Page images
PDF
EPUB

at

your lordship, if I said any thing farther this period of the trial; for after the proof only can any satisfactory opinion be given on the subject.

Lord Pitmilly.-Soon after the printed copy of this indictment was put into my hands, I considered it with a view to the question of relevancy; and although the counsel for the panels have not disputed the relevancy of the indictment, but reserved to themselves the liberty of making such observations as may appear to them proper after a proof shall have been led, it would have been the province and the duty of this court to stop the trial at this stage if it had appeared to us that the indictment is not relevantly laid.

The defence has been very properly explained by the counsel for the panels; and I shall be happy if they make out that defence, either in exculpation, or in alleviation of the crime charged in this indictment. The only question at present is as to the relevancy of the indictment; and I have no hesitation in saying, that in my opinion, it is relevant; and that, therefore, the ordinary interlocutor should be pronounced.

The major proposition of the indictment charges sedition in general terms. This is an unexceptionable charge, which has never been objected to, that I know of, but in one case, where the question regarding it was argued, and the objection was repelled. I allude to the case of Sinclair. It is known to every lawyer that sedition is a crime recognised by the laws of this country. It is a crime, indeed, the trial and punishment of which must be coeval with government.

It is stated that the one panel made a speech which contains inflammatory remarks and seditious expressions, and that the other panel circulated a pamphlet containing that and other seditious speeches. Paragraphs of it have been read, and I will not consume time with reading or commenting on any of them at present. No person who reads them can doubt, that the general nature of them is to excite commotion, and to prepare the way for resistance and for overturning the government. That this is the general tendency of the facts charged, no person can doubt. It would also be wasting the time of the Court to read the passages of the luminous commentary by Mr. Hume on the crime of sedition, or to refer to the authorities and the precedents which have occurred in this court.

The counsel for the panels are correct in stating, that it is the province of the jury ultimately to determine, not only as to the facts of the utterance and the publication of the expressions mentioned in the libel, but also with regard to the law, whether the expressions are to be held seditious or not. On that point

See the debate on the Relevancy of the Indictment in Sinclair's case, 2 How. Mod. St. Tr. 784.

there can be no doubt; and there never was doubt as to it at any period of the history of this court. The Court, however, in considering of the relevancy, must determine in the first instance whether the expressions complained of appear to them to be seditious, and to amount to the crime of sedition; and on this subject I cannot entertain the shadow of doubt.

Lord Reston.-I have no doubt as to the relevancy of the indictment. We have nothing to do at present with the truth of the statements in it. The only question now is, whether the averments of the public prosecutor are put in proper shape and terms in this charge. The jury will decide not only on the bare facts, but on the legal import of them, and will say whether the panels are guilty or not of the crime of sedition.

I have no doubt of the sufficiency of the averments made by the public prosecutor. He has averred circumstances, which, if proved, amount to sedition. His averments amount to this, that what was said and published was not only calculated to produce pernicious consequences affecting the government and legislature, but must have been meant for seditious purposes. The indictment states, that the purpose of the panels was wicked and felonious. I consider that the speech said to have been delivered by one of the panels is seditious in all its parts, and tends to excite discontent in the country. It was delivered in the open air, before a multitude of the lower orders assembled to hear it. The panel is alleged to have stated that their sufferings were intolerable, and in coarse and calumnious language to have said, “A base oligarchy feed their filthy vermin on our vitals, and rule us as they will." I consider this expression as tending directly to vilify the government, and weaken the affections of the country towards its legislature. In this speech he talks of successful resistance. He speaks of the reformation, and of the resistance made to the English when their progress was stopped at Bannockburn. What were the feelings meant to be excited in the audience? He was attempting to degrade the government, in order to stimulate his hearers to resistance; and, to give them confidence, he mentioned former instances of successful resistance. No doubt he proposes that the petition shall be laid at the foot of the throne; and he pays a compliment to the Prince Regent. But what does he add?" Should he be so infatuated as to turn a deaf ear to their just petition, he has forfeited their allegiance. Yes, my fellowtownsmen, in such a case, to hell with our allegiance." Is there no intimidation-is there no threat intended by such language? It is true the expression "just petition" is employed; but who is to judge whether the petition is just? Were those at the meeting to judge? It was in effect, saying, if our petition is not listened to, we are absolved from our allegiance. If the expressions shall be proved, the language is seditious in a high degree.

"The Lord Justice Clerk and lords commissioners of justiciary having considered the criminal indictment, raised and pursued at the instance of his majesty's advocate, for his majesty's interest, against Alexander McLaren and Thomas Baird, panels, they find the indictment relevant to infer the pains of law; but allow the panels, and each of them, to prove all facts and circumstances that may tend to exculpate them, or either of them, or alleviate their guilt, and remit the panels, with the indictment as found relevant, to the knowledge of an assize.

But this panel is not only accused of expressing himself in this seditious manner while in the heat of addressing his audience, but he is also said to have delivered up the MS. of his speech in order to be printed. If this be proved, then not only did he use seditious language in the heat of his address, for which he might have been in a certain degree excusable, if momentarily not master of himself, but he afterwards did the utmost in his power to circulate this sedition. It was not likely that the speech would be heard of beyond the place where it was delivered, without some effort were used to disseminate it, but he shewed his anxiety to obtain for it a wider circulation.

The indictment is clearly relevant as to M'Laren. It is likewise so as to Baird. IIe was present at the meeting. I do not say the purpose of the meeting was illegal. Baird becanie the trumpet of that meeting, and is said to have circulated an account of this very speech, which is charged as having been delivered by M'Laren. If the public prosecutor proves his averments, he makes out that a direct attack was made on the legislature, and in strong terms on the House of Commons. "No nobleman-no clergyman-no naval or military officer-in short, none who held places, or received pensions from government, had any right to sit in that House." And again, "Is it any wonder, my friends, that this country is brought to its present unprecedented state of misery, when the rights of the people have been thus wantonly violated?" And in another place it is said, "we have these twentyfive years been condemned to incessant and unparalleled slavery, by a usurped oligarchy, who pretend to be our guardians and represen tatives, while, in fact, they are nothing but our inflexible and determined enemies."-" They have robbed us of our money, deprived us of our friends, violated our rights, and abused our privileges."-" 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." If this is not a direct attack on a branch of the legislature, I do not know what can be an attack on it.

"D. BOYLE, I. P. D."
The following persons were then named to
pass upon the asзize of the panels.
James Watson, of Saughton.
John Dodds, farmer at Saughton Mill,
John Drysdale farmer, Clermiston.
David Pringle, of Blegbie.
John Stewart, of Binny.

John Calder, farmer at Drumcross.
John Russel, farmer at Mosside.
William Marshall, jeweller, South Bridge,
Edinburgh.

Archibald M'Kinlay, haberdasher in Edinburgh.
John Baxter, confectioner there.
James Howden, jeweller there.
William Kennedy, glover there.
William Lindsay, wine-merchant, Leith.
John Gowan, wood-merchant there.
James Stoddart, wine-merchant, Edinburgh.

Lord Justice Clerk.-Are the declarations of the prisoners admitted?

Mr. Clerk.-Yes, my lord.

EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.

Andrew Finnie sworn.-Examined by
Mr. Drummond,

You are a merchant in Kilmarnock ?—Yes. Do you know the Dean Park in the vicinity of Kilmarnock?—I do.

How far is it from Kilmarnock ?-About half a mile.

Do you remember that a public meeting was held at the Dean park on the 7th of Dec. last? I do.

A great number of the lower orders?

Yes.

Our present business is only to judge of the Was there a great number of persons at it? relevancy of the indictment, and then a jury-I think about 4,000. will judge both of the law and the facts of the case. If they think neither of the panels used these expressions, or circulated them, or if they are of opinion that they are not inflammatory and seditious, it is their part, not ours, to find

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Do you remember that speeches were made at that meeting? Yes.

Who opened the business?-Alexander M'Laren.

Is that the person there?-It is.
He made a speech?—Yes.

What was the speech about, sir?-About the business that the meeting was called for, which was for the purpose of deliberating on the best mode of petitioning for parliamentary reform.

Do you remember any part of his speech, any of the words that he used?-Nothing particular, except one passage near the end.

C

Repeat the passage as near as you remember it? We will lay our petitions at the foot of the throne (or let us lay, I do not remember exactly which), where sits our august prince, whose generous nature will incline his ear to hear the cries of his people, which he is bound to do by the constitutional laws of the country; and we are thereby bound to give him our allegiance. But if he should be so infatuated as to turn a deaf ear to the general cries of his people (or voice of his people, I do not know which), to hell with allegiance."

Is that the whole of the passage ?—The whole of the passage, as far as I recollect.

Lord Advocate.-I wish to know whether M'Laren in his speech stated that a number of resolutions had been drawn up by the committee, which were about to be read-Yes, about the close of his speech, after the expression I alluded to, I think.

Mr. Drummond.-Did he recommend any body to be called to the chair of the meeting? -He said the committee unanimously recommended Mr. Johnstone.

And did he propose him to be elected to the chair?--Yes, I understood so.

He was called to the chair?- He was called

to the chair.

[blocks in formation]

[The pamphlet was handed to the witness.] That is one of them.

The rest are the same?-I understood so. Did you read M'Laren's speech?—Yes. Did it appear the same as that delivered at the meeting?-No; there was a difference particularly as to that passage.

Lord Justice Clerk.-You mean the passage in reference to allegiance?-Yes, my lord.

Mr. Drummond.-Will you point out to us particularly what is the difference between that printed passage and what he said?—There is one part which I think is omitted.

What is that?" And we are thereby bound to give him our allegiance."

Do you observe any other difference?- I think that instead of "to their just petition," he said, " to the general cries or voice of his people."

Lord Justice Clerk.-"Just petition" are the words you see there?-Yes, my lord.

Mr. Drummond. Any other difference? The words "he has forfeited that allegiance," were never mentioned that I heard; and nothing that I remember, but " to hell with allegiance."

Mr. Drummond.-The witness did not hear the words " he has forfeited that allegiance." Witness. That is what I meant to say. "To hell with allegiance," is all that I heard at the meeting.

phlet ?-I was appointed to a charge about Had you any charge as to printing that pamthe printing, but I never acted to it.

Who had the charge along with you?-Mr. Baird.

And who else ?-Mr. Walter Andrew.
A writer?-Yes.

You took no charge though you were appointed to superintend the printing?-I was appointed, but never was at the meeting called for the purpose.

How were you appointed to that charge?— By the committee.

Was Baird a member of the committee?He was.

Do you know who printed the statement of the proceedings?--It was given in to Mr. Crawford, I understood.

Court. That will not do.

Mr. Drummond.-Were you ever present at the printing?—I was, in Crawford's shop.

Did you ever get any copies of the printed statement from Crawford?—I did get from Crawford printed copies.

Court. Did you buy them ?—I was to pay for them.

Lord Hermand.--Then you did buy them? -I did not buy them particularly.

Mr. Drummond.-Do you know whether Baird sold any of them?-He did.

Did Baird ever tell you so?-He said he got quit of them; but he did not say he sold them.

Did he say he got quit of them all?-He

said so.

Did he ever get any from you?-About four dozen.

They were of those you got from Crawford ? -They were.

Did you give him all you had ?-No, I had eleven or thereby left.

Had you any conversation afterwards with certain if I had. I do not recollect at present Baird about those remaining-I am not. if I had.

quit of all his. Did he make any remark on I think you said Baird mentioned he had got your not having got quit of yours?—I said I had still eleven or thereby; and he seemed surprised as he had got quit of all his.

Lord Hermand.-What did you understand by getting quit of them?-The committee had liberty to get what they wanted; and copies were given to them when applied for.

Court. The witness does not understand the question. Was any price taken for them? Mr. Clerk wished to know what the witness-I understood they were to be 4d. each; that had said. this was fixed by the committee.

Were they disposed of by sale or by gift?—sage?—I do not remember any other passage I do not know whether Baird sold them or not. than that about allegiance in M'Laren's He was to pay for them.

Lord Advocate. Did you ever go to Crawford's with Baird to inquire after the publication?—I did.

What did you ask?- We asked if any of the pamphlets were ready.

Which of you asked ?-I am not certain. You both went for that purpose?—Yes. Andrew Finnie cross-examined by Mr. Jeffrey for Thomas Baird.

You have mentioned that you two were both members of the committee for arranging about this meeting?-Yes.

Were there many other members ?-From 20 to 30, I think.

speech.

What did he say as to that passage?— That he would be inclined to keep it out altogether.

Did he say any thing else about it?—I do not remember particularly any thing else he said.

Was that proposition of his adopted by the committee or not?-No; it was not.

Did it appear to you, that Mr. Baird approved or not of that passage?-He disapproved of that passage, and wished it to be left out.

Did you understand that all the members of the committee were to take copies of this statement, to forward the sale of it, and to account for the 4d. for each copy ?-Yes; the com

These were constituted before the meeting was held?-Part. There were more added af-mittee were at liberty to get what number terwards. they wanted, for the purpose of defraying the expenses.

Was any notice given to the magistrates about the meeting?—Mr. Baird and I were nominated to call upon the magistrates, to inform them of the meeting.

You went?-I did not. Mr. Baird said, he went.

Did he report that the magistrates had no objections to the meeting ?-He did.

There was no interference of the magistrates? -None.

Were you present at the meeting?—Yes.
Was Mr. Baird there?-He was.
Did he speak?-No.

Did you hear him make any remarks expressing satisfaction or dissatisfaction on what was said?-I heard him make a remark about the passage i was talking of in Alexander McLaren's speech concerning allegiance.

What did he say?-He said it was a pity it had been spoken.

He disapproved of it ?—Yes.

You said, you, Mr. Andrew, and Mr. Baird, were appointed to take charge of the printing of an account of the proceedings?—Yes.

Was any motive alleged for the printing? It was for defraying the expenses attending the meeting.

Was there any discussion at the meeting of the committee about the propriety or impropriety of printing the whole of what had been so stated at the public meeting?—Yes,

there was.

[blocks in formation]

Did they all get copies?-I do not know who did and who did not.

Mr. Baird keeps a shop?—Yes.

Did all the members of the committee keep shops?-No.

What kind of a shop is Mr. Baird's ?—A grocer's shop.

Has there been any other general meeting since this in Dean Park?-None that I know of.

Certain resolutions were adopted which are to be found in the printed stateinent, and petitions to parliament were, in conformity to them, prepared and forwarded ?—Yes.

Was there any disturbance or tumult at Kilmarnock since that date?—I do not recollect of any.

Do you recollect any disturbance recently before that, a riot about meal?—Yes.

Before the public meeting took place, about autumn?—Yes; I do not know the exact time when it was.

Lord Advocate.-You said that Baird disapproved of printing the passage about allegiance: do you remember whether M'Laren said any thing, and what did he state about that passage? -I think he said, that if the committee thought there was any thing wrong, he would rather it were kept out altogether.

That was as to the passage in his own speech? -Yes.

When Mr. Baird objected to printing the passage, did he state his reasons why he thought it an improper passage to be printed?

The reason was not stated there, that I remember; but when he and I were talking of it by ourselves.

And what did he say ?-He said to me it was a very indecent expression.

He stated nothing to the committee of his reasons?-Not that I remember. Andrew Finnie cross-examined by Mr. Grant for Alexander M'Laren.

I ask the witness to look at the printed

speech, and find these words, "The fact is, we are ruled by men only solicitous for their own aggrandisement"?—I see them.

Were these words spoken ?-I do not remember.

"And they care no further for the great body of the people, than they are subservient to their accursed purposes." Was that spoken? I do not remember. I paid almost no attention to any part of the speech, except that about allegiance.

How did it happen that you remember that passage so particularly, and none of the rest of the speech?-It struck me particularly.

Then you do not mean to pronounce an opinion as to any thing that was uttered by M'Laren, except the passage about allegiance? -No.

Do you remember what passed about the opening of this meeting? who asked M'Laren to open it?-I do not remember who asked him.

Did he volunteer, or was he requested to open the meeting?—He was backward to open the meeting.

And he was asked by the committee?-He was asked by the committee.

When was he asked?-At a meeting of the committee.

Lord Advocate.-How many days before the meeting? I am not certain.

It was some days?-It was some days, I think.

Mr. Clerk.-Are you sure it was some days before the meeting?—I am certain; for immediately or the night before the meeting, he said he was in doubts whether he would do it or not.

Did you use any particular means to keep the passage about allegiance in your recollection?-It struck me so forcibly at the time, the language was so strong, I kept it in my memory.

You mentioned other passages. What part of the passage do you allude to just now? Did yon consider the whole passage strong ?--The word hell struck me. That was the particular part I thought was wrong. I did not consider any thing wrong in the rest of it at the time. Did you write down the passage ?——No. Are you quite confident of your recollection of the whole of the passage ?—I am quite confident it was very near to what I repeated. Whether the words, " cries," or "voice," were used, as I said before, I am not sure of; but I am confident as to the rest of the passage.

Lord Advocate.-At the meeting, had M'Laren any paper with him?-I saw none.

Did you ever see any paper with his speech on it? Never.

Did you ever hear him speak of the terms of it after it was printed?-I recollect of him saying repeatedly, that the passage about allegiance was a quotation from Shakespeare which came into his mind.

When did he first say that Was it at the meeting of the committee ?-I do not recollect of his ever saying that at the committee; but I have heard him repeatedly say so.

William Merrie sworn.-Examined by
Mr. Drummond.

Are you a writer in Kilmarnock?—Yes. Do you remember being at a public meeting held near Kilmarnock on the 7th December last? Yes.

Do you remember the speeches made at that meeting?-Part of them.

Who made the first speech? Alexander McLaren.

Is that the man behind me?—Yes.

Do you remember any part of his speech?Very little of it.

Do you remember any words near the conclusion of it?--Yes.

Can you repeat them?-The hindmost part of it was, "hell with," or "for such allegiance."

What allegiance was that he was speaking about?—If I remember right, he was wishing the people to address their august sovereign; and he meant their allegiance to him.

Did he give any reason why this allegiance was to go to hell?

Mr. Clerk. He has not said that.

Mr. Drummond.-Why did he apply the expression to such allegiance? What did he say? If I remember right, it was, "if he turned a deaf ear to the voice of his people."

Did he say any thing about petitioning? Yes, he wished the people to petition their august sovereign.

What more do you say of this speech ?—I do not remember more.

Lord Hermand. He has explained enough I think.

Mr. Drummond.-Do you remember any other part of his speech ?—No.

Did he use any words to shew what his meaning was when he spoke of the voice of the people?-Not that I remember of.

Lord Advocate.-You said he wished the people to address their august sovereign; and then you stated he said, "if he turned a deaf ear to the voice of his people." Did he add any thing?—I do not remember whether he added any thing or not.

After he used the words, "if he turned a deaf ear to the voice of his people," did he say any thing or not about "to hell with such allegiance?"-That came afterwards.

Lord Hermand.-Did he mention in what way the voice of the people was to be expressed?—No, he wished the people to petition.

Lord Advocate.-Did you, after this meeting, see a publication called " Account of the Proceedings of the Public Meeting of the burgesses and inhabitants of the town of Kilmar

« PreviousContinue »