Page images

word being in the MS. I submit that the question I put is competent, viz. whether M‘Laren complained of “ hell to allegiance being in the MS. The thing, I admit, is now irremediable, because my learned friend has instructed the witness by stating that there is no such word in the publication ; but I say it was irregular in my learned friend to interrupt me and thus to prepare the witness.

Mr CLERK.--Nobody is more competent to put regular questions to witnesses than my Lord Advocate, but I cannot permit him to proceed irregularly. What was the question put? Whether M.Laren complained of hell being in the MS. That was implying that the words were in the printed pamphlet, and nobody is entitled to suggest a false fact to a witness. No fact must be assumed in putting a question to a witness.

LORD ADVOCATE.—I wish the Court to keep in recollection what the question was to which I wished to get an answer—whether or no M'Laren complained of being misrepresented by “hell” being in the printed copy. My friend now admits that the question was not irregular.

Mr CLERK.-The question is not as it was put originally.

LORD ADVOCATE.-I put it to the Court that such was the question.

LORD JUSTICE CLERK.—I do not see any thing out of form here.

LORD ADVOCATE.—The opposite Counsel were out of form in interrupting me, and they have rendered the question useless. If they again interrupt me, let them first desire the witness to be removed.

(Witness brought back.) Q. In what way did he say he was misrepresented ?-A. I did not say so.


say he complained of the latter part of the sentence being put in, because it was not in the MS.

Q. Then he did not complain of being misrepresented ?-A. Yes, in one word that he did not pronounce-the word “ their,” or

our,” which comes in before " allegiance.”

Q. You are looking at the printed statement. Did you not say that you had not seen it before!--A. I did not say I had not seen it ; I said I had not read it. LORD JUSTICE-CLERK.-He

says M‘Laren complained of being misrepresented with respect to a word before allegiance," and he is entitled to look at the pamphlet.

A. As far as my judgment leads me to take notice, he com. plained of any thing intervening between the word "to" and allegiance,

," because it was not in his original MS. He never intended to say it; it was merely a word of some play that occurred to his memory, and he let it out.

Mr SOLICITOR GENERAL.-Q. Did he tell you, then, how the passage should have been printed? -A. He told me the identical words he used. The last words of the sentence were, “ to hell allegiance.”

LORD ADVOCATE.-Q. Did he complain of the passage as stated in the indictment?--A. Yes; he gave the indictment to me to read.

Lord Justice CLERK.-He said the passage was not correctly given either in the indictment or the printed account?--A. Exactly.

LORD ADVOCATE.-Q. How long is it since he made this complaint to you?-A. I think the very day he received the indictment.

Cross-examined by Mr JEFFREY for Thomas Baird. Q. You mentioned that both of the pannels were members of the committee with you. Was Mr Baird at the public meeting? -A. Yes.

Q. Did you then, or at any other time, hear him make any remarks

upon M‘Laren's speech ?-A. No. Q. Did you not hear him at any other time make any remarks ? -A. Yes, I have heard him several times complain, and say it was a pity the last sentence had been put in.

Q. Spoken, or put in?--A. It was a pity it had been spoken at all.

Q. Were you present at the meeting about the printing? A. Yes.

Q. Was any objection made to that passage?-A. I was against the printing altogether, not that I thought there was any thing wrong in the publication; but judging from my own, I supposed all the speeches were made up in a hurried way, and would not stand the scrutiny of the public eye.

Q. Do you remember Mr Baird making any objections to the publication ?--A. I do not particularly.

Q. Do you know any thing of the reasons stated for or against the printing ?-A. The publication was to defray the expences incurred at the public meeting.

Q. Was the sale of the publication entrusted to any particular persons ?-A. To the committee in general.

(The MS. of the witness's speech was shewn to him.) Q. Was that written before or after the meeting ?-A. Before. Q. You officiated as chairman at the meeting ?-A. Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr GRANT for Alexander M‘Laren.
Q. You are a muslin agent?-A. Yes.
Q. For any of the Glasgow houses ?-A. Yes.

Q. From that circumstance, have you an opportunity of being much acquainted with the situation of the manufacturers in Kil. marnock?--A. I think so. Q. At present now, what may

the most active weaver be able to clear in the course of a week ?--A. At present things are rather better than they were some time ago. From a calculation I have made, an active weaver may at present gain about 5s. 6d. aweek.

Q. What might he be able to gain a-week on an average of the last year?--A. From 4s. to 4s. 6d.

Q. How many hours work a-day was necessary to gain this sum ?-A. At least from 14 to 15 hours.

Q. You have compared this period of distress with better times? What were then the general wages? -A. About 12s. a-weekfrom 12s. to 14s.

Q. I need not therefore ask if there was the greatest possible distress at Kilmarnock?-A. There can be no doubt of it.

Q. iou talked of the meeting which was held near Kilmarnock. What was its object ?--A. Solely to petition the Prince Regent and both Houses of Parliament, to consider the grievances of the country. It was our opinion, that one great reason of them was the defective state of the representation, more particularly in our part of the country; and therefore we particularly recommended attention to that.

Q. Was any other objects in view besides petitioning-any other means thought of in order to obtain redress of these grievances ? -A. None.

Q. Was any conversation ever held in your presence by Maclaren that tended to any other purpose than what is in the petition ?-A. None.

Q. Did you ever hear from him any hint, that induced you to believe he entertained disloyal opinions, or seditious intentions ?A. Never.

Q. Have you occasion to know whether he was of a peaceable and orderly disposition and habit of life?--A, I never heard or saw any thing to the contrary.

Q. How long have you been acquainted with him?-A. These eight years.

Q. Does it consist with your knowledge he was a member of a Volunteer Corps at Glasgow ?-A. I have heard that he was.

you know of his being in the Local Militia, or Kilmarnock Volunteer Corps ?-A. He was in the Rifle Corps at Kilmarnock.

Q. Was the public meeting conducted in an orderly and peace. able manner? -A. I considered it so. It was with no other intention I undertook the management, and that any gentleman will see from my speech.

Q. What was the state of the weather ?-A. It was very coarse. There was hail, and wind, and snow.

Q. Perhaps that was the reason you did not hear the speech ?A. That was the reason; I just heard the sound, but not the words.

Q. It was not weather well calculated for any person hearing a speech distinctly?-A. It was very bad indeed.

Q. You have said you were present at a meeting of the committee, when it was proposed to print the proceedings, and that M‘Laren was there, and that you objected to the printing. Did any other person object ?-A. Mr MʻLaren objected particularly to the printing of his speech.

Q. What passed upon that occasion ?--A. There was a great deal of altercation as to the printing; and it was at last agreed that those who had made speeches should give them to a committee appointed to superintend the printing.

Q. Did Mr M.Laren still object to his speech being printed? -A. He said, though the rest were printed, he did not see any reason for printing his, as it was made up in a hurried manner, and that he liad no intention that morning of speaking at all.

Q. Do


Q. Were you present at any meeting of the committee previous to the public meeting, for arranging about the public meeting ? A. Yes, I was at them all, I think.

Q. At a previous meeting were any steps taken as to appointing a person to open the proceedings at the public meeting ? A. It was discussed; and after a great deal of discussion, Maclaren agreed, that if no other person came forward, he would do it; and he mentioned to me since the meeting, he had no idea he should open the business, as another person had given a kind of promise to do it, and that person not appearing on the field, he went to a public-house and prepared some observations. I saw him the night before the meeting, when he told me he had hopes another person would open it.

Q. Do you know who that other person was ?--A. Yes, M‘Laren told me.

Q. Was the name of that other person publicly mentioned ?A. No, it was not.

Q. Was either of you a member of the committee that superintended the printing ?-A. None of us.

Q. Do you know any thing of a disturbance that took place about meal previous to the meeting?-A. I heard of it.

Q. Were you at Kilmarnock at the time ?-A. I was about two shops from it at the time. I did not consider it a mob or disturb

Q. Have you occasion to know how M'Laren conducted himself upon

that occasion ?-No, I have not. Q. You said you have known him eight years. Did you ever know him to be connected with any body of men assembled for any seditious or illegal purpose ?-A. Never, so far as I knew him, otherwise I would never have kept company with him.

You are an extensive agent?-A. There are some much more extensive than I am.

Q. Have you ever heard M.Laren was a member of any society for any purpose ?-A. Of none but this committee.

COURT.-Q. Does this committee still continue!--No, the committee does not continue.

Mr RANT._Was this committee open for any person to go to? -A. We never had a meeting which was not open; and there were always some others present besides the members of the committee. Any one was asked to attend.

Q. Were any precautions taken to keep your proceedings secret from the Magistrates ?--A. None.

Q. Was it ever hinted or proposed that it would be necessary to keep the proceedings secret from the Magistrates ?-A. Never.

Q. In point of fact, were the Magistrates made acquainted with the intention of the meeting ?--A. I believe so.

I called and told Mr Baird I would not attend unless the Magistrates were made acquainted with the intended meeting. He was appointed to tell them. Mr Baird said he had called on the Magistrate, but had not found him, and he said he would go again, and I understood from him he did go again.

[ocr errors]

this very

Q. Was there, according to your knowledge, any obstruction offered by the Magistrates to the meeting ?--A. I saw none.

(7. Do you know whether, in point of fact, petitions, founded on the resolutions adopted at that meeting were prepared to the Prince Regent and the two Houses of Parliament? -A. They were.

Q. Did you read them over?--A. I think nearly. I heard them all read.

Q. Does it consist with your knowledge they were forwarded ? A. I was told so by Mr Baird. I read in the public papers that they were presented.

Q. If I were to show you a printed copy of the petition, would you remember it?

LORD ADVOCATE.-Nothing is said in the indictment about the petition. Mr CLERK.-Much will be said in defence upon

fact about which we are examining the witness.

LORD ADVOCATE.-Defences have been given in for the pannels, and no notice is taken in them of productions being to be made. Your Lordships will take notice of this. I only wish you may keep this in view.

LORD JUSTICE-CLERK.We must receive whatever may go to exculpate the pannels.

(The account of the petition in a printed copy of the Journals of the House of Commons was handed to the witness.)

Mr GRANT.-Q. Were these the terms of the petition ?-A. As far as my judgment serves me, that is the substance of the petition.

Q. ave you any doubts this is the same petition ?--I have none at all. None can suppose my memory is such as to say these are the identical words.

Q. Your answer is quite proper. I have put a cross at the margin. Say whether you recollect particularly that the words there form part of the petition?

LORD ADVOCATE. I consented to a few questions being put to the witness, but I now object to any farther questions that are not


Mr GRANT.--I am just finishing this part of the examination. I have only to read a passage, and ask the witness whether he remembers it. “ When we came to discover those alarme ing facts, our hearts stood appalled, as if we had trod on a vol. cano: We looked around for the cause, and we found it in the very corrupt and defective Representation of the People in Parliament. We found, that the Commons' House, whose members ought to be chosen annually by the people—should be the organ of the people's voice-the guardians of their rights and of the public purse, had lost all control over the servants of the Crown, and had become subservient to the will of the Minister of the day: That the great body of the people are excluded from their elective franchise that a majority of your Honourable House are returned to Parliament by proprietors of rotten boroughs, the influence of the treasury, and a few other individuals; and that seats therein are bought and sold like tickets for the Opera."

« PreviousContinue »