« PreviousContinue »
that the members thereof were thieves and Archibald Cochran of Ashkirk.
County of Haddington.
County of Linlithgow. of Lanark, did, in his presence, at Glas. James Joseph Hope Vere of Craigiehall. gow, emit three several declarations, James Dundas of Dundas. dated the 15th, 17th and 18th days of Robert Angus, residing at Cowdenbill. March 1817: Which declarations being James Trotter, farmer at Newton, parish of to be used in evidence against you, will Abercorn. be lodged in due time in the hands of John Nimmo, farmer there. the clerk of the High Court of Justiciary, before which you are to be tried, that you
City of Edinburgh. may have an opportunity of seeing the Peter Begbie, smith in Edinburgh. same. At least, time and place foresaid, in Patrick Campbell
, hotel-keeper there. the course of divine worship, prayers, William Blackwood, bookseller there. sermons or declamations were wickedly, James Macgregor, hotel-keeper there. slanderously, falsely and seditiously ut- James White, bookseller there. tered containing the foresaid wicked, Ebenezer Gilchrist, banker there. slanderous, false and seditious assertions, John Lyall, wine-merchant there. remarks and insinuations, by a person Thomas Storrar, baker there. who was a minister, or who exercised the John Mackay, post-master there. functions of a minister; and you the said | Duvid Macgibbon, builder theio. Niel Douglas are guilty thereof, actor, or John Rocheud, musical-instrument maker there. art and part. All which, or part thereof, Andrew Brown, founder there. being found proven by the verdict of an Robert White, pewterer there. assize, before the lord Justice-General, William Peddie, leather-merchant there. the lord Justice Clerk, and lords com- Archibuld Lumsdaine, merchant there. missioners of Justiciary, you the said William Hogg, cloth-merchant there. Niel Douglas ought to be punished with Alexander Greig, accountant there. the pains of law, to deter others from William Waddell, printer there. committing the like crimes in all time John Swin. Simpson, silver-plater there. coming. James Wedderburn, A. D.” John Fairbairn, bookseller ihere.
Robert Boyd, clothier there. Robert Hamilton, Esq. Sheriff-depute of the
Town of Leith. county of Lanark. James Thomson, clerk to John Drysdale, sheriff- James Geddes, Hope Street, Leith. clerk of Lanarkshire.
Henry Paterson, builder there. George Duncan, sheriff officer in Glasgow. Robert Bayne, grocer in Leith. John Leslie, clerk to the said John Drysdale. James Bell, merchant there. Duncan Clark, Glasgow.
Robert Bruce, manager for the London and Robert Alexander, tobacconist, Glasgow.
Edinburgh Shipping Company at Leith. Matthew Lowdon, tailor there.
John Paul, seed merchant in Leith. John Maccallun, town-officer there.
Robert Wilson, merchant there. Alexander Taylor, town-officer there.
D. BOYLE. James Pirrie, town-officer there.
AD. GILLIES. Hugh Paterson, labourer there.
David Douglas. Alexander Gollan, now or formerly residing in Tobago Street, Glasgow.
Lord Justice Clerk.-Niel Douglas, What do William Fergusson there. James Waddell, surgeon there.
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 William Bruce of Ålderston,
LIST OF WITNESSES.
LIST 01 EXCULPATORY WITNESSES.
Mr. Jeffrey.-No, my lord. We have given his majesty's advocate, for his majesty's inin defences for the prisoner.
terest, against Niel Douglas, panel, find the DEFENCES for the Rev. Niel Douglas to the
same relevant to infer the pains of law; but indictment against him at the instance of allow the panel to prove all facts and cirhis Majesty's advocate for his Majesty's in- cumstances that may tend to exculpate him, or
alleviate his guilt, and remit the panel, with terest.
the indictment as found relevant, to the knowThe panel denies that he is guilty of the ledge of an assize. crime charged in the indictment, or that he
“ D. BOYLE, J. P. D." ever made use of the expressions there im
Lord Justice Clerk.—The question for puted to him, or of similar expressions. any
your On the contrary, he avers and offers to prove; should proceed, at this late hour, to the trial
lordships' determination now is, whether you that he has always spoken with the utmost
of the prisoner. respect of the Sovereign, and the Houses of Parliament; has on all occasions extolled the Lord Advocate. If agreeable to your lordlaws of the country, and exhorted all his hear- ships, I should wish that the trial should now ers to avoid and discountenance every sort of proceed, in order to save trouble to the jury tumult or disorder.
and the witnesses who are in attendance. Under protestation to add and eik.
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 William Warrell, weaver in Marlboroughstreet, Calton of Glasgow.
expense and trouble. So far from objecting
that the trial should go on at present, it is our Allan Campbell, teacher, Dempster-street, interest and desire that it should proceed now; Glasgow
and, for my own part, I have no wish for David Young, weaver, Barrack-street, Calton. John Rentoul, candle-maker, Argyle-street,
delay on any personal considerations. Glasgow.
Lord Hermand.- I wish to get quit of the William Nisbet, weaver, High-street, Glasgow. monstrous load of business which we have at John Chalmers, weaver, Carrick-street, Brown- present. Two other important cases at prefield, Glasgow
sent remain to be disposed of. Rev. James Smith, St. Patrick-square, Edinburgh.
Lord Pitmilly. If we proceed now it would Rev. James Donaldson, head of Blackfriars'. prove a serious interference with our other
duties. wynd, Edinburgh.
Lord Justice Clerk.-It would be most painLord Justice Clerk.-Your lordships have ful to me to allow any thing to interfere with seen this indictment, and have heard the de
the interest of the prisoner; and therefore, fences for the prisoner read; and though no although inconvenient to us in some respects, objections to the relevancy of the indictment
we shall proceed with the trial. have been stated by his counsel, yet if, in reference to the sufficiency of the facts charged
The following persons were then named as in the minor proposition to establish the crime jurymen. charged in the major, or in reference to any Thomas Dodds, farmer at Edgelaw. other circumstance in the indictment, any ob James Boak, farmer, Broachrigg. jections to the relevancy have occurred to your William Aitchison of Drummore. lordships, you will now state them to the John Fowler of Windygowll. Court.
Robert Howden, farmer, Chapel. Lord Hermand.-I should be happy to find
James Dundas of Dundas. that the charge of employing such language
James Trotter, farmer at Newton. regarding the sovereign of this country as that
William Blackwood, bookseller, Edinburgh. stated in the indictment should not be brought
Eben. Gilchrist, banker there. home to any subject. Never was a sovereign
John Lyall, wine-merchant, Edinburgh. less deserving of such imputations. The in John Mackay, post-master there. dictment is unquestionably relevant.
William Waddel, printer there.
James Bell, merchant in Leith. Lord Gillies.-I see no objections to the re
Robert Bruce, manager of the London and levancy of this indictment.
Edinburgh Shipping Company at Leith. Lord Justice Clerk.-The usual interlocutor Robert Wilson, merchant there. finding the relevancy of the indictment falls now to be pronounced. Niel Douglas : attend to the interlocutor of relevancy.
Alexander Gollan sworn.-)
Mr. Maconochie. “ The Lord Justice Clerk and Lords Commissioners of Justiciary having considered the in Mr. Grant.- I object to this witness, as we dictment raised and pursued at the instance of have had no opportunity of knowing any thing,
EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.
about him. It is not said when, of in what that were about him, and place wise and capacity he résided in Tobago-street, Calton faithful counsellors around his throne. of Glasgow. Another objection which we Do you remember any thing further he said state, is, that we understand his name is in his prayer, or in his sermon ?- This was in
Gullan, while the name in the list of witnesses his lecture; that agreeably to the situation 'annexed to the indictment is Gollan. I need every person is placed in, he is more or less not take up the time of the Court in showing accountable for the sins he commits; and if that these objections are sufficient to entitle us the prince, in particular, be guilty of not to demand that the evidence of this witness be listening to the voice of his people, he would rejected.
endure punishment for a series of years. Court.—What is your name?-Gollan.
Do you remember any thing more?--I can
not say that I do at the present time. Mr. Maconochie.—I do not think it necessary Do you remember if there was any thing to state any thing in answer to the other ob- said about the House of Commons ? There jection.
might, but I do not remember at the present
time. Court.-Where do you live ? - Tobago
Did he say any thing about the Habeas street, Calton.
Corpus act ?-He gare a statement of the Mr. Maconochie. What is your profession? suspension of it, how far it ran; something I am a weaver.
with regard to that. Were you one of the patrole of the county What did he say?-I do not remember. of Lanark ?-I was one of the patrole.
Do you remember the substance of what he Have you been in the habit, upon any oc said ?-No, I do not remember. casion, of attending Mr. Douglas's sermons ? Did he approve of the suspension of the -Yes, I have heard him once or twice., Habeas Corpus act ?-He found fault with it.
When ?-I do not remember the time; in Did he say any thing about those that passed the month of January or February last. the act suspending the Habeas Corpus act ?
Where was his meeting ?-In John-street, I No, I do not remember. think.
Do you remember if he talked at all about In the Andersonian Institution ?-Yes. the victory of Waterloo ? ; Was the meeting crowded ?-Yes. What sort of persons attended it chiefly?-
Mr. Jeffrey.-I object to that question. They were mostly of the lower orders.
Solicitor General.—There can be no doubt, At what time of the evening was the meet
that, by the practice of the Court, the question ing ?-From six to eight. On what day of the week?_Sunday.
may be put to the witness. The general charge Can you speak more particularly to the discourses of a seditions nature and tendency ;
against the panel is, that he uttered certain time?-I cannot say more particularly. Did any thing stiike you particularly as to fication of the particulars from which the sedi
and,' in the minor proposition, there is a speciMr. Douglas's sermons ? Did he introduce
tion charged is to be made out. We are not politics into them ?-Yes.
restricted in our proof to the particular words That is he sitting there ?-Yes. Do you remember any of the texts he charged in the indictment, but may prove gepreached from ?— From the fifth chapter of sions were wicked or seditious. There may be
nerally whether in his discourses his expresDaniel. Do you remember his entering into any dis
many circumstances of an apparently triling cussion about the king ?--Some little, but i nature, from which the character of these disremember but very little of it now.
courses may be proved to be either innocent
or seditious. I aver that the answer to the Tell what you recollect of it?-He made a simile of George the third to Nebuchadnezzar; important light on this matter. In the case
question which has been put will throw most and of the prince regent to Belshazzar, and of Muir, a question of this sort occurred; and insisted that the prince represented the latter in not paying much attention to what had objection was made to questions being put re
some of your lordships will recollect, that an happened to kings; and that the king of garding any expressions but those contained France had not acted agreeably to the voice in the libel; and the Court did allow the proof the people, and brought himself to the block secutor to enter into a proof of circumstances on that account. And, enlarging in his dis
not mentioned in the libel.* course, he told the people it was necessary to have a reform, and he set forth, that the only [He read the debate from the printed trial.] means for getting it was by petitioning, and that he had no doubt that by petitioning it and the prosecutor was found entitled to pro
There was thus a long debate on the subject; would be obtained.
Do you remember any thing further?-1 do ceed in his proof. Here the same rule should not remember much more of his sermons. In
be adopted. his prayer, he prayed that the lord might turn the heart of the prince, calling him infatuated, * Muir's Case, 2 How. Mod. St. Tr. 139, that he might disperse the corrupt counsellors 140; 148 et seq.
Mr. Jeffrey – certainly am not disposed to events, the question is obviously quite irretake up the time of the Court by a speech in levant, and not admissible in this trial. : support of my objection to this question. I Lord Gillies.-What is the particular ques. am far from arguing, that the public prose- tion objected to ? cutor is to be tied down to the very words mentioned in the minor proposition; but if talked at all about the victory of Waterloo ?"
Mr. Jeffrey.-“ Do you remember if he there is any meaning at all in requiring a specific statement in the minor proposition, he
Lord Hermand.-I cannot conceive what the must be limited to matters of the same class victory of Waterloo, or the Habeas Corpus act, or description with those which are charged. has to do with this indictment. It is divided He is not entitled, under the general charge of into three heads. There are charged, ist, Sesedition, to inquire whether the prisoner ditious assertions and remarks against his uttered any thing indecorous, unpatriotic, or majesty; 2nd, Against his royal highness the improper, at the time libelled. What are the prince regent; and 3rd, Against the House terms of the charge here? That the prisoner of Commons and the courts of justice. You “ did, in the course of divine worship, bave charged Sedition under three beads; and wickedly, slanderously, falsely, and seditiously you must keep to these heads. utter, before crowded congregations, chiefly Lord Gillies.—I concur in the opinion which of the lower orders of the people, prayers, has been given. As to the battle of Waterloo, sermons, or declamations, containing wicked, I should think it strange to find any difference slanderous, false, and seditious assertions and among people in this country about it; but remarks, to the disdain, reproach, and con whatever the prisoner's opinion may be as to tempt of his majesty, and of his royal highness that victory, there is nothing relative to it in the prince regent, in their persons as well as in the indictment. The sedition first charged retheir offices; and also to the disdain, reproach, gards his majesty. Then a charge is made reand contempt of the House of Commons, and of garding his royal highness the prince regent, the administration of justice within the kingdom ; that the prisoner used the expressions libelled, all which wicked, slanderous, false, and sedi. or some of similar import
. Has the battle of tious assertions and remarks, were calculated Waterloo any connexion with these charges ? and intended to the hurt, prejudice, and dis- Then it is stated in the indictment, that the honour of his majesty, and of his royal high-panel seditiously asserted that the House of ness the prince regent, both in their persons Commons was corrupt: that the members and offices ; to withdraw from the government thereof were thieves and robbers; that seats and legislature the confidence and affections in the said House of Parliament were sold like of the people; and, by engendering discord bullocks in a market,—or that he used expresbetween the king
and the people, to inflame sions of similar import. What has the battle the people with jealousy and hatred against the of Waterloo to do with this charge? The government, and to fill the realm with trouble same observation applies in considering the and dissension.” Now, what possible con remaining charge, which represents the panel nection can there be between the proof of any as having asserted that the subjects of his maof these charges, and the prisoner's opinion of jesty were condemned without trial, and withthe battle of Waterloo ? Supposing a person out evidence. None of his majesty's subjects should have the singularity, the want of feeling, were brought to any other trial at the battle of or the whimsicality of thinking the victory at Waterloo than that of skill and valour,-a trial Waterloo disreputable to our reputation or which they passed triumphantly. glory, is a prejudice to be excited against him in a trial for sedition or other crime, because with the judges who have spoken.
Lord Pitmilly.-I am of the same opinion he feels so little for his country as to have such sentiments ? What is it to the support of this Lord Justice Clerk.-I also am of the same indictment, supposing the prisoner had such opinion. I am not giving an opinion on peculiarity of thinking? I am not now to the point, whether, if the indiciment had argue whether the expression of such senti-charged, that the sermon contained passages, ments would amount to the charge of sedition; manifesting generally the disaffected and sedifor even if that were the case, and if such tious sentiments of the panel, such a question expressions had been specified in the indict. as that put for the crown would or would ment, you could not have allowed a proof of not have been relevant. Here the geneual them, as they could not infer the particular charge is sedition; but particulars are consorts of sedition specified in the minor pro- descended on, of such a kind as do not allow position. Particular charges are stated in the the going into such questions as that objected indictment, and are you to allow a party to to, regarding the battle of Waterloo. be prejudiced by having such questions, as I have heard that there is an individual, that to which I now object,-I do not say whom I need not mention, who thinks that the answered, but put to a witness at all? I do duke of Wellington has no merit whatever in not care for the answers; but to allow the any of his campaigns or the battles which he prosecutor to take such a course, would be has fought, but could this individual, for attended with bad consequences in worse such singularity of thinking, be charged with times, and in other trials for crimes. At all sedition, such as is imputed to this panel ? VOL. XXXIII.
Mr. Maconochie.—You said, that in speak | driven from the society of men? I desire you ing of the king and the prince, he made a to recollect, and to state what you know abouť simile between them and Nebuchadnezzar and that ?-It was in making a simile between the Belshazzar; did he say any thing else as to common executioner, and the king being the the king personally ?-He said, that, in his instrument of taking so many lives. He said opinion, a common executioner has a more God had panished him for his unjust doings honourable situation than a king, as an execu towards the nation. tioner is guilty of taking only a few lives in You said something about an executioner; the course of a year, whereas a king takes what was that ?-I told that deliberately. Hé thousands.
said, the situation of an executioner was Did he say any thing about Bacchus ?-He honourable compared with that of a king." said the prince was a worshipper of Bacchus. Whom did you uoderstand by him, when
the panel spoke of unjust doings, NebachadCourt.-What did he call him? how did he designate him ?-I think the terms used punishing him, I understood he meant George
nezzar or the king ?-With regard to God were, him and his Bacchanalian Court. I do the Third. not remember particularly in what way the He compared the 'prince regent to Belterm was used.
shazzar? - Yes. Mr. Maconochie. Did he say any thing
In what particulars did he say they reabout the prince and Belshazzar ?-1 do not sembled one another ?-In comparing the two, remember.
he said, that, although Belshazzar had seen his Did he say anything about thieves and father thrown from the society of men, and robbers I-I do not remember.
made to eat with the beasts of the field, he Was he very violent, or did he speak with drank out of vessels forbidden, and the prince great composure ?-He spoke uncommonly regent was in the same manner, not lending an quick, so fast, indeed, that I could not take up ear to the prayers and supplications of his what he said.
people. Are you one of Mr. Douglas's hearers ? And did he say what was to happen to him No.
from not lending an ear to them ?-. Yes, that What took you to hear him?-) had heard God would undoubtedly punish him for it that he preached universal redemption for afterwards. mankind, and I wanted to hear him on that
You said that he recommended petitioning? subject.
For what?-For a reform in parliament. Mr. Drummond.—You said he drew a simile And what did he recommend to be done in between those personages in the Old Testa- order to promote the petitions ?-He said, that ment and the king and the prince regent. Is by petitioning, and petitioning, and petitioning that to say that be compared the king and the again, and again, and again, their petitions prince regent to them? –Yes.
would perhaps be heard and granted. In what respect did he say they resembled Do you remember any thing else he said one another !-He said the king's infirmity about it?-No, I do not remember any thing rendered him incapable of discharging his else just now. duty, as Nebuchadnezzar was thrown from the Did he take any illustration from the society of men.
Scriptures to explain how they should proceed Did he give any reason for stating this ?-1 upon that occasion ?--I do not remember. do not remember ; but it was in that manner Did he say what they should do in case of he enlarged in the discourse.
their petitions not being listened to ?-I do What conclusion did he draw? for what not remember. purpose did he state what you have mention I wish you would try ?-I cannot recollect." ed !-I cannot recollect.
Did he say any thing about the House of How did he make out that the two were Commons ?-He spoke of corruption having like one another? -I have mentioned that crept in among them, in his prayers, sermon, already. Nebuchadnezzar had been driven and lecture. from the society of men; and they both had Then he repeated at different times that been driven from the society of men.
corruption had crept in among them? Did he Did he say why they had been driven ?-I give any example of the corruption ? Did he said he spoke so fast, I could not hear the particularize any measore as an illustration of fifth part of what he said.
corruption ?-I do not remember. Give me the fifth part, and I shall be satisfi Did he say any thing about the suspension ed ?–I cannot proceed farther as to what he of the Habeas Corpus act ?—He mentioned said; for I do not now remember, or did not his not approving of it, but I do not remember follow him at the time.
what he said. Did he or not give the reason, why Nebu I wish to ask you, if the general nature of chadnezzar was driven from the society of the prayer and sermon was religious or politimen ?-I do not remember whether he did or cal ?-Political mot.
And what was the general political tendency Did he give any reason why the king was of the discourse? [This question was objected