Page images
PDF
EPUB

object to this addition being made? No; on | printing-house-that he did superintend the the contrary, he agreed that the passage should | printing of it, assisting even in correcting the remain there, because it was an accurate account press, and that a great number of copies of what he had said. Some feeling of pro- were sent to his shop which he retailed and priety, no doubt, prevented the committee from distributed. putting in one word which had been used by M'Laren, and there is a blank accordingly in the printed paper; but the witnesses who were examined fill up the word, and tell you what is wanting. You have M'Laren's admission, therefore, in his declaration, of the general accuracy of the printed account of his speech; you have the parole proof; you have this statement of Samson's; and you have M'Laren's virtual admission in the committee, that these were the expressions he used. It does, therefore, appear to me to be unnecessary to go further in examining evidence on this part of the subject. I think it is clear that these words were used by M'Laren, and that of this it is impossible you should doubt. I may now, then, put the prisoner M'Laren aside altogether, in so far as the mere fact of the speech having been delivered by him is concerned; and it is exclusively to that I am speaking at present.

As to the prisoner Baird, we must also look to the terms of his declaration. He declares, "that the 7th of December last was fixed for a general meeting at the Dean-park: That the declarant attended that meeting, and Alexander M'Laren, weaver in Kilmarnock, mounted the hustings, and opened the meeting with a speech: That James Johnstone, muslin-agent in Kilmarnock, was called to the chair, and read a speech to the meeting from a memorandumbook. And being shewn a manuscript consisting of nineteen pages, declares, That he is pretty certain that it is the same that he read to the meeting, and which the declarant saw some days afterwards in Walter Andrew's office, and which is docqueted and signed as relative hereto. Declares, That the proceedings were ordered to be printed, and the declarant was appointed by the committee, along with several others, to superintend the printing: That the declarant assisted in correcting the grammatical errors in the manuscript, along with the said Walter Andrew, and the declarant assisted a little at the printing office in correcting the proof-copy: And being shewn a half-sheet of paper, titled on the back, "No. 5, Mr. Burt's letter," declares, That said words are of the declarant's hand-writing, and the said half-sheet of paper was given in by the declarant to the printer, along with the rest of the manuscripts, and said half-sheet of paper is docqueted and signed by the declarant and sheriff-substitute as relative hereto. Declares, That the proceedings of said meeting were printed by Hugh Crawford, and a great number of copies were sent to the declarant's shop, and he retailed them at 4d. a piece."

The result of this declaration seems to be, that the prisoner admits that he was one of the committee appointed to superintend the publication complained of-that he assisted in correcting the manuscript to fit it for going to the

Accordingly this admission, which, I have said, is, in point of law, a strong circumstance of evidence against the prisoner, is amply confirmed by the depositions of the witnesses, by several of whom it has been proved that he attended the meeting upon the 7th of December, and that he heard the speeches contained in this publication delivered or read by the persons to whom they are attributed. By others it has been proved. that he was one of the committee appointed to superintend the publication; and by one of that committee it is established, that in the matter of publication he took a most active concern, perusing at least the manuscript of some of the speeches as they were given in by the authors or reputed authors; and that such was his vigilance, in providing that none of the precious matter which had come before the public meeting should be lost, that the passage which is chiefly complained of in the first charge against M‘Laren, having been omitted in the manuscript, he himself took his pencil, and, for the edification of the public, to whom the pamphlet was addressed, actually wrote it down on the press copy.

In like manner, you have it proved by Murray, Mr. Crawford's journeyman, that Baird attended at the office during the time the publication was printing--that he examined the first proof, and suggested at least one, if not more corrections.

Again, as to the fact of publication, it is proved by the prisoner's shop-boy, and by the witness who bought a copy at his shop, as also by one of the members of the committee appointed to superintendt he publication, and who delivered great numbers of the pamphlet for the purpose of being sold and distributed, that Baird was the principal hand by whom this publication, be its merits or demerits what they may, was sent out upon the world.

When you consider this body of evidence, therefore, I cannot entertain a doubt that you must be clear that the fact of the publication by Baird is incontrovertibly established.

Upon this part of the question, therefore, I have only further to remark, that there can be as little ground for doubting, that the prisoner M'Laren, besides being bound to answer for delivering the speech, which in this indictment is charged with having been seditious, must also answer for being an accessary to printing and publishing the pamphlet upon the table. The facts of his having given in the manuscript copy of his own speech for the purpose of being published, and that he was a member of the committee of publication-facts which are proved beyond all contradiction by the witnesses to whom I have already referred, as well as by his own admission-can leave no manner of doubt upon this subject.

I apprehend, therefore, that you must now concur with me in holding it to be established by the proof, 1st, That M'Laren delivered at the public meeting that speech, of which parts are quoted in the indictment; 2ndly, That the publication purporting to be "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" &c. was printed and published by the prisoner Baird, who was active in its sale and distribution; and, 3rdly, That the prisoner M'Laren was also an accessary to the fact of publica

tion.

Upon this part of the case, therefore, which must in fact form the foundation of the opinion which you are to make up, and of the verdict you are to return, there neither can be any ground of difference between my friends on the opposite side of the bar and myself, nor, I am confident, can there be a vestige of doubt in your minds.

But that part of the case which requires your utmost deliberation still remains to be considered. In the commencement of the trial you heard an admission upon my part, that it would be competent for the prisoners, not only to dispute the truth of the facts charged in the indictment, but to plead to you, that supposing those facts were brought home to both of them, the speech and publication in question did not amount to the crime of sedition. To that admission I still most heartily adhere. It has always been in this country, and I trust always will be, the province of the jury, in every question of this description, to find in their verdict, whether there was a criminal intention entertained by the prisoners-whether a crime has been committed or not-and whether that crime amounts to sedition.

In order to enable you, therefore, to make up your opinions upon this subject, had it not been for the deliberate judgments of the Court which you had an opportunity of hearing at the commencement of the trial, it might have been expected of me to enter into some details of the history and of the nature of this offence, one of the most various and comprehensive, and at the same time one of the most dangerous and flagitious known to the law of Scotland. But as you heard the unanimous opinion of their lordships, that the allegations contained in this indictment, if established against the prisoners, would amount to the crime of sedition, I shall confine myself to such a statement of the subject as is barely requisite for enabling you to follow the conclusions which I find it my duty to draw from the particular passages in this publication which I have been called upon to bring under your consideration.

[ocr errors]

fection in the minds of the people against the established government of the country, to produce resistance to its authority, or to lead to its ultimate subversion.

Allow me, however, to guard myself against misconstruction as to the use of the terms, "the established Government," which I have now employed. By those terms, you will not by any means understand that I refer to that which, in ordinary parlance, is commonly so termed, I mean his majesty's ministers. You need not be told that it is competent and lawful for the subjects of this realm to canvass all the measures of his majesty's ministers,-to state that they are contrary to law, and to the interests of the country;-that their proceedings should be interrupted, and the authors of them dismissed from office: in talking, therefore, of raising disaffection to his majesty's government, you will understand that I do not mean exciting disaffection to his majesty's ministers. Far be it from me to contend that this is against law, or that courts of law ought to interfere to punish practices, words, or writings, calculated to produce that effect. But by the established government, I mean the constitution of King, Lords, and Commons, as established at the period of the glorious Revolution of 1688; and, in this sense of the term, I state to you, that any thing which tends to produce public trouble or commotion,-any thing which moves his majesty's subjects to the dislike, subversion, or disturbance of his majesty's government, amounts to the crime of sedition. Any speech or writing that is calculated, and intended to vilify and traduce the sovereign in his capacity of Head of the State, or as a branch of the legislature-any speech or writing calculated and intended to vilify and traduce the House of Peers-any speech o writing calculated and intended to vilify the House of Commons, stating, for instance, tha it is not the House of Commons, that it is the mere nominal and pretended representative of the people, and does not represent them, that it has become corrupt;writings or speeches inculcating all, or any of those things, fall under the crime of sedition. In like manner, either a speech or a writing exhorting the people to throw off their allegiance, under any particular contingency which may arise from any one branch of the legislature either doing an act, or refusing to do an act, which may, or may not be within its particular competency, will amount to the crime of sedition.

Allow me, also, to observe to you, that in all cases of this description, the time when the particular act complained of is committed, the state of public opinion, and the political relaSedition, Gentlemen, is a crime by the com- tions of the country, internal or external, will mon law of Scotland; and it has been laid often be essential to the constitution of the ofdown by our writers, and by the decisions of fence. For instance, to use an illustration that this court, that it reaches to practices of every I believe was given by an eminent person, who, description, whether by deed, word, or writing, in the year 1795, held the situation which my which are calculated and intended to disturb honourable friend near me now holds. Had, the tranquillity of the state, by exciting disaf-in the year 1745, any number of individuals,

however few, with white cockades in their hats, and muskets in their hands, repaired to the Castle-hill, shouting out the name of the Pretender, they would have been guilty of a crime probably not short of the highest that could be committed against the state; but were the same act to be done now, they could be regarded in no other light than as madmen. Various other illustrations of a similar nature might be stated, but I deem it sufficient for me | to submit to you generally, as being clear law, that if at any time publications or speeches are complained of as seditious, it will always be of importance to consider the state of the public mind at the period the act alleged to constitute the crime has been committed, in order duly to appreciate their nature and import. With this view, and before concluding, it will be my province to submit to you, in a single sentence, that the state of the country at the time when this publication issued from the press, and when the speech was delivered by M'Laren at the public meeting, must enter deeply into your consideration in forming your verdict upon this indictment.

Upon this subject I have only farther to state that the crime of sedition is one which this court, and the law of this country, has viewed as one of the highest and most flagitious description. Its object is to introduce dissention, troubles, and bloodshed into the kingdom, to subvert the laws, and to dissolve the bonds of society. It is the duty of government, therefore, to resist and extinguish it in the very outset ; and if, in the present instance, I have any thing to regret, it is that this, and perhaps other cases of a similar description, have not been brought sooner before a Jury of the country.

We come now to consider whether the terms of the speech, as delivered at the meeting by M'Laren, or the terms of that speech and of the other speeches in the publication afterwards given to the world by the prisoners, amount to the cime of sedition, according to the description of that offence which I have now had the honour of giving you.

And first, as to the speech. In it you will recollect, that M'Laren stated, "That our sufferings are insupportable is demonstrated to the world; and that they are neither temporary, nor occasioned by a transition from "war to peace," is palpable to all, though all have not the courage to avow it. The fact is, we are ruled by men only solicitous for their own aggrandizement, and they care no further for the great body of the people than they are subservient to their accursed purposes."

In this passage the term rulers, you will observe, is employed; and this, it may be said, applies to his majesty's ministers, and not to the government in the more comprehensive meaning of the phrase; but it does no such thing. There is no limitation, you will remark, introduced by the speaker. Even taking the term generally, and in its extensive sense, undoubtedly it comprehends the whole order of our

|

[ocr errors]

Governors, - King, Lords and Commons : but in an after part of the speech, it is explained that this last is actually the sense in which it was employed. The statement therefore is, that the King, Lords and Commons, are corrupt;—that they are solicitous only for their own aggrandizement; that they care no further for the body of the people, than as they are subservient to their accursed purposes. Now, I ask, is not this statement calculated to bring the government into contempt, and to excite disaffection to the established order of things? Does it not tell the people, that they have no interest whatever in the stability of the state; and is it not calculated immediately to lead to disturbance and commotion? It is for you, gentlemen, to answer the question, and it seems to me impossible to doubt that that answer

must be in the affirmative.

But in this passage allusion is made to the distresses of the people, and these are made the instrument for giving greater effect to this seditious libel upon the rulers of the country. This, you cannot doubt, enhances the crime of the prisoner, by having employed that under which his hearers were suffering, and which he must have known their rulers could not remove, as an engine for promoting the disaffection he was endeavouring to excite. God knows, that I by no means wish to under-rate the distresses which the persons attending that meeting were labouring under in common with their brethern in different parts of the country. No one who was at that meeting, no one who hears me now, can be more sensible of the great distress which the lower ranks in this country have suffered, and none can more deeply deplore it than I do. While, however, I fully appreciate the extent of those distresses, and applaud the patience with which they have been endured, I can ouly urge the use which is made of them in the passage I have read, as tending to prove the wicked and malicious intention of the prisoners, who could have had no other object in referring to them than to excite disaffection and sedition.

The prisoner's speech then goes on to state, "If you are convinced of this, my countrymen, I would therefore put the question, Are you degenerate enough to bear it? Shall we, whose forefathers set limits to the all-grasping power of Rome; Shall we, whose forefathers, at the never-to-be-forgotten field of Bannockburn, told the mighty Edward, at the head of the most mighty army ever trode on Britain's soil, Hitherto shalt thou come and no further;'-Shall we, I say, whose forefathers defied the efforts of foreign tyranny to enslave our beloved country, meanly permit, in our day, without a murmur, a base Oligarchy to feed their filthy vermin on our vitals, and rule us as they will?”

Upon this passage I shall merely say, that you have heard the only comment which I think it can fairly admit of, put upon it in the judgment of one of their lordships in the

Lord Reston; vide antè, p. 16.

other things to be done by the Parliament, which it is not within his competence to do, or he is to order them to be done of his own authority; and if he does not do so, then what is the penalty? No less than the forfeiture of our allegiance, and, as he says, "in that case, to hell with our allegiance." Here, then, Gentlemen, the miserable and distressed people, goaded by their privations and afflictions, who were surrounding the prisoner, were in this speech excited to make demands upon the Sovereign and the Legislature, which, if they were refused, no less a result was to follow than the forfeiture and throwing off of their allegiance.

early part of this trial, You must be satisfied that the object of the orator here is, to recommend resistance, and to encourage it by calling to the recollection of his hearers the popular allusion to the battle of Bannockburn: Accordingly he goes on to state that which must leave all doubt of his intention in this passage out of the question, "Let us lay our petitions at the foot of 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. 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."

In order fully to understand the seditious import of this passage, it must be taken in connection with that which I previously commented on, and a passage in the resolutions of the meeting, which I am fairly entitled, under all the circumstances of the case, to take as part of M'Laren's speech. In page 26 of the publication, it is stated, "Being therefore impressed with the truth of these resolutions, the meeting resolve to present petitions to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, and to both Houses of Parliament, requesting his Royal Highness, in particular, to assemble Parliament without delay; to call upon it immediately to adopt such measures as may tend to restore to the people their undoubted right in the representation; to order, in the name of the people, an immediate reduction of the taxes, and the standing army, the abolition of all unmerited pensions, sinecures, grants, and other emoluments, as the surest way of establishing, on a firm and lasting basis, the rights of the Crown, and the privileges of the people: And that, in all time coming, no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons."

Now, the meaning of all this taken together is, that unless the Prince Regent shall order the Parliament to reduce the taxes and the standing army, and to do all the things which are there enumerated, he has forfeited our allegiance, and that the allegiance of the meeting is to be thrown off, and to be sent to hell. But, you are not to be told that the Prince Regent has no such power that—

Mr. Clerk,―That is not the meaning of the

passage.

Lord Advocate.—If my interpretation of the passage is wrong, my learned friends will afterwards have the means of correcting me. It would be better if at present they would refrain from interrupting me. In my view, it clearly imports the meaning which I have put upon it. The Prince Regent is to assemble the Parliament, and to call upon it to restore to the people their right of representation; but, in the second place, he is to order all the

Now all this I state to you to infer the crime of sedition. It was sedition to alienate the affections of the people from the Government, in the manner which was done in the first part of the speech. It was sedition to tell the meeting, in the second part of it, that if the different reforms there called for were not granted, and if the evils complained of were not removed, their allegiance was forfeited, and to exhort them in such a case to throw it off.

The next point for consideration is the publication itself. But here I am saved repeating the commentary upon one part of that production, the speech of M'Laren; for it must be manifest to you, that if the speech when delivered was seditious, it cannot be less so when reduced into the form of a publication; and every thing, with one exception, which was delivered viva voce, is to be found in the printed report. There is a blank before allegiance,-the word "hell" is left out. It is your province, however, to fill up that blank. And, after the evidence laid before you this day, you can have no difficulty upon this point. You heard that one of the prisoners, in the presence of the other, wrote out the whole of the passage upon the manuscript when preparing it for the press. The propriety of inserting the passage was afterwards discussed, and doubts were entertained upon the subject by the committee. With the fact of that passage being actually in the hand-writing of Baird, looking him in the face, my learned friend (Mr. Grant), rather strangely in my opinion, pressed upon his witnesses to prove that Baird, in particular, was aware of the indecency of its character; for, under such circumstances, the fact of publication only made his of fence the greater. Accordingly, it is proved its indecency or not, still he, the publisher and to you, that the prisoner, whether convinced of corrector of the press, sends it to be printed; and out it comes with the word only left blank, affording, I should think, to your conviction, the fullest and most complete evidence of his guilt.

But let us proceed to consider the other parts of the publication. In page 2, of the indictment there is this passage: "But let us come nearer home: look at the year 1793, when the debt amounted to two hundred and eleven millions, and the annual taxation to

about eighteen millions; when liberty began to rear her drooping head in the country; when associations were formed from one end of the kingdom to another, composed of men eminent for their talents and virtue, to assert their rights; when a neighbouring nation had just thrown off a yoke which was become intolerablé,-What did the wise rulers of this country do? Why they declared war, not only against the French nation, but also against the friends of liberty at home."

Now, I think it is impossible for you to read this passage, without being of opinion that its object was, to impress on the minds of the public an admiration of the proceedings of the French nation (polluted as it was at the time by treason, by blood, and by crime of every description which it ever entered into the mind of man to conceive),-and of those who were termed "the Friends of Liberty at home" in the year 1793, its imitators and admirers: to hold out that the associations of that period were formed for the purposes of promoting liberty, but which all of you know it was decided by Jurymen sitting in that box where you are now placed,-Jurymen to whose intelligence and vigour the gratitude of this country must be for ever due, that they were formed for the purpose of exciting disaffection to the government, of introducing turbulence and commotion, and of overturning the Constitution. In short, the object of the publication was to call upon the people to imitate what was so worthy of admiration; and it would be wasting time to persuade you, that if this was the object, one of a more seditious description, when taken in conjunction with the other passages in the publication which I have already read, or am now to read, cannot be conceived.

been unblushingly attempted to be justified by reason of its avowed frequency and notoriety. The meeting, therefore, have no hesitation in asserting, the debt can never be said to be national, nor the present taxation just, seeing the former has been contracted by men who do not represent the country, and the latter raised without consent of the tax-payer; and it is contrary to the laws and constitution of this and every free country, that no man can be taxed but with his own consent, or with the consent of his agent or representative."

Again at page 35, there is the following passage: "We have these twenty-five years been condemned to incessant and unparalleled slavery by a usurped oligarchy, who pretend to be our Guardians and Representatives, while, in fact, they are nothing but our inflexible and determined enemies. But happy, happy am I to think, that you have met this day to declare, that you will suffer yourselves no longer to be imposed upon." And a little lower down it is stated in express terms: "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." And again, at page 38, "A set of pensioned seat-buyers in the House of Commons have deprived you of all your rights and privileges. They hold both emoluments and seats in that house, contrary to the express precept of our glorious constitution, which says, that no person holding any emolument can have a seat in the House of Commons. Our constitution also allows parliaments only to be of one year's duration, and that they are to be chosen annually by the people; but they have elected themselves, and by their own assumed and arbitrary authority have made parliaments, The publication then proceeds in direct first, of three years, then of seven years duraterms to state, "that the House of Commons tion; and with the same lawless power they is not really what it is called, it is not a may make them perpetual. Alarming to reHouse of Commons." And here it is necessary late, they have disregarded our constitution, for me to read several passages to you, in order they have scoffed at her equitable precepts, to prove the seditious nature of the publica- they have trampled her and her sons under tion, and which I shall do without commen- their feet. I would now ask you where is your tary, because I am persuaded, that nothing freedom? Where is your liberty? When we that I can add could carry the conviction more reflect on such usage, it is enough to excite us strongly to your minds of its pernicious and with ungovernable indignation. They are, accriminal import than the very sentences them-cording to our glorious constitution, culpable selves which I am to bring under your consideration.

In page 23 of the publication you will find it stated, "that the debt, now amounting to nearly 1000 millions, has been contracted in the prosecution of unjust and unnecessary wars, by a corrupt administration, uniformly supported by a House of Commons, which cannot be said, with any justice, to be a fair and equal representation of the country, but which for the most part is composed of men put in by a borough faction, who have usurped the rights of the people, and who, by undue means, have contrived to return a majority of members of that House ;—a fact which has not only been admitted on all hands, but which has

of treason, and justly merit its reward. Will a nation which has been so long famed for its liberty and heroism, suffer itself to be duped any longer by a gang of impostors? No, it will not. The unanimity of our sentiments and exertions, agreeably to the constitution, will once more dispel the cloud which eclipses the resplendent and animating rays of liberty; and will again make her shine forth in this once happy country with unimpeded effulgence."

In order to remedy all this, universal suffrage and annual parliaments are recommended. Thus the publication states, (page 10.): "The House of Commons, in its original composition, consisted only of commoners, chosen annually by the universal suffrage of the people.

« PreviousContinue »