that the members thereof were thieves and robbers; that seats in the said House of Parliament were sold like bullocks in a market, or use expressions of similar import: And further, time and place foresaid, you did wickedly, slanderously, falsely and seditiously assert, that the laws were not justly administered within this kingdom; and that the subjects of his Majesty were condemned without trial, and without evidence, or use expressions of similar import. And you the said Neil Douglas having been apprehended and taken before Robert Hamilton, Esquire, Sheriff-depute of the county of Lanark, did, in his presence, at Glasgow, emit three several declarations, dated the 15th, 17th and 18th days of March 1817: Which declarations being to be used in evidence against you, will be lodged in due time in the hands of the clerk of the High Court of Justiciary, before which you are to be tried, that you may have an opportunity of seeing the same. At least, time and place foresaid, in the course of divine worship, prayers, sermons or declamations were wickedly, slanderously, falsely and seditiously uttered containing the foresaid wicked, slanderous, false and seditious assertions, remarks and insinuations, by a person who was a minister, or who exercised the functions of a minister; and you the said Niel Douglas are guilty thereof, 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 Niel Douglas ought to be punished with the pains of law, to deter others from committing the like crimes in all time coming. James Wedderburn, A. D." Archibald Cochran of Ashkirk. County of Haddington. William Aitchison of Drummore. County of Linlithgow. James Joseph Hope Vere of Craigiehall. John Nimmo, farmer there. City of Edinburgh. Peter Begbie, smith in Edinburgh. Town of Leith. James Geddes, Hope Street, Leith. Robert Bruce, manager for the London and Robert Wilson, merchant there. D. BOYLE. AD. GILLIES. DAVID DOUGLAS. Lord Justice Clerk.-Niel Douglas, What do you say to this indictment?-are you guilty or not guilty? Panel.-Not Guilty, my lord: Lord Justice Clerk.-Have the counsel for the panel any objections to the relevancy of this indictment? 637] Universalist Preacher, for High Treason. A. D. 1817. [638 Mr. Jeffrey.-No, my lord. We have given | his majesty's advocate, for his majesty's inin defences for the prisoner. DEFENCES for the Rev. Niel Douglas to the indictment against him at the instance of his Majesty's advocate for his Majesty's in terest. The panel denies that he is guilty of the crime charged in the indictment, or that he ever made use of the expressions there imputed to him, or of any similar expressions. On the contrary, he avers and offers to prove, that he has always spoken with the utmost respect of the Sovereign, and the Houses of Parliament; has on all occasions extolled the laws of the country, and exhorted all his hearers to avoid and discountenance every sort of tumult or disorder. Under protestation to add and eik. LIST OF EXCULPATORY WITNESSES. William Warrell, weaver in Marlborough- David Young, weaver, Barrack-street, Calton. William Nisbet, weaver, High-street, Glasgow. Rev. James Smith, St. Patrick-square, Edinburgh. Rev. James Donaldson, head of Blackfriars' wynd, Edinburgh. Lord Justice Clerk.-Your lordships have seen this indictment, and have heard the defences for the prisoner read; and though no objections to the relevancy of the indictment have been stated by his counsel, yet if, in reference to the sufficiency of the facts charged in the minor proposition to establish the crime charged in the major, or in reference to any other circumstance in the indictment, any objections to the relevancy have occurred to your lordships, you will now state them to the Court. Lord Hermand.-I should be happy to find that the charge of employing such language regarding the sovereign of this country as that stated in the indictment should not be brought home to any subject. Never was a sovereign less deserving of such imputations. The indictment is unquestionably relevant. Lord Gillies.-I see no objections to the relevancy of this indictment. Lord Justice Clerk.-The usual interlocutor finding the relevancy of the indictment falls now to be pronounced. Niel Douglas: attend to the interlocutor of relevancy. "The Lord Justice Clerk and Lords Commissioners of Justiciary having considered the indictment raised and pursued at the instance of terest, against Niel Douglas, panel, find the same relevant to infer the pains of law; but allow the panel to prove all facts and circumstances that may tend to exculpate him, or alleviate his guilt, and remit the panel, with the indictment as found relevant, to the knowledge of an assize. "D. BOYLE, J. P. D." Lord Justice Clerk.-The question for your should proceed, at this late hour, to the trial lordships' determination now is, whether you of the prisoner. Lord Advocate.-If agreeable to your lordships, I should wish that the trial should now proceed, in order to save trouble to the jury and the witnesses who are in attendance. Mr. Jeffrey. It is our wish on the part of the prisoner that the trial should go on now, as he has brought witnesses from Glasgow; and to delay the trial would occasion additional expense and trouble. So far from objecting interest and desire that it should proceed now; that the trial should go on at present, it is our and, for my own part, I have no wish for delay on any personal considerations. Lord Hermand.-I wish to get quit of the monstrous load of business which we have at present. Two other important cases at present remain to be disposed of. Lord Pitmilly.-If we proceed now it would prove a serious interference with our other duties. ful to me to allow any thing to interfere with Lord Justice Clerk.-It would be most painthe interest of the prisoner; and therefore, although inconvenient to us in some respects, we shall proceed with the trial. The following persons were then named as jurymen. Thomas Dodds, farmer at Edgelaw. EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN. Alexander Gollan sworn.-Examined by. Mr. Grant.-I object to this witness, as we have had no opportunity of knowing any thing about him. It is not said when, or in what capacity he resided in Tobago-street, Calton of Glasgow. Another objection which we state, is, that we understand his name is Gullan, while the name in the list of witnesses annexed to the indictment is Gollan. I need not take up the time of the Court in showing that these objections are sufficient to entitle us to demand that the evidence of this witness be rejected. Court. What is your name?-Gollan. Mr. Maconochie.-I do not think it necessary to state any thing in answer to the other objection. Court. Where do you live?-Tobagostreet, Calton. Mr. Maconochie-What is your profession? -I am a weaver. Were you one of the patrole of the county of Lanark ?—I was one of the patrole. Have you been in the habit, upon any occasion, of attending Mr. Douglas's sermons? -Yes, I have heard him once or twice.. When? I do not remember the time; in In the Andersonian Institution ?—Yes. At what time of the evening was the meeting?-From six to eight. On what day of the week?-Sunday. Can you speak more particularly to the time?--I cannot say more particularly. that were about him, and place wise and faithful counsellors around his throne. Do you remember any thing further he said in his prayer, or in his sermon?-This was in his lecture; that agreeably to the situation every person is placed in, he is more or less accountable for the sins he commits; and if the prince, in particular, be guilty of not listening to the voice of his people, he would endure punishment for a series of years. Do you remember any thing more?—I cannot say that I do at the present time. Do you remember if there was any thing said about the House of Commons?-There might, but I do not remember at the present time. Did he say any thing about the Habeas Corpus act?-He gave a statement of the suspension of it, how far it ran; something with regard to that. What did he say ?-I do not remember. Do you remember the substance of what he said?-No, I do not remember. Did he approve of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act?-He found fault with it. Did he say any thing about those that passed the act suspending the Habeas Corpus act?— No, I do not remember. Do you remember if he talked at all about the victory of Waterloo? Mr. Jeffrey.-I object to that question. Solicitor General.-There can be no doubt, that, by the practice of the Court, the question may be put to the witness. The general charge discourses of a seditious nature and tendency; against the panel is, that he uttered certain and, in the minor proposition, there is a specification of the particulars from which the sedition charged is to be made out. We are not restricted in our proof to the particular words That is he sitting there?-Yes. charged in the indictment, but may prove geDo you remember any of the texts henerally whether in his discourses his exprespreached from?-From the fifth chapter of Did any thing strike you particularly as to Mr. Douglas's sermons? Did he introduce politics into them?—Yes. Daniel. Do you remember his entering into any discussion about the king?-Some little, but I remember but very little of it now. Tell what you recollect of it?-He made a simile of George the third to Nebuchadnezzar, and of the prince regent to Belshazzar, and insisted that the prince represented the latter in not paying much attention to what had happened to kings; and that the king of France had not acted agreeably to the voice of the people, and brought himself to the block on that account. And, enlarging in his discourse, he told the people it was necessary to have a reform, and he set forth, that the only means for getting it was by petitioning, and that he had no doubt that by petitioning it would be obtained. Do you remember any thing further?--I do not remember much more of his sermons. In his prayer, he prayed that the lord might turn the heart of the prince, calling him infatuated, that he might disperse the corrupt counsellors sions were wicked or seditious. There may be many circumstances of an apparently trifling nature, from which the character of these discourses may be proved to be either innocent or seditious. I aver that the answer to the important light on this matter. In the case question which has been put will throw most of Muir, a question of this sort occurred; and objection was made to questions being put resome of your lordships will recollect, that an garding any expressions but those contained in the libel; and the Court did allow the prosecutor to enter into a proof of circumstances not mentioned in the libel.* [He read the debate from the printed trial.] and the prosecutor was found entitled to proThere was thus a long debate on the subject; ceed in his proof. Here the same rule should be adopted. * Muir's Case, 2 How. Mod. St. Tr. 139, 140; 148 et seq. events, the question is obviously quite irrelevant, and not admissible in this trial. Lord Gillies.-What is the particular question objected to? talked at all about the victory of Waterloo?" Mr. Jeffrey." Do you remember if he Lord Hermand.-I cannot conceive what the victory of Waterloo, or the Habeas Corpus act, has to do with this indictment. It is divided into three heads. There are charged, 1st, Seditious assertions and remarks against his majesty; 2nd, Against his royal highness the prince regent; and 3rd, Against the House of Commons and the courts of justice. You have charged Sedition under three heads; and you must keep to these heads. Lord Gillies. I concur in the opinion which has been given. As to the battle of Waterloo, I should think it strange to find any difference among people in this country about it; but whatever the prisoner's opinion may be as to that victory, there is nothing relative to it in the indictment. The sedition first charged regards his majesty. Then a charge is made regarding his royal highness the prince regent, that the prisoner used the expressions libelled, or some of similar import. Has the battle of Waterloo any connexion with these charges? Then it is stated in the indictment, that the panel seditiously asserted that the House of Commons was corrupt: that the members thereof were thieves and robbers; that seats in the said House of Parliament were sold like bullocks in a market,-or that he used expressions of similar import. What has the battle of Waterloo to do with this charge? The same observation applies in considering the remaining charge, which represents the panel as having asserted that the subjects of his majesty were condemned without trial, and without evidence. None of his majesty's subjects were brought to any other trial at the battle of Waterloo than that of skill and valour,—a trial which they passed triumphantly. Mr. Jeffrey. I certainly am not disposed to take up the time of the Court by a speech in support of my objection to this question. I am far from arguing, that the public prosecutor is to be tied down to the very words mentioned in the minor proposition; but if there is any meaning at all in requiring a specific statement in the minor proposition, he must be limited to matters of the same class or description with those which are charged. He is not entitled, under the general charge of sedition, to inquire whether the prisoner uttered any thing indecorous, unpatriotic, or improper, at the time libelled. What are the terms of the charge here? That the prisoner "did, in the course of divine worship, wickedly, slanderously, falsely, and seditiously utter, before crowded congregations, chiefly of the lower orders of the people, prayers, sermons, or declamations, containing wicked, slanderous, false, and seditious assertions and remarks, to the disdain, reproach, and contempt of his majesty, and of his royal highness the prince regent, in their persons as well as in their offices; and also to the disdain, reproach, and contempt of the House of Commons, and of the administration of justice within the kingdom; all which wicked, slanderous, false, and seditious assertions and remarks, were calculated and intended to the hurt, prejudice, and dishonour of his majesty, and of his royal highness the prince regent, both in their persons and offices; to withdraw from the government and legislature the confidence and affections of the people; and, by engendering discord between the king and the people, to inflame the people with jealousy and hatred against the government, and to fill the realm with trouble and dissension." Now, what possible eonnection can there be between the proof of any of these charges, and the prisoner's opinion of the battle of Waterloo? Supposing a person should have the singularity, the want of feeling, or the whimsicality of thinking the victory at Waterloo disreputable to our reputation or glory, is a prejudice to be excited against him in a trial for sedition or other crime, because he feels so little for his country as to have such sentiments? What is it to the support of this indictment, supposing the prisoner had such peculiarity of thinking? I am not now to argue whether the expression of such sentiments would amount to the charge of sedition; for even if that were the case, and if such expressions had been specified in the indictment, you could not have allowed a proof of them, as they could not infer the particular sorts of sedition specified in the minor proposition. Particular charges are stated in the indictment, and are you to allow a party to be prejudiced by having such questions, as that to which I now object,-I do not say answered, but put to a witness at all? I do not care for the answers; but to allow the prosecutor to take such a course, would be attended with bad consequences in worse times, and in other trials for crimes. At all VOL. XXXIII. with the judges who have spoken. Lord Pitmilly.-I am of the same opinion Lord Justice Clerk.-I also am of the same opinion. I am not giving an opinion on the point, whether, if the indictment had charged, that the sermon contained passages, manifesting generally the disaffected and seditious sentiments of the panel, such a question as that put for the crown would or would not have been relevant. Here the general charge is sedition; but particulars are condescended on, of such a kind as do not allow the going into such questions as that objected to, regarding the battle of Waterloo. I have heard that there is an individual, whom I need not mention, who thinks that the duke of Wellington has no merit whatever in any of his campaigns or the battles which he has fought,-but could this individual, for such singularity of thinking, be charged with sedition, such as is imputed to this panel? 2 T Mr. Maconochie.-You said, that in speaking of the king and the prince, he made a simile between them and Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar; did he say any thing else as to the king personally?-He said, that, in his opinion, a common executioner has a more honourable situation than a king, as an executioner is guilty of taking only a few lives in the course of a year, whereas a king takes thousands. Did he say any thing about Bacchus?-He said the prince was a worshipper of Bacchus. Court. What did he call him? how did he designate him?-I think the terms used were, him and his Bacchanalian Court. I do not remember particularly in what way the term was used. Mr. Maconochie.-Did he say any thing about the prince and Belshazzar?-I do not remember. Did he say any thing about thieves and robbers-I do not remember. Was he very violent, or did he speak with great composure?-He spoke uncommonly quick, so fast, indeed, that I could not take up what he said. Are you one of Mr. Douglas's hearers?No. What took you to hear him?--I had heard 'that he preached universal redemption for mankind, and I wanted to hear him on that subject. Mr. Drummond.-You said he drew a simile between those personages in the Old Testament and the king and the prince regent. Is that to say that he compared the king and the prince regent to them?—Yes. In what respect did he say they resembled one another?-He said the king's infirmity rendered him incapable of discharging his duty, as Nebuchadnezzar was thrown from the society of men. Did he give any reason for stating this?-I do not remember; but it was in that manner he enlarged in the discourse. What conclusion did he draw? for what purpose did he state what you have mentioned ?-I cannot recollect. How did he make out that the two were like one another?-I have mentioned that already. Nebuchadnezzar had been driven from the society of men; and they both had been driven from the society of men. I Did he say why they had been driven said he spoke so fast, I could not hear the fifth part of what he said. Give me the fifth part, and I shall be satisfied?-I cannot proceed farther as to what he said; for I do not now remember, or did not follow him at the time. Did he or not give the reason, why Nebuchadnezzar was driven from the society of men?—I do not remember whether he did or not. driven from the society of men? I desire you to recollect, and to state what you know about that?-It was in making a simile between the common executioner, and the king being the instrument of taking so many lives. He said God had punished him for his unjust doings towards the nation. You said something about an executioner; what was that?-I told that deliberately. He said, the situation of an executioner was honourable compared with that of a king." Whom did you understand by him, when the panel spoke of unjust doings, Nebuchadnezzar or the king?-With regard to God punishing him, I understood he meant George the Third. He compared the 'prince regent to Belshazzar?—Yes. In what particulars did he say they resembled one another?-In comparing the two, he said, that, although Belshazzar had seen his father thrown from the society of men, and made to eat with the beasts of the field, he drank out of vessels forbidden, and the prince regent was in the same manner, not lending an ear to the prayers and supplications of his people. And did he say what was to happen to him from not lending an ear to them?—Yes, that God would undoubtedly punish him for it afterwards. You said that he recommended petitioning? -Yes. For what? For a reform in parliament. And what did he recommend to be done in order to promote the petitions?-He said, that by petitioning, and petitioning, and petitioning again, and again, and again, their petitions would perhaps be heard and granted. Do you remember any thing else he said about it?—No, I do not remember any thing else just now. Did he take any illustration from the Scriptures to explain how they should proceed upon that occasion?--I do not remember. Did he say what they should do in case of their petitions not being listened to?—I do not remember. I wish you would try?—I cannot recollect. Did he say any thing about the House of Commons?-He spoke of corruption having crept in among them, in his prayers, sermon, and lecture. Then he repeated at different times that corruption had crept in among them? Did he give any example of the corruption? Did he particularize any measure as an illustration of corruption?-I do not remember. Did he say any thing about the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act?-He mentioned his not approving of it, but I do not remember what he said. I wish to ask you, if the general nature of the prayer and sermon was religious or political?-Political. And what was the general political tendency Did he give any reason why the king was of the discourse? [This question was objected |