeweller, South-bridge-street, Edinburgh. Walter Lamb, upholsterer in Edinburgh. Archibald M'Kinlay, haberdasher in Edinburgh. John Barter, confectioner there. Sharp Callender, clothier there. William Pattison, junior, haberdasher in Edinburgh. that you may have an opportunity of seeing the same. At least, times and places foresaid respectively, the said seditious speech was wickedly and feloniously delivered, containing the said or similar wicked and seditious expressions: and the said seditious tract or statement, containing the said seditious and inflammatory passages, and others of a similar tendency, was wickedly and feloniously printed, sold, published, and circulated, or caused or procured so to be, as above mentioned: and you the said Alexander M'Laren and Thomas Baird are both and each, or one or other of you, guilty thereof, actors or actor, or art and part. All which, or part thereof, being found proven by the verdict of an assize, before the lord justice general, the lord justice clerk, and lords commissioners of justiciary, you the said Alexander M'Laren and Thomas Baird ought to be punished with the pains of law, to deter others from committing the like crimes in all time coming. "H. HOME DRummond, A. D." LIST OF WITNESSES. LIST OF ASSIZE. County of Edinburgh. James Watson, of Saughton. William Watson, farmer, Middle-Kenleith. County of Haddington. George Rennie, of Fantassie. David Pringle, of Blegbie. David Skirving, farmer at East-Garleton. John Hislop, junior, grocer in Haddington. Norman Shairp, younger of Houston. James Gardner, junior, merchant in Bathgate. Andrew Mellis, haberdasher there. The following Defences had been given in. DEFENCES for Alexander M'Laren, Weaver in Kilmarnock, to the Indictment at the instance of Alexander Maconochie of Meadowbank, his Majesty's Advocate, for his Majesty's interest, for Sedition. "The panel has been employed from his early youth in his trade as a weaver. He has always preserved the most sober and orderly habits, and, if necessary he could bring forward complete proof of his uniform and steady loyalty. He never was engaged in any riot or disturbance whatever, and never was connected, or accused of being connected with any of the societies, or combinations of men formed for unlawful purposes, or whose objects have been regarded with suspicion. He was a volunteer in the Glasgow Highland regiment during the whole period of its establishment, and when the volunteer system was put an end to, he transferred his services to the local militia. During the greatest part of his service, he was a serjeant, a situation which he obtained by his good conduct. "Of late years, the panel, among many others, lamented the distresses of the country, from which he himself had severely suffered in his situation and prospects. He therefore ed of the petitions, which were presented in approvsuch numbers to his royal highness the Prince Regent, and the two Houses of parliament, the object of which was to obtain relief. "A meeting was held near Kilmarnock in the month of December last, at which a great multitude of people attended, for the purpose of considering of the expediency of petitioning his royal highness the Prince Regent and the Houses of Parliament, upon the present distressed state of the country, and the subject of parliamentary reform. The panel was present at that meeting, and made a short speech, not in the terms alleged in the libel, but in other terms, which appeared to him to be warranted by law in such a case. The meeting was afterwards addressed by other persons; certain resolutions were agreed to; petitions were drawn out, addressed to the Prince Regent, and to the two Houses of par liament. These petitions having been signed by a great number of persons, were sent to London and presented. The petitions ad dressed to the two Houses of Parliament were presented, read, and ordered to lie on the table of each house. In his speech, the panel did nothing more than lawfully recommend the said petitions: and he denies that he is guilty of the crime of sedition. "The panel took no charge whatever of printing the pamphlet produced with the libel; and he finds that his own speech is inaccurately reported. "It is an evident misconception, that such a speech, spoken at a lawful meeting for lawful purposes, was calculated to degrade and bring into contempt the government and legisla ture, and to withdraw therefrom the confidence and affections of the people, and fill the realm with trouble and dissentions. If there are grievances or abuses, or such men as bad rulers, or bad ministers, those who complain against them, or petition against them, do only exercise their legal rights. The panel, while he was disposed to petition for redress of grievances, was filled with the same reverence for the legislature and all its different branches, and for the government of the country as established by law, that is impressed on the mind of every good subject. "Under protestation to add and eik. "JOHN CLERK. LIST OF EXCULPATORY WITNESSES. Hugh Wilson, weaver, Kilmarnock. DEFENCES for Thomas Baird, to the Indictment crime charged against him. "Under protestation to add and eik. LIST OF EXCULPATORY WITNESSES. David Ramsay Andrews, writer there. Bailie William Brown, manufacturer there. Lord Justice Clerk.-Have the counsel for the panels any objections to state to the relevancy of this indictment? Mr. Campbell.-I appear on behalf of the panel, Alexander M'Laren. It is not my intention to state any objections to the relevancy of the libel, but to explain to the Court and Jury the nature of the concern which he had in the transactions now brought before this Court. At the same time, it is proper I should state, that we who are his counsel hold it to be the undoubted law-and law which has never been questioned in this part of the countrythat it is the province of the jury, to consider both the facts and the law of the case-that it is for them to say whether the facts charged in the indictment are proved in the course of the trial, and if they find them proved, whether these facts do amount to the crime charged. And that being the case, we hold that we are not deprived of the benefit of any pleas which we may afterwards maintain, by any interlocutor of relevancy now to be pronounced. I conceive also, that in justice to the panel and in justice to the opposite side of the bar, (who always meet me with liberality, and whom I wish to meet in the same manner), I should at once and openly state the nature of the defence we intend to maintain, and should say something of the history and character of the panel. legal meeting which they were entitled to hold: it was for a legal purpose; there was no harm in going there; and every person was entitled to state the grievances he felt, and in a manner that might induce the meeting to take constitutional measures for what he conceived would bring them relief. The panel did not intend to take any part in the proceedings, nor to open the meeting as he did. But those persons who were to have opened the proceedings, were not equal to the task when the time came, and he was asked to undertake what was refused by the others. He went into a house in the neighbourhood, and hastily threw upon paper some observations which he wished to submit to the meeting. He did address the meeting, but he did not submit to it, and there were not contained in that paperwhat are cited as offensive expressions in the last part of the indictment. The panel, after learning the trade of a weaver, in the county of Perth, went to Glasgow, where he continued a good many years. He acted as assistant foreman in a mercantile house, and during the whole of his engagement gave entire satisfaction to his employer. Seventeen years ago he entered into the Highland corps of volunteers in that city, and soon rose to the rank of serjeant, and continued with the corps till it was disbanded, and the volunteer associations were discontinued. He next went to Kilmarnock, where a great many weavers are occupied in working for the manufacturers of Glasgow; and, at the same time, he again gave his services to the public, by entering into the local militia corps of that district, in which corps he continued down to 1812, when the period of its service expired. And not only was there no complaint against him during all these periods, as a man either troublesome or quarrelsome, but he maintained in Kilmarnock, during the period of nearly eight years during which he lived there, a character remarkable for sober habits, attachment to good order, and to the government of the country; and last harvest, during a riot which occurred about a scarcity of meal, so far was he from taking any part in the riot, that when a house was to be attacked, he put himself forward along with two constables in order to protect the house. He enjoyed the same decent, respectable, and good character, till this charge of sedition was brought against him. He does not deny that he attended the meeting in December. His means of subsistence, and those of his neighbours about him, had been gradually declining. They had arrived, before the period I speak of, at, I hope, their worst state of distress; for he worked fifteen hours a day for 5s. a-week, although he is not only one of the best workmen, but so expert as to be able to execute the best work in the shortest time. And I will prove, that other workmen who could execute as good work, but who were not so expert and expeditious as my client, were able to obtain only 3s. a-week. The panel admits that in this distress he began to think of the causes which had reduced his neighbours and himself from a condition in which they were prosperous and happy to a state in which they could scarcely gain the means of subsistence; he confesses he came to be of opinion, that the evils were partly owing to the excessive taxation which had been imposed on the country; and he and some others thought it right to call a meeting of the inhabitants of the place where he resided, to consider the propriety of a petition to the legislature on the subject of their distress, its causes, and what appeared to them to be the proper remedies: They conceived, that to do this was their undoubted right; and it will not be denied on the opposite side of the bar, that such was their right. There is no charge in the indictment that the meeting was illegal. It was a As to the passage about a corrupt administration, which is cited in the indictment, it was in the manuscript, but was not spoken in the field. I admit that the manuscript afterwards went into the hands of the committee of the petitioners, at the request of the committee, in order to be printed in an account of the proceedings, but he had no concern in printing that account. With regard to the expressions which are charged as seditiously directed against the legislature, we shall satisfy the jury, and shall show your lordships, that giving them a fair construction, they contain nothing improper against any of the orders of the state, against the King, the House of Lords, or House of Commons. In sound construction, the expressions apply only to the administration for the time, and every person at such a meeting is entitled, if he thinks it right, to attack the policy and conduct of ministers. I need not enter into the question, whether there has been mal-administration or not; but every person feeling himself aggrieved is entitled to state his grievances, and more particularly at a meeting convened for the purpose of applying to the legislature for redress. This will not be denied. And what was done in consequence of this meeting, and of the speeches which were made there? Every thing was conducted in a regular and orderly manner; no injury was done to any property or to any person; the only consequence of the meeting was, that three petitions were resolved on, one to the Prince Regent, another to the House of Lords, and the third to the House of Commons; which last petition, when presented to that House, was ordered to be brought up and to lie on the table. This is proof that the petitions contained nothing that was offensive to the Prince Regent, nothing seditious, nothing offensive to the Houses of Parliament. Every thing that resulted was legitimate and proper. Taking the whole circumstances into consideration, it clearly appears, that the first passage objected to, relates to the measures of ministers; and I will prove even by witnesses for the crown, that, so far was my client from employing any expressions disrespectful towards the head of the government, that he did quite the reverse, and spoke with the utmost respect of the Prince Regent. it should be necessary, we shall make out to the satisfaction of your lordships and the jury, that the language, even as stated in the indict ment, does not amount to sedition. Lord Justice Clerk.-It is a perfectly fair and distinct statement. Mr. Jeffrey.-I appear here in behalf of Thomas Baird. I suppose we are all agreed, that it is the right and province of the jury to take into consideration both the facts and the law of the case; first, to find whether the facts libelled are proved; and then to judge of the import of the facts so proved. We have no desire to quash the trial in any preliminary stage of the proceedings; and, notwithstanding some incorrect statements in the libel, as we do not wish to shrink from investigation, we shall not trouble your lordships with any preliminary objections to the relevancy. Having stated thus much, I conceive I have This being the situation of the matter, and opened the nature of the defence we mean to my client having done nothing but what he plead, at sufficient length to make the oppowas entitled to do, we shall show that the lan-site side of the bar aware of the nature of our guage he used was no other than what he was defence, and I think it unnecessary to detain completely authorised to use. In numerous your lordships any longer. petitions to parliament, much stronger language has been used, and found not only to be not seditious, but to be not disrespectful to the House. What was the language held when Parliamentary Reform was first talked of at the Thatched-house-tavern? In the second resolution of that meeting it was said, “This meeting, considering that a general application by the collective body to the Commons House of Parliament cannot be made before the close of the present session, is of opinion, that the sense of the people should be taken at such times as may be convenient this summer, in order to lay their several petitions before parliament early in the next session, when their proposition for a Parliamentary Reformation, without which neither the liberty of the nation can be preserved, nor the permanence of a wise and virtuous administration can be secured, may receive that ample and mature discussion which so momentous a question demands." These are strong terms, and imply, that, without reformation in the representation of the people, the liberty of the subject is in danger; and if there is any doubt as to the meaning of the passage, look to the letter written by Mr. Pitt to Mr. Frost, in which it is said, that Reform "is essentially necessary to the independence of parliament, and the liberty of the people."+ Down to this day strong language is always used in petitions on that subject and never objected to, except when the House of Commons is denied to represent the people, or matter is introduced against the House that is not relevant to the object of the petition. It has been laid down by constitutional lawyers and statesmen, by lord Thurlow, by Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Fox, that where the language is expressive of the grievance, however strong it may be, it is justifiable. I therefore submit, that, as it is competent to put such language into a petition to parliament-as such language has not been held objectionable in the House of Commons, it cannot be considered as seditious, or as tending to bring the legislature into contempt. If such language is lawful in petitions to parliament, then it must be held lawful in the speeches and resolutions made at meetings preparatory to such petitions. For there would be an inconsistency and absurdity in saying, that such language might be lawfully used in a petition, which if used in discussing whether it should be inserted in the petition would be unlawful. If * 1 How. Mod. St. Tr. 493, note. † 1 How. Mod. St. Tr. 494, note. I have little farther to state in addition to the written defences. Mr. Baird is a merchant in Kilmarnock, and has always maintained, not only an irreproachable but a respectable character in the estimation of both his superiors and equals. He also has served his country in a military capacity, and held, successively, commissions in different bodies of volunteers. In the last corps to which he was attached, he served down till the dissolution of the volunteer system in 1813, when the allowances which had been given to them were taken away; and his conduct, character, and sentiments, were always considered loyal, respectable, and praiseworthy. He also had entertained ideas, the wisdom and propriety of which cannot here be made a subject of discussion: But to what he considered as defects in the constitution, he wished to apply none but constitutional remedies. A spectator of the general distress around him, and a participator in it, he believed that the evil was ascribable, at least in part, to a defective representation in the Commons House of Parliament; and he therefore thought it proper to present a respectful petition to the legislature on the subject. He attended the public meeting which assembled for that purpose; but he did not take any part in the discussion, not being gifted with powers of oratory, nor wishing to obtrude himself on the public notice. He did however attend the meeting, and he heard the speeches-which were not so violent as they have been represented. Some expressions were at the time reprobated by him, as tending to throw an odium on the general cause of Reform; and afterwards, when it was determined that some account of the proceedings should be published, and the orators gave in their speeches to the throne, where sits our august prince, whose gracious nature will incline his ear to listen to the cries of his people, which he is bound to do by the laws of the country." All this is extremely good; but what follows? "But, should he be so infatuated as to turn a deaf ear to their just petition, he has forfeited their allegiance. Yes, my fellow-townsmen, in such a case, to hell with our allegiance." Is that not sedition? Accompanied with an overt act, would it not be high treason? I have no hesi tation in saying it would. committee for publication, he repeated his ob jections against printing several passages which appeared to him to be improper; but he was overruled by a majority of the committee, who wished a full publication of the proceedings. As the funds of the petitioners were low, it occurred to the committee that some small pittance might be collected from the publication, to defray the expenses necessary for the preparation of the petitions. In this way, he consented to the publication, but at the same time protested against publishing any improper expressions; but not having any idea (as such a discovery indeed had not then been made in any quarter), that the expressions, though censurable, were of a nature to infer criminal consequences, he gave no critical attention to the minute contents of the publication, nor considered himself responsible for them. In order to forward the end in view, which was not to excite violence or sedition, but merely to raise money, it was determined that the members of the committee should distribute and sell as many copies of the pamphlet as possible; and my client agreed to sell some of them. These are the facts of the case. As to the relevancy, much will depend on the interpretation to be given to the words libelled on. We do not think it necessary at present to say any thing farther on that point, as we shall prove that the expressions used were materially different from those libelled in the indictment. When the facts are disclosed in the evidence, we shall have a fitter opportunity for remarking on them. Lord Advocate. It is unnecessary for me to say any thing as to the candid statement which has been made on the other side of the bar. I admit that it is not only the right of the jury, but that it is their bounden duty to say upon their oaths, whether the matter charged is sedition or not. In that I concur with my learned friends, and therefore I need say nothing more. Lord Justice Clerk.-Your lordships have heard what has been said on behalf of the prisoners, and what has been said by the lord advocate. I have to ask your lordships, whether you have any observations to offer on the relevancy of this indictment. Things may turn out differently on the proof from what is represented in the indictment; and I should rejoice to find it so. But, with regard to the speech and the publication, as here stated, is there not a direct attack on the legislature? Another passage is: "A House of Commons, but the latter is corrupted; it is decayed and worn out; it is not really what it is called; it is not a House of Commons." We are told this is only an attack on the ministers. It is an attack on the House itself. Any petition containing such expressions, I always understood, would be rejected by the House of Commons. "At present we have no representatives; they are only nominal, not real; active only in prosecuting their own designs, and at the same time telling us that they are agreeable to our wishes." Is that not a broad attack on the legislature? I shall be glad if the facts charged are not made out. They clearly amount to sedition as they are stated. Lord Gillies. I concur in the opinion which I have now heard, so far as to think the indictI have no doubt that it is ment relevant. relevant, and that the ordinary interlocutor must be pronounced. The indictment states, that at a meeting "attended by a great multitude of persons, chiefly of the lower orders," one of the panels delivered a certain speech, which speech was afterwards circulated by the other prisoner. As to the nature and objects of the meeting, no information is given in the indictment; I must therefore hold it to have been a lawful meeting. But the libel goes on to state, that the panel "wickedly and feloniously delivered a speech containing a number of seditious and inflammatory remarks and assertions, calcuLord Hermand. I am of opinion that the lated to degrade and bring into contempt the indictment is relevant; and I think there can government and legislature, and to withdraw be little doubt on the point with those who therefrom the confidence and affections of the hear me. The learned gentleman who opened people, and to fill the realm with trouble and the defence admitted, that an attack on parlia- dissention." This is certainly a charge of ment constitutes sedition; adding, that his sedition; and, if the expressions cited in the client did not apply his expressions to the indictment were delivered for the purpose legislature, but to the ministers of the day. It there stated, they must be regarded as sedimay be so, but that is not what is stated in tious. I need deliver no opinion farther at this indictment, to which alone I can attend at present, for the facts charged in the indictpresent. Part of the charge goes very deep.ment, and, still more, the wicked and felonious They met on pretence of a dutiful petition. Such pretences are always made. But your lordships will attend to what we find stated: "Let us lay our petitions at the foot of the intentions therein ascribed to them, are denied by the panels. All these matters remain to be the subject of proof; and I should be arrogating to myself the province of the jury and of |