Was there any thing that evening that caused you to pay particular attention to what Mr Douglas said?—No, sir... which the law is administered in this country? -Yes, I have heard him pay the greatest encomiums to the administration of the law. He said he was proud to be a native of a country in which the laws were so well administered. You never heard him speak of them as administered unjustly ?-No, never. Did you ever hear that he had a son tried for fraud or something?—Yes. Did you ever hear him speak of his son's trial?-After he came back from Edinburgh. What did he say ?—That he had never before had the honour of seeing a jury impanelled, and he had a secret pride in being a native of a country where the laws were so impartially administered.' This was after the conviction of his own son? Yes. About the 9th of last March, or on any other occasion, did you hear him say that he thought the prince regent was fitter for a gibbet than a throne?-Never in my hearing. Nor any thing of that purport?-Never at all. If he had said so, could it have escaped you? I think not so remarkable an expression as that.. Is there any thing particular about Mr. Douglas's utterance or mode of speaking? He speaks very rapidly sometimes. What sort of a dialect or accent has he? As much Highland as any thing else?—He has rather a little of the Scottish accent. Is he distinctly heard, or is an effort required to hear him ?—To me he is distinct. Have you been long accustomed to hear him?-Thirteen months. When you heard him for the first time, did you hear him distinctly?—Yes, it was so with me. I always heard him distinctly. Did you ever hear him mention the prince regent, when speaking of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar?--Yes. What did you ever hear him say about the prince-That he is a benevolent prince. Did you ever hear him say he was a poor infatuated wretch ?-Never. A devotee of Bacchus?-Never. A poor bewitched creature?—No. He said he was a humane and compassionate prince, having pardoned more criminals since he came to his station than had ever been done within so short a space he believed. William Nisbet sworn.-Examined by You are a weaver by trade I believe, and reside at Glasgow ?-Yes. Are you acquainted with Mr. Douglas the prisoner?-I know the gentleman. You have attended his chapel?-For seven years and more. Do you remember having been at his chapel one Sunday in the beginning of last March ?— I am almost always there in the evenings. Do you remember Sunday the 9th of March? -Yes. Was there another town-officer?-There was a third. Where was he sitting?-Up towards the back of the place of worship. Did they seem to be paying great attention to Mr. Douglas?-I did not see what the ane who was back did; but the one in the fore part sat and wrote at times. Do you recollect the subject of discourse that evening ?-A passage in the 5th of Daniel. Was he lecturing upon it, or was it a discourse from one text?-He was lecturing upon it. Had he come to that chapter in the course of lectures he was delivering, or had he fixed upon the subject of that night's discourse by itself?-In the course he was delivering, he took it in rotation. How long had he been lecturing in this ro tation in the book of Daniel?-For two years; at times leaving it and returning to it occasionally. And when he had left it and returned to it, did he return to the place at which he had stopped ?—Yes. Is it the 5th chapter of Daniel which treats of Nebuchadnezzar ?—Yes. Do you remember particularly what Mr. Douglas said upon that occasion with regard to Nebuchadnezzar? Did he mention the affliction with which he was visited ?—Yes. Did he draw any parallel between our sovereign and king Nebuchadnezzar on that occasion?—I heard him draw one simile or parallel. How did he express himself?-That as Nebuchadnezzar was raised up from his affliction to his throne and dignity, if it was the will of God, he hoped that our sovereign might be raised up to his throne and dignity, and be enabled to adopt the song of the good old Simeon, "Lord lettest now thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation." Are you positive about these expressions?— Yes. And can swear to their having been used by Mr. Douglas that night?-Many nights. Upon that night?-I cannot say as to that particular night, but he always prayed fervently in these and similar words. And that night, did he draw any parallel between his majesty and Nebuchadnezzar, cal culated and intended to the hurt, prejudice, and dishonour of his majesty ?No. Did he use this expression, that his majesty was like Nebuchadnezzar, driven from the society of men for his infidelity and corruption?-No. Did he use any words of this import ?—No. Did you ever hear him use words of that import ?-No. · Did you hear him make mention of the prince regent upon that occasion ?-He always mentioned the prince regent. In what way?-In praying for him. Did he, upon that occasion, say any thing about any body being an infatuated wretch, a poor infatuated devotee of Bacchus ?—No. Did you ever hear him apply these or similar expressions to his royal highness the prince regent?—No. Did you ever hear him speak of the prince regent in terms at all of that import ?—No. Did you ever hear him say that the prince regent was fitter for a gibbet than a throne?~ | No, never. Are you quite sure of this?—Yes. Could he have made use of this expression without your having observed it?-No. Could he have used those other expressions without your observing it ?—No. And you now swear, upon your solemn oath, that you never heard him make use of the expressions which I have mentioned?— No, I never did. Were you there every Sunday evening in February and March last?—No, I cannot say I was. How many nights were you absent ?-I cannot recollect but of one. You can speak to the night when you saw Pirie there?-Yes, I am very certain as to that night, Mr. Douglas did not use such expressions. Did you ever hear him mention the fate of the Babylonian empire, in the course of his lectures? Yes. He did not then make use of any of the expressions which I have mentioned ?—No. Did you hear him talk of the administration of justice in this country?—Yes. In what terms?-With great praise. Did you ever hear that he had the misfortune of having a son tried for any offence? Yes. Did you hear him preach after his son's trial had taken place?—I did. Did he make any allusion to the administration of justice upon that occasion?-He extolled the just laws of our country. To whom?-To the ministers of the Gospel. To what description of the ministers of the Gospel?-He was applying the words of Scripture to them, What are these words?-All those that do not enter by the door to the sheep-fold, but climb up some other way, are thieves and robbers.. Was Mr. Douglas in favour of patronage in the Church, or against patronage?-The voice of the people, according to the word of God, as he held forth, was the door. John Rentoul sworn.— -Examined by You are a candle-maker?-Yes. Have you done so long?-A dozen of years. Have you attended pretty regularly?—Yes, I think I have. I ask you, in particular, were you regular in attendance since the beginning of this year, in February and March?—Yes, I have heard him three times every day when he was preaching. All the Sunday evenings?—I am certain I have. Do you remember that about that time he was lecturing on the book of Daniel?-I mind that well. Do you remember his coming to the history of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar?—Yes, I think I do. Do you remember upon that occasion his making any kind of parallel between Nebuchadnezzar and George the Third ?-No. Did he make any mention of the king upon that occasion?—Nothing farther than mentioning his name. I cannot exactly say what were the words that he used. Did he make any observation as to the king being afflicted with a malady?—Never in any reproachful way. I have heard him often praying he might have a lucid interval before he died. Do you remember his making allusion to Nebuchadnezzar's restoration to his throne?— I do not recollect. Do you recollect his ever saying that our king had been driven from the society of men, on account of conduct like Nebuchadnezzar's? -Never. Did you attend to his discourse at that time? Did he make use of any particular expres--Yes. sions or remarks ?-He said it was a great blessing to live in a nation in which such laws were observed, that no man could be harmed without proof being regularly led of his guilt. Did you ever hear him talk of the members of the House of Commons as thieves and robbers?-No. Did you ever hear him apply these epithets to any description of persons?—Yes. Could he have used such an expression without you observing it ?—I don't think he could. I have heard him say that infidelity prevailed from the palace down to the street scavengers. Could you swear he did not make use of the expression to which I have already alluded? -It was not done to my knowledge. You mentioned he was in the habit of praying for the king?-Yes. Did he pray earnestly for him P-Earnestly, more so than any minister I ever heard. Did you ever hear him use disrespectful terms in speaking of the king?—No, never. How did he speak of him?-He always spoke of him with respect. Do you remember his saying any thing as to the prince regent in going over this chapter? -I really cannot remember. I cannot be positive what he did say about him. Did he call him a worshipper of Bacchus? -Never. An infatuated prince or poor wretch? Never. If he had used these expressions you must have heard him?-I think so; but I never heard him, to my knowledge. Have you heard him speak of the House of Commons ?-Yes, I have heard him. Did you ever hear him speak of the members being corrupt or unjust ?-I heard him once mention, that if he could believe the 'public prints, a member of the House had offered to prove that there had been seats -bought and sold. Did you ever hear Mr. Douglas call members of the House of Commons thieves or robbers?-No. Did you ever hear him apply these epithets to any other description of persons ?—I have heard him make some observations on the way ministers were thrown by patronage into some places of the country. And he used these expressions in reference to that circumstance? That was my opinion of it. Did you ever hear him say any thing in his discourses about the administration of the law in this country?—He commended it frequently. Often?-I could not say how often. He said he was happy to live in a country where the law was so justly administered. Did you ever hear him make any observations of an opposite tendency?—I never did. Do you happen to know he had a son tried for some offence last summer?-Yes. Do you remember Mr. Douglas making any remarks after his return from Edinburgh on that occasion?-I do not remember the exact words he used, but he was thankful that justice was administered so fairly. That was the substance of what he said?That was the way I took it up. Do you know whether Mr. Douglas was a reformer, whether he wished a reform of parliament or not?-I have heard him speak of -effecting reform in a constitutional manner. Do you remember his saying any thing as to > the manner in which it should be pursued ?—I cannot say exactly. How did you yourself take him up at first? -Not well at first, but I now follow him pretty well. Are you acquainted with Mr. Douglas in private life?-A little. You have attended his ministry for twelve years, and know him a little in private; what sentiments has he been in the habit of expressing as to his majesty and the constitution?-I have always heard him speak favourably of them. Have you ever heard him recommend the use of violence or force in procuring a reform in Parliament ?-I never did. Did you ever hear him say it would be a good or a bad thing to use such means?About the time of drawing up petitions for reform, he exhorted the people to conduct themselves peaceably and to act constitutionally. To avoid all disorder?—Yes. David Young sworn.-Examined by Do you know Mr. Douglas who is sitting between the soldiers there?—Yes, I know him. Do you attend his chapel?-I do. How long had you attended there before he How often?-Generally three times a-day. Did you attend every evening during that time?-Every evening except one, I could not get in, early in March. Do you remember his being apprehended? -Yes. Did you hear him the Sunday evening be fore he was apprehended?—Yes. Had you heard that spies had been sent to hear his discourses?—Yes. And you were there at that time?—Yes. Do you remember his comparing our king to What did he say?—In his prayer, he prayed that our king, like Nebuchadnezzar, might be restored to his throne, and that his last days might be more glorious than the first. Did he say that Nebuchadnezzar was driven from his throne on account of his sins?—Yes. that Nebuchadnezzar was. That George the Third was?-No. Did he use disrespectful language towards the king?-The very reverse. If not upon that night, did he upon any occasion use disrespectful language towards the king?-On the contrary, he sometimes prayed for him three times a day, and recom Was there any thing particular in Mr. Douglas's manner of delivery in the pulpit? - Did he speak fast or slow?-I don't think amended loyalty and obedience to the law. stranger could make much of him the first time of hearing him. Did he mention Belshazzar upon this occasion?-He did. Yes. Did he say any thing that night, or upon any occasion you ever heard, against the mode in which the law is administered?-The very reverse. The first time he preached after his son's trial, he spent a whole discourse upon the justice and equity of the law, and the impartial administration of it in the kingdom, and more especially in this high Court. Did you ever hear him use language inconsistent with that which you have mentioned? -1 never did. Did you hear him upon the occasion when the spies were there, say any thing of the House of Commons ?-I do not remember that reverse. Did you ever hear him discourage it? Often. In his sermons he discharged his people from having any thing to do with either riots or private meetings. Court. By private you mean secret meetings ?-Yes. John Chalmers sworn.-Examined by Do you know Mr. Douglas?-Yes, I do. Have you been in the habit of attending his church? Yes. I have heard him often these six months past. Were you there the Sunday evenings in February and March last?—Some of them. Were you there when he was lecturing upon the fifth chapter of Daniel?-I heard some of his lectures upon it. His lectures about Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar?—Yes, I heard some of his discourses upon that subject. Did you hear him make any comparison between the case of our king and Nebuchadnezzar?-I do not remember of any comparison between the two. I heard him pray fervently that the king might be restored to his reason and his government. Upon what occasion ?-Upon the occasion above alluded to. And he prayed fervently that the affliction might be sanctified for the instruction of the nation and his own son, and that we might all learn to fear God and reverence the king. Did he say the malady was the consequence of infidelity and wickedness?—I never heard him use such an expression. Did he pray for the king?-Fervently, for his temporal and spiritual welfare; and he recommended to his hearers to do so likewise. Did you ever hear him use terms of disrespect or reproach towards the king?-Never towards his majesty, his person or government. Towards the prince regent?-I do not remember of any expressions of disrespect towards him. He prayed fervently for him, that he might reign for the glory of God, and the good of his people over whom he presided. Did you ever hear him call him an infatuated wretch?—I never heard him use any words like that. the House of Commons?-I remember someDid you ever hear him say any thing about thing about that. He said there were some things about the House of Commons that he thought it would be of benefit to have reformed. He professed himself a well-wisher to the minority in the House. He mentioned it was stated in the newspapers that seats were sold as in a market; and he said this certainly was odious. Did he point out in what way a reform should be set about?—I do not recollect what he said as to that. He exhorted the people to petition in a legal and constitutional form. by violence or force?-The reverse. He always recommended loyal and peaceable mea Did he ever hint that good was to be done sures. Did you ever hear him say any thing about the administration of the laws ?-I do not recollect of him speaking of that particular point. Is there any thing particular in his manner of delivery?—I was several days hearing him before I could understand his mode of delivery. It was difficult for me also to follow him, his views being different from those to which I had been accustomed. I heard him several times before I was able to understand him. Does he speak fast?-The peculiarity of his delivery arises rather from his age and frailty. He is nervous, and his voice is extended too high and then falls away. On account of the infirmity of his voice, he endeavours to raise it. Mr. Jeffrey.-There are other witnesses in attendance; but it appears to us unnecessary | the weekly power and opportunity of assemto take up the time of the Court by calling in more. Lord Justice Clerk. —You judge rightly; to call any more witnesses to the same point must be quite unnecessary. Mr. Solicitor General. From the course which, in the present circumstances, I deem it proper to pursue, the duty now to be performed by you will not be attended with that pain or responsibility, from which, at the commencement of the trial, I considered it to be inseparable. The charge against the panel at the bar is that of sedition-a charge of which the relevancy has been established by a judgment of the Court, and cannot admit of dispute. The sedition charged consists-in having uttered a seditious libel against his sacred majesty the king, and against his royal highness the prince regent-in having uttered a seditious libel against the House of Commons-and in having uttered a seditious libel against the administration of the laws of this kingdom. And, undoubtedly, if it had been proved, that the panel had endeavoured thus to alienate the affections of the people from any or all of these objects of their allegiance, he would have been guilty of a very heinous offence. If such attempts had been attended with either partial or total success-if the fidelity, reverence, and attachment of the people to any or to all of these objects had been shaken-there would, in the one view, have been very little left, and in another view much of those principles would be destroyed, to which the allegiance of the subject must be attached, or by which good order throughout the kingdom can alone be maintained. The peculiar circumstance with which this sedition is attended, is, that it has been committed by a clergyman-by a person exercising duties of a very important description, which are far removed from any connection with political discussions. And if, in ordinary situations, and by persons in the ordinary avocations of civil life, the uttering of a seditious libel be criminal, beyond all doubt it must be infinitely more criminal in the case of a person whose province it is to impart useful, moral, and religious instruction. A person who has such duties to perform is, in his unjustifiable and wicked aberrations from his duty, guilty of a great and dangerous offence. The functions of a clergyman are among the most important in civil society, whether the nature and purpose of his duties, or the dangerous facilities and great trust with which he is ne cessarily invested, are considered. His duties are, to communicate moral and religious instruction; and in proportion to the vital importance of these duties and objects when well performed, is the criminality of his conduct when, under the mask and disguise of his function, he disseminates the poison of discontent and sedition. He is intrusted with VOL. XXXIII. bling and addressing crowded congregations for one lawful purpose only; and the danger of permitting such opportunities to be turned to any other purpose but that of enforcing the duties of religion, peace, virtue, and charity, need not be enlarged upon here. The first part of the seditious libel uttered by the panel against his sacred majesty and against the prince regent, consists in a scriptural allusion;-in the perversion and misapplication of a portion of Scripture, of which, I believe, there are few, either in the ordinary or more intelligent ranks of society, who are ignorant; and it is just as possible, in this indirect manner, and by preference to particular portions of Scripture history, to utter libellous or seditious matter, as by the most direct words which language affords. There is no blasphemy or sedition, how abominable and atrocious soever, that may not in this form be spread about. The name, character, and conduct of his majesty, whether public or private, I have been habituated to consider as sacred subjects, not to be profaned by investigation and discussion, either in parliament, in courts of law, or in churches. This is the true principle of the constitution; and the whole tenor of the evidence of this day's trial shows, that it is a principle from which it would be unwise to depart. If the case had stood upon the evidence brought in behalf of the Crown, I should have called upon you, without hesitation, for a verdict of guilty upon two of the charges stated in the libel; first, the charge of uttering a seditious libel against his sacred majesty and the prince regent; and, second, the charge of uttering a seditious libel against the House of Commons. With regard to the third and remaining ground of charge against the panel, in the minor proposition of the indictment, there has been no evidence brought before you. At the same time, I must observe, that the evidence on the part of the Crown falls far short of what I expected to have laid before you. The inquiries or precognition taken in the ordinary course of the duties of local police, when the facts were fresh in the recollection of the witnesses, and when they had recently heard the seditious preachings of the panel, exhibited to me a case on which I entertained not a doubt of the measures to be taken, and on which I am confident you would not have entertained a doubt as to what your duty would have required of you. From the interval of time, however, which necessarily has elapsed, the recollections of the witnesses have become more imperfect and uncertain. In these observations, I am far from saying, or meaning to insinuate, that you ought to believe, or be at all influenced by any thing which has not been laid regularly in evidence before you. I merely state these things in explanation of the course of conduct which I am in this case to adopt. On the supposition that full credit is due to 2 X |