people of England. It is odd, that you should take cognizance, in this Court, of crimes relative to the people of England; when from England, you cannot compel the attendance of a single witness in my favour.

There is, my lord, an objection again, which is entirely local, which is confined to Edinburgh itself; I have summoned three men, as exculpatory evidences; two of them were attending, the third was not attending; but no notice was taken of him. These men I wish to call into court, to examine as exculpatory evidences for me. The lord justice clerk insisted upon my telling the nature of the questions I meant to put: I gave him the outlines of them, upon which the judges thought proper to refuse the admission of those evidences.

Another charge relates to yourself: I had ordered the messenger to summon your lordship upon certain facts which went to prove that it was very likely I had already, before my trial, been prejudged. Your lordship was not summoned, in consequence of the fear of this man of offending a person in power; but, at the beginning of the trial, your lordship told me, and the public prosecutor to his justice be it said, acknowledged that the legal point should be obviated, and that you should attend as an exculpatory evidence; but, when it came to the point, you refused to be put upon your oath, and to answer the questions proposed to you. Those questions went to criminate yourself, my lord; they remain unanswered by the advice of your brother judges. The consequence was, that my defence was neither so complete, my exculpatory evidence not so satisfactory, and I make no doubt but it is owing to that that the jury, of whom I shall not take the least notice at present; that is the business of their country, not of me ;-that the jury have thought proper to find me guilty.

There is another thing; should these objections be repelled, I have another to bring forward, that you will not so easily get rid of It seems the custom of Scotland, that the witnesses are confined to a chamber by themselves, and no stranger admitted amongst them; that was not the case yesterday: a person, of the name of James Carlisle, was conversing with them a considerable time in the outer house. These are great objections for staying judgment. The two first objections go to cancel the whole proceedings, and the three last at least to staying of judgment. I have no more to say at present.

Lord Justice Clerk.-You will not be allowed to speak afterwards; and therefore, if you have any thing more to say, you must speak out.

Mr. Margarot.-I have nothing more. It was said yesterday, I was not versed in the laws of Scotland: it is true, I am not; but I have some slight knowledge of the British constitution; and I must observe here, that the proceedings of this Court have been a deVOL. XXIII.

parture, in toto, from the British constitution. I will say no more; I await your sen

tence.

Lord Henderland.-My lords, this panel has stated the very same objections that he stated yesterday, except one, which states that there were strangers with the witnesses in the other room; and, if it was so, the officer who had the charge of them may be culpable and punishable; because it is contrary to the custom of the court. But, my lords, to say that it shall annul a verdict, or stay judgment, does not appear to me to be at all the practice. It is impossible for the Court but to proceed upon the verdict; and I must give my opinion upon this head, that it is not a valid objection.

Lord Eskgrove.-My lords, the panel now at the bar had more indulgence than the Court ever gave a panel before, because he was a stranger.

My lords, I cannot help taking notice of an insinuation, on the part of the panel, to the Court, by threats of impeachment, and threats of being brought upon our knees, or suffering the pains of death. I am happy the panel has not thought fit to renew that language to-day; yet I would not sit altogether upon this trial, without signifying my opi nion, that if it had not been, that we held in contempt insinuations of threats to us, that are illegal, so, on the other hand, we will submit to every appeal that is competent; if there is any superior authority, we will reaally submit to their decisions. But, my lords, it is not for this man, or any man, to think to terrify this country into a subversion of justice. Had he been a native of this country, he would not have been suffered to go on as he did. I approve of his conduct to-day, which is more temperate; but, for the sake of others who might be here yesterday, and some who may hear of it, I will say, that it is not the right of any prisoner to go out of his defence, and attack the Court, who are able to defend themselves when the attack is made.

I was of opinion, with my brothers, upon the objections yesterday, and therefore it is not to be supposed I should not be of the same opinion to-day, unless something new had been urged. The objection as to the lord justice general was fully answered yesterday, and does not deserve any notice. As to the question put to your lordship not being answered, it was not because of your being a judge in this court, but because of their being irrelevant to his defence.

As to his objection of a stranger being admitted with the witnesses, I am sorry that any such thing should happen. He may have been sent from either party, or he might have no connexion with any party; but it is a strange thing to suppose, that such an accident should make null and void all the proceedings of this Court against this panel; and I am the more surprised at that objection

3 D

been found, by the verdict of a jury of his country, guilty of the facts charged against him. My lords, we yesterday gave our opinions upon the validity of the indictment; all, in one voice, finding that sedition was a high crime, by the laws of Scotland. Your lordships were also of opinion, that the facts charged and alleged by the public prosecutor, in the minor proposition, amounted to the crime of sedition. I will not now repeat what has been well observed by my lord Henderland, who has gone before me, as to the grounds of that opinion.

My lords, as the case at present stands, I am sorry this gentleman should have been guilty of such a crime; but a jury of his country have found, that he is guilty of the charges in this indictment; and therefore I in no way differ from your lordship in thinking, that the jury have discharged a duty to their country; but, if I had been of another opinion, my duty would have been one and the same, which is to pronounce the sentence of the law upon the person found guilty, by his country, of the crime charged, and carrying it into execution by a punishment suitable to the offence. It is unnecessary to go through the circumstances of this indictment, upon all of which the jury have returned a verdict, finding the prisoner guilty. My lords, it may amount to the finding him guilty of leading, as well as assisting, a number of people, styling themselves a sort of parliament in this country, for the purpose, as I stated yesterday, of subverting the constitution of the country; and then there is a more specific enumeration of facts; it sets forth, that they were to set at defiance the authority of the legislature; that even if an act was moved for, disagreeable to them, they were to meet in a secret convention; they thought fit to be concealed, in order to deliberate upon what was to be done; they were likewise to do the same, if there was an invasion; and what invasion is to be feared at this time, I leave to the judgment of every one who hears me. Also, in case of the landing of foreign troops, for the support of the government of the country, that was to be the cause of the sudden meeting of this convention: also, if the Habeas Corpus act was repealed: and lastly, if any interruption was given to their meetings, this convention of emergency was to sit. What conclusion can be drawn from such language, but that they meant to subvert the constitution of the country; that it was meant to be carried on in a style of defiance and opposition to the legislative authority of this country? Therefore, it is in vain for any person, pretending to know any thing of the law of Scotland, to say this is merely leasing making. I shall only say, that it would have been difficult, if it had not been for the alteration of the statute law, to know whether it would not have amounted to the crime of high treason.

My lords, the jury have found this man guilty: he is an Englishman; I am sorry that any of that country should ever have interfered in the peace and tranquillity, either of their own country, or of this, which is a part of the united kingdoms: but I think we cannot pronounce a less sentence in this case, than in the former cases; and if any difference is to be made, I do not think it is in favour of this defendant, who in his own country might have lived peaceably and quietly. My lords, there can be no sort of doubt with regard to the powers of the Court: by the laws of this country, before the act of 1708, banishment from the realm of Scotland was one thing, and banishment to a place beyond seas was another; and these were as well known at that time as at this. But, my lords, is it proper that a person from England, being found guilty of attempts to subvert the constitution, is it reasonable that we should return him to England, in order that he may continue his practices there if so inclined? If we were not able to do more, we could not help it; but, I say, the power of banishment, by transportation, has been long recognized in Scotland, as well as in England. The court can do no less than make use of the power which the law gives them, to send him to a place where he can do no harm. My lords, if I had any doubt about it, your judgment in the case of Mr. Muir, where I was not present, but where the other judges uniformly gave their opinion, that this mode of banishment, by transportation, was the proper punishment for such an offence; that would be sufficient for me to concur in the same opinion. If that punishment was not too much for Skirving, the secretary to this convention, who appears to be a simple deluded man, it cannot be too much for this gentleman, who is, so far as I can judge, a man of abilities, of considerable knowledge, and one who took the lead in this convention; and therefore I concur in the punishment mentioned by your lordship.

Lord Swinton. My lords, I have no difficulty in concurring with your lordships in the punishment you have suggested; and, after what has been said by your lordships, I shall only take notice of a very few things. My lords, the crime of sedition is worse in one respect than most other crimes: many other crimes are committed from the sudden impulse of passion or heat; but this crime is committed with a premeditated, felonious intention, by deliberating upon the means of overturning our constitution. They begin with seditious and inflammatory discourses, endeavouring to draw simple and perhaps well meaning people after them, by pointing out imperfections which will be in every governiment whatever, and placing them in a strong light; and, in the next place, by seditious writings. My lords, in this case the delegates meet, and they appoint a convention of emergency; and what are these con

ventions of emergency? first of all, for the purpose of over-awing parliament; and one of their resolutions is, to pay no regard to such an act of parliament, if it should pass; that is, they despise the legislative authority of the country. Then, in the case of an invasion; and it is easy to see what sort of an invasion was meant. I decline going through all the other particulars of this libel, which is found to be a true libel in every point.

My lords, what have they pretended? They have pretended a reformation in the constitution. I say, my lords, there is no need for it; our constitution reforms itself. With regard to trial by jury, which is the palladium, in my memory three acts have been brought in for reforming this point; one lately, giving juries a power to decide upon the whole matter, in case of libel;* and we have no need of such reformers as these.

My lords, if there is any difference between this case and that of others, the crime of this man is highly aggravated; he is not of this country; he does not feel any hardship from the government of this country; he comes from England for seditious purposes, as stated in this indictment; and therefore, if there is any distinction in this case, it is unfavourable to this panel. I am of opinion, with your lordships, that transportation for fourteen years is the proper punishment.

Lord Dunsinnan.My lords, after the most patient hearing of this case by a jury, they have come to that determination which sensible, honest men alone could come to; namely, finding this panel guilty. There is no doubt but he has been sent into this country, in order to disseminate sedition; and it is evident that he was very sedulous in the execution of that office. The jury having found a verdict of guilty, it comes to the court to consider what punishment this crime deserves; and, my lords, though it is not pleasant to pass judgment upon a fellow-subject, crimes, dangerous as these, cannot be overlooked.

My lords, I am of opinion that this man's guilt is aggravated beyond that of others, who have been in the same circumstances; and that transportation for fourteen years is the proper punishment.

Lord Abercrombie.-My lords, it has been justly observed, that during the course of the trial, the panel now at the bar met with an uncommon share of indulgence; I believe far beyond what any court of justice, either in this or any other country, ever afforded a panel. My lords, I do not feel, and never shall feel myself disposed to say one word to load any man, who stands in the unhappy situation that he does; but I am sorry to observe, that from the moment he appeared at the bar, till the instant he was carried out, his whole conduct was of the most indecent

Stat. 32, G. 3d, c. 60.-See vol. 22, p. 306.

kind. My lords, the crime with which he stands charged, and of which he is found guilty by the unanimous voice of his country, upon the most satisfactory evidence, is that of sedition; and my lords, his crime is highly aggravated by one circumstance, which appeared in the course of the trial, that he has been stirring up sedition in this country, and instigating such unhappy men, as you saw here yesterday--for example, one of the members of the British convention, who was so ignorant of the constitution of his own country, that he was obliged to admit that he never so much as read the claim of rights. My lords, is it to such men as these that we are to resort, to get a redress of the grievances of this country?

My lords, if we are to judge of the means he made use of from his speeches in the minutes of the convention, and the speech which we heard last night, sure I am, that his intention was to stir up a spirit of disaffection and discontent among the ignorant and the uninformed; and, my lords, I consider the circumstance of this panel being a stranger to this country as an aggravation of his crime.

My lords, this society called themselves originally the Friends of the People; they afterwards changed their name, calling themselves the British Convention of Delegates, associated to obtain Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments; a right which the subjects of this country never did enjoy; such a right would tend to bring ruin and destruction upon this country. I say, my lords, that to this man they owed that change, and that form which they assumed, and of which we have heard so much.

My lords, I shall only add, that the punishment proposed is the mildest, which, under all the circumstances of the case, ought to be pronounced.

Lord Justice Clerk.-My lords, after the full discussion which this crime has undergone, within these three months, I shall only just observe, that the crime of which this panel is accused, and now stands convicted by the verdict of a most respectable jury of this country, is sedition ;-endeavouring to overturn the established government of this country, which is, of all crimes known amongst mankind, of the most heinous nature and the most dangerous tendency to society, and well merits the highest arbitrary punishment that this Court can possibly inflict.

You have had two trials before you, one within these few months, in which the panel was condemned to transportation for 14 years, and the other you condemned within these few days for the same term. The moment I heard the verdict I revolved in my own mind the circumstances attending this case; but it is impossible that we can, agreeably to the justice of the country, inflict a less punishment; the only doubt that occurred to me