Have you seen him acting in that capacity? I think I have.

Down to what time did he so act?—I could not say.

cause, but only gives his testimony to the authenticity of a paper in his possession; that is all that Mr. Grant would be asked to do. Mr. Grant can certify, not only that he believes them to be the printed votes of the House of Commons, but also that he received them under cover from the Vote-office, certifying to him that they are the votes of the House of Commons.

Lord Advocate.-The evidence would not be complete; Mr. Grant can only explain how he came by these papers.

Lord Justice Clerk.-In a legal sense what Mr. Grant could certify would not make them evidence. The question of their being actually the votes of the House would remain to be established.

Mr. Clerk-After they are made public, they are matters of notoriety, which any persons may refer to before your lordships.

Lord Advocate.-I admit my belief of their genuineness.

John Andrews sworn.-Examined by Mr.
Jeffrey for Mr. Baird.

Are you chief magistrate of Kilmarnock ?— Yes.

Were you in that office in December last? Yes.

Do you recollect a public meeting in the Dean-park?-I do.

Did you receive any notice or application regarding that meeting?-I think I did; one or two days before it took place.

Who waited upon you?-Mr. Baird met me in the street, and told me of the meeting a few days before.

What did he state to you?—That he was appointed by the committee to wait on me, to inform me the meeting would take place if I would allow it, and that if I would not he would give up the intention of holding it; I said I did not approve of the meeting, but I thought I could not prevent it.

Was it a numerous meeting ?-I could not say, I was not there.

Does it consist with your knowledge that the conduct of those at the meeting was orderly or otherwise?-There was nothing of riot or disturbance that I heard of.

No breach of the peace?-None. Have there been any since?—I know of none; I recollect none.

Was there any kind of disturbance recently before?-In September, I believe.

You are acquainted with Mr. Baird ?-Yes, I have been long acquainted with him. He is in a respectable way of life ?-Very respectable.

Is he a quiet and peaceable person, or tumultuous and disorderly?-Always peaceable.

Does it consist with your knowledge that he held a military commission in a volunteer or local militia corps ?—I generally understood he was a captain.

Walter Andrew sworn.-Examined by
Mr. Cockburn.

What are you? A writer?—Yes.

Do you know Mr. Baird?—Yes. Do you remember the meeting held at Kilmarnock in December last?-Yes.

There was a committee for arranging the business ?-Yes.

Were you a member of it?—Yes.
Was Mr. Baird ?—Yes.

You have seen him at the committee ?-I have.

Do you recollect any discussion after the meeting about printing the speeches delivered there?-Two or three days after the meeting Mr. Baird called on me with the manuscript of a speech which was delivered there. I said I thought indecorous expressions were in it, which ought to be kept out. He urged that objection at a meeting; but the objection was overruled.

What were the precise expressions which you called indecorous or vulgar? Do you remember the expressions?—I could not repeat the words: the passage was the same in the manuscript, as in the printed pamphlet, where I read, "which he is bound to do by the constitutional laws of the country; but should he be so infatuated as to turn a deaf ear to their just petition, he has forfeited that allegiance. Yes! my fellow-townsmen, in such a case to with allegiance."

What was it you objected to?-What I have read.

And Mr. Baird concurred in that objection. but he was out-voted?—Yes.

Was there any other speech, to the printing of which he objected? The last in the pamphlet; the speech of Mr. Kennedy.

What was his objection to Kennedy's speech? -He said it was nonsense.

Did he object to any of the others?-To part of Mr. Burt's.

What was the objection to it? He said it would have been better if it had been clothed in milder language.

From your conversation with him, did you understand him to be the author of that speech? -No. He expressed regret that some of it was not expressed in milder language.

Did you ever hear him express a desire to have every thing done quietly, so as to give offence to nobody?—Yes.

Was there any riot at the meeting?-Not that I heard of.

Did he ever express to you any desire that government should be overawed?—No.

He wished regularity of proceeding ?—He said, the only object was to petition constitutionally, so as to give offence to no one.

What was the object of printing the proceedings?—To defray the expenses incurred.

Rev. James Kirkwood sworn.-Examined by Mr. Jeffrey.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Baird ?—I have had that pleasure for nearly two years. Do you know him intimately?-Very intimately. No one more so.

In the course of your acquaintance with Mr. Baird, have you had conversations with him on political subjects?—I have.

Has he expressed his sentiments with apparent sincerity and conviction ?-With the greatest I have no doubt.

Did he express an attachment to the constitution as established by law, or a desire to have it altered?-He expressed a desire that the popular part of the constitution should be strengthened and increased, never that the constitution should be overturned.

He wished some reformation of the representation of the House of Commons ?-Yes.

Did he ever explain by what means he thought this should be attempted?—I have often heard him say he was anxious that any thing like violence should be avoided, and that none but constitutional measures should be taken.

Does Mr. Baird attend your congregation? -Yes.

Is he a man of peaceable and moral conduct? -To the best of my knowledge he is so.

Did he ever discover any tendency to riotous or disorderly conduct?-I never observed any thing of that kind in him.

He is a peaceable man?--I think so. Has he any family?-He has several children.

Do you think him capable of intentionally exciting tumult or violence among the people? -I should certainly think he is altogether in capable of designedly doing so.

John Wyllie sworn.-Examined by
Mr. Cockburn.

Do you hold any office under government? -I am surveyor of taxes for the third district of Ayrshire.

Do you hold any military commission ?-I was in the Volunteers till 1809, and I still hold a commission in the Local Militia.

I need hardly ask you if you are a keen reformer yourself?-I never attended meetings for such purposes.

Have you served along with him in any corps?I was subaltern, and he was a captain in the Ayrshire.

Did his conduct as an officer give satisfaction ?-He was a very active officer.

Do you know of a meeting held at Kilmarnock in December last ?—I heard of it.

Had you any conversation with Mr. Baird about it?-Yes, once or twice. I heard a gentleman read an account of the proceedings in a company from a Glasgow paper.

Did you ever hear Mr. Baird say any thing about the speeches?--I never heard him make any remarks on them.

Do you know Mr. M'Laren?-Yes. Was he in that corps you spoke of?—Yes, in my company.

sir.

Did he behave well?-As far as I know,

John Brown sworn.-Examined by
Mr. Jeffrey.

Are you a writer in Kilmarnock ?—Yes. Have you a partner in business?-Yes, the town-clerk.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Baird ?—Very well. Is he a respectable man?-One of the most so in the town.

Has he a family?-He is a widower, with four or five children.

Do you recollect a meeting in December last for petitioning parliament ?—Yes, I do.

Do you know whether a committee met before and after that meeting ?-I believe one sat several days before the meeting.

Were you a member of it?-No, nor was I ever at the meeting.

Did Mr. Baird ever communicate to you what was passing?-Scarcely a day passed in which we did not converse on the occurrences of the meeting; and I was in the habit of asking what passed at the committee.

What did he state as the object of the petitioners ?-To procure a reform in parliament. By what means?-By constitutional means. Did he disavow violence or other means?-Most distinctly.

You are rather ministerially inclined, I presume. Do you know Mr. Baird ?-Yes.

He had no desire to overturn the constitution -I have heard him warmly extol the constitution.

Is he a quiet man?-Yes, he has been so ever since I knew him, and that is the greatest part of his life.

Is he respectable in point of situation? Very much so.

did not wish a garbled statement of the pro. ceedings to go before the public.

Did he make observations on any of the other speeches?-He pointedly objected to M'Laren's speech.

Did he object to any of the others?-He disapproved of one or two, as having language too keen and disrespectful.

Does it consist with your knowledge that he

has held commissions in military corps ?—He | commanded a company of rifle volunteers for some time.

Did he give satisfaction in his military capacity?-I never heard any complaint against him. I always conceived he behaved like a gentleman.

You will observe, then, that in the minor proposition of the indictment, the prisoners are charged-M'Laren with having, at a public meeting, on the 7th of last December, held in the neighbourhood of Kilmarnock, and attended principally by the lower orders of the people, used certain seditious and inflammatory language, in a speech which he then deliver

tion.

From what you know of him was he sincere in his sentiments in favour of constitutional modes of proceeding for obtaining redress of grievances?-There is no question of that. He never approved of any other than constitutional modes of redress. I have known him intimately these eight or ten years.

Was he likely to say or do any thing to produce discontent?-I conceive he would be the last man in the world to be guilty of any thing of the kind.

Are you clerk to the road trustees?—Yes. Did you understand Mr. Baird objected to these expressions not as being improper in themselves but as likely to lead the persons who uttered them into a scrape?-He did not appear to be apprehensive of any consequences to result from them, but he objected to them as improper expressions.

Are you acquainted with M'Laren ?-A little. I have met him on business.

Do you know anything of his character?-I never heard anything against him.

Lord Advocate.-Gentlemen of the jury; you have heard from the indictment that the panels are charged generally in the major proposition with the crime of sedition, a crime well known in the law of Scotland, and with the general description of which you must be already familiar, but with which, at all events, you have had additional means of being made acquainted, from the luminous and satisfactory judgments of their lordships, delivered this morning in the commencement of the trial. I shall not, therefore, in this part of the observations which it is incumbent upon me in discharge of my public duty to address to you, say any thing in further explanation of the law of sedition, which-as a crime calculated to unsettle the order of society, and to introduce tumult, anarchy, and bloodshed into these realms, which, for upwards of a century have enjoyed the highest degree of freedom that ever fell to the lot of any people-is one of the most dangerous which can be committed against the state. Before, however, concluding the remarks with which I shall have to trouble you, it may be necessary for me to draw your attention to the application of the law to the charges preferred against the panels. In the first instance, however, I shall confine myself exclusively to the evidence which has been adduced, in order to establish that the acts at least, alleged in the indictment to have been committed by the prisoners, have been brought home to

them.

VOL. XXXIII.

bring into contempt the goverment and legislature, to withdraw therefrom the confidence and affections of the people, and, to fill the realm with trouble and dissention. For the precise expressions which he then employed, I shall beg leave to refer you at present to the copies of the indictment which are before you, in which the passages of the speech are detailed at length, and to which I shall hereafter be obliged more particularly to call your attention.

The other panel, Baird, is charged with having published his speech, and with having been accessary to the printing and circulating a seditious tract or statement, purporting to be an" Account of the proceedings of the public meeting of the burgesses and inhabitants of the town of Kilmarnock, held on the 7th of December 1816, for the purpose of deliberating on the most proper method of remedying the present distresses of the country, with a full report of the speeches on that occasion." Then follow particular passages contained in that publication, which are alleged generally to be seditious, tending to inflame the minds of the public against the constitution of the kingdom, and which, it is affirmed, were published by him with the wicked and felonious purpose of exciting sedition against the Government, and of withdrawing the affections of the people from the established order of things in the country. The publication has been duly authenticated, and although I shall afterwards more particularly refer you to some of its most striking passages, the whole, I trust, will receive your full and deliberate consideration.

In the conclusion of the indictment both prisoners are charged with being accessaries to the crimes committed by each. From this you will understand, that if, from a full consideration and investigation of the proof which I have laid before you, you should be of opinion that the prisoner Baird was accessary to making the seditious speech delivered by M'Laren, or that the other panel, M'Laren, was accessary to publishing or circulating the seditious libel, stated more particularly to have been sent into the world by Baird, then you will have to find, supposing you are of opinion that the speech and publication are seditious, that both are guilty art and part of the crime laid in the indictment.

In considering this part of the case as a question of evidence, I do not think that it is necessary for me to go very deeply into the import of the depositions of the witnesses; for I conceive, that while you are called upon to

E

discharge a most important duty, in declaring the guilt or innocence of the panels as to the crimes libelled, and which may depend on considerations altogether unconnected with the mere fact of the delivery of the speech by the one, or the publication of the libel by the other, you can have no difficulty in forming an opinion, that both, and each of them, at least, did commit the acts which are charged against them in this indictment. You can

have no difficulty in being of opinion, that it is proved that M'Laren did deliver a speech at the meeting, and that the speech did contain the expressions which are cited in this indictment: Neither, in my apprehension, can you doubt, that the publication in question was the work of Baird; that he not only superintended the printing, but assisted in preparing the manuscript for the press; and that he sold and distributed this libel, prepared under his own eye, with the utmost diligence, indefatigable zeal, and persevering activity. In like manner, I, at least, cannot see where a doubt can exist, that it has been legally proved that M'Laren was art and part in the publication, and that he is now bound to answer for that publication which was thus sent forth into the world, be its qualities what they may.

But though that is the impression on my mind, and although I have no doubt that the same has been made upon the minds of all of you, it is, notwithstanding, my duty to go over that evidence, and to endeavour to point your attention to its different parts, as applicable to the charge against the panels separately, distinguishing, as I have said, the bare facts of the case from the view which I am afterwards to take of the nature and import of the expressions.

In the first place, then, you will attend to the evidence, by which it is proved that the speech in question was actually delivered by the prisoner M'Laren.

Upon this branch of the case, I shall call your attention to the statement given by the prisoner himself in his declaration emitted before the sheriff. But, before doing so, it may be proper for me to state to you distinctly, that in considering this part of the evidence, you must remember, that nothing contained in this piece of evidence can inculpate the other prisoner, but can only affect the party by whom it was emitted. Neither, I will fairly tell you, is it to be taken as conclusive evidence even against him. It is, however, a very strong circumstance of presumption against him, made, as it has been admitted to have been in this case, voluntarily, while the prisoner was sober and in his sound senses, deliberately and seriously. I shall submit to you, therefore, that when the admissions made in this declaration are taken with the parole proof, no doubt can be left upon your mind of the truth of the allegations made in the indictment, in point of fact, regarding the prisoner M'Laren.

In the first place, then, the declaration of

M'Laren states, "that there was a public meeting held at the Dean-park, near Kilmarnock, on the 7th of December last: that that meeting. was for the purpose of petitioning parliament for a reform of grievances. Declares, that previous to that meeting there was a committee of certain individuals in Kilmarnock for the purpose of bringing about the said meeting that the declarant attended that committee, and David Ramsay Andrews, writer in Kilmarnock, Thomas Baird and Andrew Finnie, merchants there, also attended that meeting: and the declarant has reason to suppose that they were members of it as well as himself. Declares, that the declarant first appeared on the hustings, and opened the meeting; and being shown an' Account of the proceedings of the public meeting of the burgesses and inhabitants of the town of Kilmarnock,' and wherein is engrossed on part of the fifth page, sixth, and part of the seventh page, what the declarant said at opening the above meeting, declares, that the declarant has perused said speech, and it is near what the declarant said on the above occasion." He next, no doubt, makes an exception as to the inaccuracy of that speech, "except what is said about the middle of the seventh page about allegiance, which the declarant thinks he did not deliver in the words as expressed in the publication."

This, you will observe, is not denying the purport of the passage in the libel, but only the words in which the import was conveyed to the multitude, and we shall see afterwards whether the prisoner be correct in this part of his statement.

He next declares," that on the morning of the above meeting, the declarant put into writing what he must say at the opening of the meeting: that he afterwards gave his part of the manuscript to those who were appointed by the committee to superintend the printing of the proceedings, that the same might be published along with the rest. Declares, that James Johnstone, muslin-agent in the waterside of Kilmarnock was called to the chair, and on that occasion he made a speech, which was much approved of by those present. Declares, that the resolutions, as engrossed in said publication, are the same that were read at the public meeting, and the manuscript was read to the committee previous to the meeting, by Thomas Baird, merchant_in Kilmarnock, one of the members. Declares, that Hugh Crawford, printer in Kilmarnock, was employed to print the proceedings of the meeting, which were afterwards sold at fourpence a-piece, to enable the committee to defray the expenses. Declares, that the declarant attended a meeting of the committee, when those who spoke gave in their manuscripts for printing; and the declarant thinks the foresaid Thomas Baird was present: That a committee was appointed to superintend the printing, and the said Thomas Baird and Andrew Finnie were of that committee. And being shewn the printed report before mentioned, declares

that he heard none of the authors find fault with any thing that is therein contained; and the said publication is docqueted and signed by the declarant and sheriff as relative hereto." And, before concluding, he" declares, that the words on the sixth page, 'the fact is, we are ruled by men only solicitous for their own aggrandizement, and they care no farther for the great body of the people than they are subservient to their accursed purposes,' were in the manuscript wrote by the declarant, but were not repeated by him at the public meeting when on the hustings, as above."

Now, this is the declaration of the panel, and it must, as it will, be supported by other evidence, before, as I have told you, it can have full authority with you as establishing the fact against the prisoner. You will, therefore, observe, that in this declaration he admits, generally, that all the parts of his speech as given in this printed paper, are accurate, with two exceptions.

The first exception is, that there is something inaccurate in the words at the passage regarding allegiance; but he does not state, or allege, in what particular these expressions are inaccurate; neither does he deny that they convey the import of what he had delivered. And, no doubt, there is an inaccuracy in the printed account of this passage; because, you will observe, that one monosyllable, of very great import, is cautiously omitted, which, it is proved by the rest of the evidence, beyond all doubt, the prisoner actually employed. The word "hell" is omitted altogether; and while the prisoner refrained from stating what words were incorrectly given, I should be entitled to infer that it consisted in this omission; and, if so, it is of no importance to the general result. Indeed, it is enough for my purpose that he admits generally the accuracy and authenticity of the publication; because I have the means of supporting the strong evidence afforded by this general admission, by other testimony which supplies whatever is wanting in his own declaration.

The second exception which he makes is, that some words, which are mentioned at the end of the declaration, are printed, which he did not deliver at the hustings; but you will observe, that he admits that those words were in the copy of his speech which he gave to be printed, and that he does not allege that he, at any time. ever objected to the publisher, or to the committee, that his speech as delivered was not accurately given, but, on the contrary, that he acquiesced, down to the hour of his emitting this declaration, in its being the true and fair account of the speech he had made on that

occasion.

Let us now attend to the parole proof, by which this declaration has been amply confirmed.

Of the two witnesses who were first examined, you have Finnie, who swears that the speech which he heard M'Laren deliver on that occasion contained these words: "We will lay,"

or "let us lay, our petitions at the foot of the throne, 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 hear to the general cries" or "voice of his people, to hell with allegiance." That is the express statement given by a person who himself attended the meeting as a party, who cannot be supposed to be very unfavourable to the prisoners, and whose testimony, indeed, was given in a way that must satisfy your minds he did not intend to press the case more than it would bear against either of them.

Next we have the witness Merrie, who expressly swears (though his memory is not distinct as to the whole passage), that M'Laren made the first speech. He remembers the words "to hell with" or "for such allegiance." He says M'Laren "wished the people to address their august sovereign, and he meant their allegiance to him." Then he remembers the words, "if he turned a deaf ear to the voice of his people;" and after that came the words "to hell with allegiance."

Besides the testimonies I have now referred you to, I might, if it were necessary, go over the evidence of many more of the witnesses; but this must be superfluous. You will, however, keep in remembrance the evidence of Samson, who, when called back and examined for the prisoners, deposed, that he attended the meeting of the committee when the speeches were given in for publication by the different persons by whom they had been delivered at the public meeting; that M'Laren was present at that meeting of the committee, and that when he produced his manuscript, there was a correction made on it by Baird, which was read to the meeting; and that the pencils marking made by Baird were those very words I have referred to which are given in this speech, and copied into the indictment which is lying before you. He states, that the words which were added by Baird with the pencil are," which he is bound to do by the laws of the country: But should he be so infatuated as to turn a deaf ear to their just petition, he has forfeited their allegiance. Yes, my fellow countrymen, in such a case to hell with our allegiance." These are the words which with a pencil Baird added to M'Laren's speech in his own presence. Now why, I will ask, according to the prisoner's own friend Mr. Samson, were they added? Why, because the committee wished to give a true account of what took place at the meeting, or, to use his own words, "because the manuscript delivered in was not complete according to the way in which the speech was delivered." The committee did not wish to garble the proceedings, but to give a minute, true and accurate account of what happened; and the passage therefore was inserted. All this, you will remember, took place in M'Laren's presence; and did he