obtained is, in other words, to resist until the British constitution be fundamentally overthrown.

I am not now prepared, and it would be out of place for me, to enter at length upon this important subject, on which so many persons have been so grossly deluded. But I cannot avoid pointing out, in a few sentences, that at no one period, either in England or Scotland, did universal suffrage ever prevail; and in Scotland, in particular, from the great subdivision of property, the elective suffrage was never so extended as it actually is at the present moment. It is matter of notoriety, that the history of the British constitution is to be found in the feudal system, and that the constitution of Parliament in particular, while it sprung out of that system, has ever retained features which strongly mark its descent. The immediate vassals of the crown, the great Barons who held of the King "in capite," were the first members of Parliament. Originally there were no persons who possessed seats in Parliament as representatives of others; nor were any such introduced into the Legislature until the great estates, to which the duty of attendance in Parliament was incident, having been divided, and that duty had actually become a burthen upon the small proprietors, the foundation of the representative system was thus naturally laid. The first step in the progress which seems to have been made was this, that charters of exemption from Parliament were frequently solicited and obtained, but those were declared to be illegal. Accordingly, it would seem next to have grown by degrees into a law to oblige the great barons only to attend in person, and to permit the lesser to attend by their representatives. This is in truth no matter of conjecture; for by a statute of our Parliament, passed in 1427, the smaller barons were excused from coming to Parliament provided they sent commissioners from the shires.

No nobleman, no clergyman, no naval or military officer, in short, none who held places, or received pensions from government, had any right to sit in that House. This is what the House of Commons was, what it ought to be, and what we wish it to be. This is the wanted change in our form of government, the Commons House of Parliament restored to its original purity; and this, beyond a doubt, would strike at the root of the greatest part of the evils we groan under at the present day." At page 24. it states, "that the only effectual means that can be adopted to relieve the nation in some measure from its present distresses, are, by restoring the imprescriptible rights of the nation, by a reform in the representation of the people in the House of Commons, and by annual parliaments; and until these take place, the people can entertain no reasonable expectation of ever having their condition improved. But, should these salutary measures be adopted, they are confident that such a Parliament would always act for the good of the nation, and ensure the respect, confidence, and support of the whole body of the people. And it is not without justice that the meeting ascribe to the want of a fair and equal representation of the people in Parliament, all the wars, and their consequences, in which the people has been engaged for half a century past; for if, at the commencement of the first American war, this country had been blessed with a House of Commons chosen by the free suffrage of the tax-payers, would they have acted consistently with the constitution of their own body, to have gone to war with a people of the saine origin and language, merely to force taxes upon them without their consent? Or would they have opposed the struggles of the French nation, in endeavouring to obtain that freedom which every Briton cherishes as his birth-right? And of ultimately forcing upon them a hated Dynasty, contrary to the wishes of nine-tenths of the people? The idea is truly preposterous." In page 26, they explain what they mean by the tax-payers. "Considering that of two millions of inhabitants, only 2,700 have a right of voting for Members of Parliament, the remaining 1,997,360, although tax-payers, directly, or indirectly, having no more right of voting, than if they were an importation of Slaves from Africa."

After going through all this long detail of grievances, you will recollect, that unless the reforms called for are granted, and the evils complained of are redressed, the people were told that their allegiance was to be thrown off; and if allegiance be thrown off, rebellion must follow. The result, therefore, of the whole that I have read is, that as the condition of the people never could be improved till universal suffrage and annual parliaments were obtained, so unless all this was granted, resist ance must be made, and insurrection against the Government and the laws must be the consequence. But you know that in this country, to resist, unless universal suffrage be VOL. XXXIII.

In like manner, it is proved by the introduction to the laws of Robert III., that those burghs alone which held property in capite of the crown, had the right of being represented in Parliament. It is, therefore, a delusion to state, that universal suffrage ever made part of our constitution, or indeed that the right of the elective suffrage was ever broader or more extensive than at present. In fact, I know of no country in which universal suffrage, or any thing like it, ever existed, but one, and that was France in the year 1793. At that period, no doubt, there was an assembly elected by something like universal suffrage, and what was the result? The degradation of the nobility,—the dethronement and murder of the Sovereign, the overthrow of the church,-and the extinction of religion. Is it those things that these prisoners would recommend? I have already told you, that liberty, as it was practised in France in 1793, has been held up by them as an object of admiration; and if you look to what is stated in the 32d page

F

of their publication, you will find, that while they hold up to reprobation the higher orders of the State, the revolutionary fate of the Church does not seem to have been altogether out of their contemplation. "Their reverend hirelings," say they, "would convince you that you are suffering under the visitation of the Almighty, and therefore that you ought to be submissive to the chastening stroke." This allusion has a direct application to the established church, its object is not more to dissuade the people from submission under their distresses than to bring the clergy and religion | into contempt. It is to tell the people, that while their rulers were corrupt and oppressing them, the ministers of religion were not less base nor more worthy of consideration.

But while the people are thus told in plain language to throw off their allegiance,-while they are urged on to resistance to the executive government,-to overthrow the Legislature, and degrade the ministers of religion, the publication proceeds to hold out the most direct encouragement to rebellion. Look to the passage about the army in page 32. "Your infatuated oppressors may harden themselves against your fequests; they may consider themselves as fortified behind a veteran army, which, they may imagine, will be always ready to support them, though in an unjust cause, and by which they may conceive it possible to awe a nation into silence and submission. But let them recollect that the army is still composed of men and of Britons, And shall they though they have exerted their valour in the cause of fanaticism, though they have been led to fight the battles of oppressors, and establish the thrones of tyrants; shall they, in violation of the privileges of freemen,-forgetful of the glory of their country,-forgetful of all that is dear to themselves,contemptuous of all that they love, and regardless of the fate of posterity, -shall they turn their arms to destroy the constitution of their country? What! after displaying such feats of valour that has immortalised them for ever,-will they stoop so low as to become instrumental in the ruin of their country, for the sake of a faction which has cast a deep shade of disgrace over all the splendour of their victorious achievements? I appeal to the army itself for a reply. I hear it burst like thunder from man to man, from line to line, from camp to camp,-No! Never! Never! We fight not for the destruction, but for the preservation of the rights and privileges of our beloved country!"

surrection. Can any thing more insidious,— any thing more wicked,-any thing more seditious be conceived or imagined? I will fairly tell you, that, in my opinion, no publication has ever been brought before this court of a more wicked and pernicious tendency, none better calculated to produce turbulence and commotion, than that which I have read to you.

Look to the publication for which Palmer was tried at the circuit court at Perth in the year 1793, and was transported to Botany Bay; and although these times are not of a description to render it necessary to inflict the same degree of punishment upon the prisoners as was awarded in that case, there is not any thing in it nearly so inflammatory, so seditious, tending so much to excite discontent against the government, or to introduce turbulence and commotion, as there is in the paper which is this day brought under your consideration. That paper I think it my duty to read to you from the records of the court. It is in these

terms:

"Friends and fellow-citizens;-You, who by your loyal and steady conduct, in these days of adversity, have shown that you are worthy of, at least, some small portion of liberty, unto you we address our language and tell our fears.

"In spite of the virulent scandal, or malicious efforts of the people's enemies, we will tell you whole truths; they are of a kind to alarm and arouse you out of your lethargy. That portion of liberty you once enjoyed is fast setting, we fear, in the darkness of despotism and tyranny! Too soon, perhaps, you who were the world's envy, as possessed of some small portion of liberty, will be sunk in the depth of slavery and misery, if you prevent it not by your well-timed efforts.

"Is not every new day adding a new link to our chains? Is not the executive branch daily seizing new, unprecedented, and unwarrantable powers? Has not the House of Commons (your only security from the evils of tyranny and aristocracy) joined the coalition against you? Is the election of its members either fair, free, or frequent? Is not its independence gone, while it is made up of pensions and placemen?

"We have done our duty, and are determined to keep our posts, ever ready to assert our just rights and privileges as men, the chief of which we account the right of universal suffrage in the choice of those who serve in the Commons House of Parliament, and a frequent renewal of such power.

and more convinced that nothing can save this nation from ruin, and give to the people that

* 2 How. Mod. St. Tr. 237.

happinesss which they have a right to look for under government, but a reform in the House of Commons, founded upon the eternal basis of justice, fair, free, and equal.

"Fellow-citizens;-The time is now come, when you must either gather round the fabric of liberty to support it, or, to your eternal infamy, let it fall to the ground, to rise no more, hurling along with it every thing that is valuable and dear to an enlightened people.

"You are plunged into a war by a wicked ministry and a compliant parliament, who seem careless and unconcerned for your interest, the end and design of which is almost too horrid to relate, the destruction of a whole people merely because they will be free.

"By it your commerce is sore cramped and almost ruined. Thousands and ten thousands of your fellow-citizens, from being in a state of prosperity, are reduced to a state of poverty, misery, and wretchedness.-A list of bankruptcies, unequalled in any former times, forms a part in the retinue of this Quixotic expedition; your taxes, great and burthensome as they are, must soon be greatly augmented; your treasure is wasting fast; the blood of your brethren is pouring out, and all this to form chains for a free people, and eventually to rivet them for ever on yourselves. "To the loss of the invaluable rights and privileges which our father's enjoyed, we impute this barbarous and calamitous war, our ruinous and still-growing taxation, and all the miseries and oppressions which we labour under.

"Fellow-citizens;-The friends of liberty call upon you, by all that is dear and worthy of possessing as men; by your own oppressions; by the miseries and sorrows of your suffering brethren; by all that you dread; by the sweet remembrance of your patriotic ancestors; and by all that your posterity have a right to expect from you, to join us in our exertions for the preservation of our perishing liberty, and the recovery of our long lost rights." Gentlemen, this is the publication which was held by a jury in 1793 to be a seditious libel; and I ask you, whether from the beginning to the end of it there is any thing more offensive, any thing more calculated to alienate the minds of his majesty's subjects from the government and constitution of the country, any thing better imagined for leading the people to the use of physical force and to open rebellion, than is to be found in almost every passage of the publication lying on the table? Sure I am, that there is not to be found from the beginning to the end of Palmer's Address, a direct recommendation to the people to thow off their allegiance,

that there is no incitement to actual rebellion -that there is no encouragement held out to the people, that if they rose to enforce the accomplishment of their purposes, the army would join them. But in the pamphlet upon your table, all this is done in the most plain and direct terms. The House of Commons is

said to be corrupt, and not to be the representative of the people: the whole rulers of the country are stated to be corrupt, and while guilty of the most gross oppressions on the people, caring for nothing but their own base, sordid, and tyrannical purposes. The clergy are said to be hirelings, falsely deluding the people with the notion of their distresses originating with Providence; and while the people are called upon to throw their allegiance to hell, they are encouraged with the certain hope of the support of a brave and victorious army.

It seems impossible in my mind, therefore, to doubt, that if the publication in Palmer's case was seditious, that now upon the table can be otherwise; that if the one merited punishment, the other can be innocent. On the contrary, I will tell you fairly, in my view of the subject, the present is the worst of the two.

It is now proper that I should tell you, that the same course of defence which has been pursued to-day, was followed in the case I have just been speaking of. In Palmer's case it was said—and we were told to-day that it would be proved-that language similar to that used in this publication had been employed in petitions to the House of Commons, without censure or animadversion; that language not less strong was employed by Mr. Pitt, and by the duke of Richmond, and various other statesmen; and the inference which was drawn in the year 1793, and which, I presume, will be drawn to-day, is, that it was legal for Mr. Palmer in his case, and for the prisoners in theirs, to employ the language which those statesmen have made use of. But my learned friend (Mr. Clerk), who was also of counsel in the case of Palmer, was told then, and I beg leave to repeat it to you now, that the question before the jury and the court was not how often the crime of sedition had been committed, or how often it had been committed with impunity it was not whether petitions containing seditious matter had been presented to parliament, without the authors being punished: it was not whether parliament had allowed seditious words to be used in its own presence without animadversion; and, last of all, the question was not whether the law officers of the Crown had allowed their duties to sleep, and passed over sedition without bringing prosecutions: but the question simply was then, as it is now, whether the crime attributed to the prisoners at the bar amounted in law to sedition, and whether, if it did, they were guilty of having committed it. If it were proved, that five thousand petitions containing language equally strong as that found in this publication, had been received by parliament, or that the House of Commons had permitted language ten times stronger to be used in their own presence, that can never establish that the prisoners have not been guilty of the crime of sedition charged in this indictment. The House of Commons

sions charged in the indictment are seditious; and I have had to-day the satisfaction to hear that the court thinks so likewise. You will afterwards learn their lordships' opinion upon the evidence, as you have now heard mine. That I have thought it my duty to give you plainly and without varnish. But clear though I be on the whole case, I shall be satisfied with whatever verdict you may give, and I can have no doubt the country will be so likewise.

Mr. Clerk.-Gentlemen of the jury, in the long and able argument which you have just heard, the lord advocate has attempted to convince you that both of the prisoners at the bar have been guilty of the crimes laid to their charge. I attend you for one of them only, Mr. M'Laren, and shall leave the defence of the other, Mr. Baird, to his own counsel, Mr. Jeffrey, who is able to do the most ample justice to his client.

Mr. McLaren is accused of having made a seditious harangue to the people assembled at a numerous meeting held in a field near Kilmarnock, and of having afterwards caused his speech to be printed, along with other speeches of a like tendency, as a pamphlet, which was sold and distributed in that neighbourhood.

That Mr. M'Laren was present, and spoke a few sentences at the public meeting already mentioned, is certainly true; but I hope to satisfy you, that considering the occasion and circumstances under which it was delivered, the speech (if speech it might be called) contained nothing seditious or otherwise criminal. As to the publication of the pamphlet, Mr. M'Laren had no concern with it, and knows nothing of it. There is no evidence that he assisted in the printing or publication even of that speech which is said to have been spoken by himself; and certainly there is no pretence for saying that he took a concern in the publication, sale, or distribution of the pamphlet. I hope, therefore, that I may disencumber myself of this branch of the accusation, as not affecting Mr. M'Laren at all, and leave it, in so far as it may be thought to affect the other panel, to the consideration of Mr. Jeffrey, who will address you for him.

As to the criminality of the speech at the public meeting, much eloquence has been employed, and some points, both in fact and in law, have been strained to the utmost against the panel, in declamatory comments on the wickedness of his supposed intention to blow up the flames of sedition in the multitude, as well as on the supposed illegal and dangerous tendency of his words, as being utterly subversive of the British constitution and of all good government. But in making these violent and uncharitable strictures, it was forgotten that a public meeting having been called for lawful purposes, the occasion rendered it necessary that the panel (who had been appointed to open the business) should make some remarks on the subject of public grievances. This is his defence. In addressing the people, he had

no intention to excite them to sedition or rebellion, to any species of violence, or to any unlawful act. They had met with the fair and legal purpose of petitioning the different branches of the legislature for relief against the grievances of which they complained; and in speaking of those grievances, the panel did nothing more than assist in the previous deliberations necessary to ascertain the views and wishes of the people assembled, as to the nature of the applications that ought to be made. This defence, so important for the panel, was opened at the beginning of the trial; but so far from attempting to refute it, the lord advocate did not, in the course of his very long argument, so much as allude to it: and you will see that the indictment, unfairly suppressing the object and purposes of the lawful meeting at which the panel made his speech, represents it, as well as the other speeches there made, as seditious and inflammatory harangues, uttered without the pretence of any fair or legal purpose. These circumstances are not a little extraordinary, if the public prosecutor really had hopes of being successful in his charge. With such hopes he should have argued the case as it stands upon the evidence he should have attempted to answer the defence on the fact, or on the law, or on both; whereas, by taking no notice of a defence unquestionably relevant, he either held it to be unanswerable, or intended to rely upon a doctrine (which can never be admitted, and which, indeed, the lord advocate himself did not directly maintain), that occasion and cîrcumstances can make no difference as to the criminality of words-that the same words must, if they are seditious on any occasion, be seditious on all occasions, without the least regard to the purpose or intent of the speaker. But against such an absurdity it is unnecessary to reason. Every one must allow that the same words may be highly criminal, or altogether innocent, nay, absolutely required by duty, according to the different situations in which they may be uttered; and on this ground I maintain, that even if the words of the panel could not have been spoken without criminality in other situations, they were justifiable as they were spoken to men assembled in deliberation about lawful and dutiful petitions, representing their grievances or complaints to the different branches of the legislature. Nor does it appear of any importance that warm or intemperate expressions, not sufficiently respectful to their superiors, occasionally fell, in the course of their deliberations, from people in the lowest ranks of life, unable to express themselves with that decency which is required from men in higher situations, if it be certain, which it is, that they looked forward to no other result from their meeting, than the exercise of their unquestionable right to petition, quietly and peaceably, without disorder or disturbance.

The right of petitioning has belonged to the subjects of this country, and even to the