Page images
PDF
EPUB

not say:

voice of his people," did he say any thing or not about “ to hell with such allegiance ?"-A. That came afterwards.

Lord HERMAND.Q. Did he mention in what way the voice of the people was to be expressed ?-A. No, he wished the people to petition.

LORD ADVOCATE.-Q. Did you, after this meeting, see a pub. lication called “ Account of the Proceedings of the Public Meeting of the Burgesses and Inhabitants of the Town of Kilmarnock, held on the 7th December 1816, for the purpose of deliberating on the most proper method of remedying the present distresses of the country, with a full report of the speeches on that occasion?” -A. I never saw it, except one day lying on the table before the Sheriff.

Mr GRANT.-Q. Do you know what was the purpose of the meeting ?-A. It was for the purpose of petitioning the Sovereign.

Q. Do you know if, in point of fact, petitions were drawn up and signed by the persons who were at the meeting ?-A. I could

Q. Did you sign any of the petitions yourself?--A. No.

Q. Did you understand from what passed that it was the intention of M.Laren to induce the people, and you as one of them, to petition the Legislature, or to excite violence and disturbance?

LORD ADVOCATE.--I object to this question.

LORD JUSTICE-CLERK. --The understanding or opinion of any witness is not to be listened to in evidence.

Q. What did you collect to be the object of M.Laren's speech ?

LORD ADVOCATE.-If this course of examination go on, there can be no objection to my reexamining the witness. I did not finish my examination of him, but on the idea that I could not put such questions.

Mr CLERK.-We have put a question, and we should not be interrupted. The Lord Advocate puts in his claim to put such questions. But he must not interrupt us in order to make an examination himself.

COURT.He has no such intention.

Mr GRANT.-Q. I put this other question : In point of fact, did this speech excite the people to commotion or disturbance? A. No.

Q. There was none upon that occasion ?---A. None.

Q. Was it the tendency of M.Laren's speech, from what you observed, and from what passed, to create commotion or disturb. ance, or to induce petitions to be sent to the Prince Regent and the two Houses of Parliament ?-A. It was to induce the people to petition the Prince Regent and the two Houses of Parliament.

Q. Did he express himself in any way with regard to the person of the Prince Regent in that speech ?--A. Not that I remember of.

Q. When he advised them to lay their petitions at the foot of the Throne, did he say any thing of the August Prince ?.--I do not remember any thing of the Throne; but he mentioned his August Prince,

Q. In what terms !--- A. In favourable terms.

Q. In terms perfectly legal and becoming a good subject ?A. Yes.

Hugh CRAWFORD sworn..-Examined by Mr SoLICITOR-GENERAL.

Q. Are you a printer at Kilmarnock ?-A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember a meeting held in December last in the neighbourhood of that town? --A. Yes.

Q. Was a MS. account of the proceedings at that meeting afterwards brought to you to be printed ?-A. Part of it.

Q. Did you attend the meeting? -A. No.

Q. Look at that !-(Pamphlet handed to the witness.)-A. That was printed in my office.

Q. Who brought it?-A. The part I saw was brought by David Andrew, I think,

Q. Was any body in company with him ?-A. I think not.

COURT.-Q. Has Andrew any more names than one?-A. I do not know.

Mr SOLICITOR-GENERAL.–Did you see him in the other room to-day?-A, I did.

Q. Who attended the press while this MS. was printed ?--A. I did not see, as the printing-office is at a distance from the shop, and I was only occasionally there.

Q. Did Thomas Baird attend the printing ?-A. I think I saw him once or twice; I am certain once. Q. Are

you
able to

say

whether this publication is a true copy of the MS. that was brought to you?--A. I cannot say:

Q. Who printed it ?-A. Thomas Murray, a man whom I employ.

Q. Have you been paid for the printing ?--A. No.
Q. Who is to pay you?-A. The persons who employed me.

Q. Who are they?-1 look to Mr David Andrew, Mr Andrew Finnie and Mr Baird.

LORD ADVOCATE.-Q. What was done with the publication after the printing?-A. Copies were taken from me in quantities: Mr Baird got a quantity, and Mr Finnie and others got quantities.

Mr Solicitor-GenerAL.Q. How many copies were printed ? -A. About 400 I think.

Q. How many did Baird get?-A. I cannot say.

Q. Can you say about what number? - A. There might be four, five or six dozen.

LORD ADVOCATE.—Do you know M'Laren ?--A. Within this short time.

Q. Did he ever complain of his speech being printed inaccurately? --A. No, I never spoke to him in my life, to my knowledge.

THOMAS MURRAY sworn. --Examined by Mr DRUMMOND.

Q. Are you journeyman to Mr Crawford ?-A. Mr Crawford is my employer. (The pamphlet was shewn to the witness.) Q. Was that printed at Mr Crawford's printing office !-A. Yes. Q. By you? -A. Yes.

Q. Is it a correct copy of the MS. given you for the purpose of being printed ?-A. There were some alterations in the proofs.

Q. Corrections of the press ?--A. Yes.

Q. What alterations ? - A. Typographical errors; and perhaps in some sentences grammatical alterations.

Q. Were there any alterations of the sense?--A. None that remember of.

Q. Who gave in the MS ?-A. The first part I received from Mr Crawford.

Q. Who gave you the rest ?-A. I received it at different times.

Q. From whom?.-A. It was sometimes given in when I was not in the office, and sometimes when I was in it.

Q. Who gave you any part of it ?--A. Mr David Andrew.
Q. Did Mr Webster bring any of it?--A. Once, I remember.

Q. Who came to superintend the printing and to inquire after it?-A. That person.

Q. Any body else?-A. No.
Q. Mr Baird ?--A. He was twice or three times at the utmost.

Q. For the purpose of inquiring about the publication ?-A. He was several times in the office.

Q. What did he do when he came ? - A. He came to the office along with Mr David Andrew to look over the first proof.

Q. Did they make any alterations ?--A. One was proposed by Mr Baird.

Q. What was it?-A. I do not know.

Q. Can you point it out in the publication ?--A. No, for I never had it in my hand but now and before the Sheriff of Ayr.

Q. Was any alteration made in consequence ?-A. None.

Q. Why was it not made ?--A. It was a grammatical alteration that was proposed, I thought the alteration proposed was wrong, and I had a right to make the pamphlet grammatical.

Q. What became of the MS. from which the publication was printed ?-A. It went as all of them do,-it was destroyed. - I was not desired to preserve it.

LORD Advocate.-Look at the passage on page 7. “ to with allegiance," was that blank in the MS. ?-X. If I remember rightly, that part of the MS. was erased, written over again, then erased and interlined; and I do not know but I ordered my apprentice to leave the blank, as I could not make it out. To make the sentence join properly, I left it blank.

Q. Did Mr Baird, when he came and looked over the MS., ob. ject to the blank, or state any thing ?--A. He never looked over it.

Q. You said Mr Baird came with Mr Andrew and looked over the first proof. Did he make any observation about the blank there left? -A. That was not in the first proof;—the proof I spoke of was the proof of the first pages of the pamphlet.

Cross-examined by Mr JEFFREY for Thomas Baird.
Q. Were the proof sheets sent to any one to be revised ?-A,
They were.

Q. To whom ?--A. To Mr David Andrew.
Q. Any to Mr Baird ?--A. Never, to my remembrance.
(Part of the MS. was shewn to the witness.)

Mr DRUMMOND.--Q. Did you ever see that before ?--A. I never saw it before ; it never came into

my

hands. Cross-examined by Mr GRANT for Alexander M'Laren. Q. Was any part of the MS. pencilled ?--A. I do not remember; the MS. was very imperfect, and was partly well and partly ill written; it was partly in quarto and partly in folio, in different hands.

Q. Do you remember the part that contains the blank, what size of the paper was there?--A. It was folio. I remember it quite well. There were two sheets of foolscap paper written on without being folded.

Q. Was it of the size of this, folded and written on as this? (A sheet of folio paper shewn the witness.)--A. Yes.

JAMES JOHNSTONE sworn.-Examined by Mr SOLICITOR

GENERAL.

Q. Do you remember of a public meeting at Dean Park, near Kilmarnock ?--A. Yes.

Q. Do you know that there was a committee to prepare and adjust the business for that meeting ?-A. I do.

Q. Of whom did it consist ?--A. I really cannot tell of a number of persons ; of myself for one.

Q. Was Mr M‘Laren one?--A. Yes.
Q. Mr Baird ? - Yes.
Q. Were any resolutions prepared before the public meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. Were they read to the meeting which took place ?--A. Yes.
Q. You attended that meeting -A. I did.
Q. Who first spoke ?-A. Alexander M‘Laren.

Q. Was there any meeting of this committee after that public meeting ?--A. Yes, that evening.

Q. For what purpose ?-A. The particular purpose was to consider whether they should print their resolutions and speeches.

Q. Who attended that meeting? Were the pannels there?-A. I think so.

Q. Was it resolved there to print the speeches and resolutions ? -A. Yes.

Q. The several speakers gave in copies of their speeches ?--A. I believe so, but I did not see them

given

in. Q. Did you see any thing at all given in ?-A. Nothing but my own speech.

Q. Were you present when the proofs of the proceedings were revised ?-A. I was not present at the revision of any of them.-

(The pamphlet was shewn to the witness.) Q. Is that the publication of the proceedings which took place at Dean Park at the time you mention ?-A. I suppose so.

Q. By whom does it appear to be printed ?-A. By Hugh Crawford.

Q. Was it resolved at the committee that he should be the printer ?--A. Not particularly.

Q. Do you know the MSS. were sent to him ?-A. I do not. know.

Q. Did you never read the pamphlet ?--A. No.

Q. Not even your own speech ?--A. No; I gave it to Mr Walter Andrew to revise.

Q. Are these the resolutions that were read to the meetings ?A. I have glanced at them. I cannot say particularly they are the resolutions, but generally I believe so.

LORD ADVOCATE.--Q. You are acquainted with M.Laren? A. Yes.

Q. He was a member of the committee? --A. Yes.

Q. You have of course had conversations with him about the meeting and the publication ?--A. Yes, in a general way.

Q. Did you ever hear if Baird or he complained of inaccuracy in the statement given of the proceedings ? -A. Yes; Alexsander M‘Laren.

Q. What did he say?- A. That one sentence at the end, of his speech in the printed account, and cited in the indictment, was not in the original MS. He said it runs in this way: Speaking of the petition being presented to the Prince Regent, “ He hoped he would lend his gracious ear to it, as he was bound to do by the Constitution; but if he did not do so, then to hell with allegiance." I think he said this was not in the original speech.

Q. Did you hear his speech?--A. Only the sound of it.

Q. Did you hear any of the words of it during the meeting? A. I cannot say I did.

Q. What did M.Laren say was the inaccuracy ?-A. He come plained of the latter part of the sentence altogether being in it atall, because it was not in the MS.

Q. Did he complain of the word “ hell?”

Mr CLERK.-I object to the question. There is no such word in the publication.-(The witness was ordered to withdraw.)

LORD ADVOCATE. -- The drift of the examination I was carrying on at the time, was to bring out of the witness what was the conversation between him and M•Laren-whether M‘Laren objected to certain parts of the publication which he is alleged to have done. The witness said he never read that publication. I am entitled to put the question, in order to ascertain the witness's recollection ; and particularly, whether M‘Laren complained of any

« PreviousContinue »