jesty's subjects to the dislike, resistance or subversion of the established Government and laws, or settled frame and order of things." Then see by what instances and examples he illustrates and explains his definition.-In every one, you will observe, he makes it an indispensable qualification that there should be some direct exhortation to the people to usurp an illegal power.

Mr. Hume is looked upon as a great advocate for the crown in his observations on sedition. The times in which he wrote his account of the law on this subject are supposed to have given a bias to his opinions, of which he was probably insensible. There is a prevailing opinion at least to this effect, in the other end of the island especially, unfounded in all probability, but certainly very generally diffused. This, I say, is a common opinion concerning his treatise; and certainly his argument against sedition is carried as far as it can go. His book was published recently after the circumstances of the country required a more than usually vigorous application of the sedition laws; and this accident may have warped his opinion on the subject. Yet, strictly and vigorously as it may be thought he lays down the law, it will be found that even his grasping and comprehensive description does not include the case of the panels, but that every one of his examples implies that there has been a direct excitement of the people, to take to themselves some part of that power which belongs to other hands. But in the present case there are no words which shew an idea to have been entertained of usurping such a power. I say none of the passages can be founded upon as indicating such a purpose. There are words, indeed, which expressly contradict ths idea of any such purpose. In the speech of Mr. Johnstone, page 14 of the pamphlet, he says, after enumerating our grievances in glowing terms, "But what are we to do, my friends; what does the constitution authorise us to do?" Now this is coming to the point with sufficient 'directness; 'but let us see how it is settled. The orator answers himself thus, "It gives us a right to lay complaints before the King and both Houses of Parliament, and a right to be heard and relieved when we suffer. Let us this day embrace the privileges of our glorious Constitution; let us lay our petitions before then, and assert our rights as men and as Britons." Is there any thing equivalent to sedition here.

I might put the matter also to the test of what the petitioners did. Did they organise any societies to correspond with? Did they affiliate themselves as the United Irishmen did? Did they declare their committees permanent, or provide in any way for their future proceedings? In short what did they do? They did just what they professed to do, they petitioned Parliament, and having sent off their petitions, went home quietly to their families. No meeting has ever been heard of

at Kilmarnock since the evacuation was made in Dean Park; and if that is the way in which the people are to alleviate their distresses, it is at least as innocent as running up scores at the gin-shop. But we must go back to our orator. He proceeds, "Let us, therefore, use every constitutional means to recover our lost rights, rights which our ancestors enjoyed and exercised; let us be firm and unanimous in our resolves, that we will not be deprived of our privileges any longer, that we claim then as our birthright, and by our quiet and constitutional conduct shew onr enemies that we hate anarchy, confusion, and usurpation, and that we want nothing but what is for the general good of the country." But these, it has been said, are pretences, put on to disguise the real wickedness of their designs. I think you are in no danger, Gentlemen, of believing that. Whatever faults these people may have committed, I am confident you will not find them guilty of hypocrisy. My own conviction is, that they have spoken more violently than they intended; but I am sure you will give them credit at least for all the moderation they profess.

There is a great deal more to be said on the other parts of this publication. Mr. Craig makes an eloquent harangue. There is a great deal of poetry in his speech. "Being then, my brethren, impelled by necessity, let us approach, displaying reason and resolutions like men who know their duty and their object. Yea, with these and similar principles may we undauntedly go forward, and like legitimate sons come to the years of majority, let us in the name of law and justice demand the inestimable and dearly purchased bequest of our worthy progenitors, that we may enjoy it ourselves, and transmit it to a lauding posterity. And so act, awaiting the fiat of Him who regardeth not the persons of men, but attendeth to the cries of the poor, and pleadeth the cause of the distressed; always taking for our encouragement the success of the importunate Widow recorded for our instruction, who by her incessant demands prevailed with the unjust judge, that although, without any regard to his high obligations, yet was not totally destitute of that principle which makes all human kind quake, when reminded of neglected - duty. May we be actuated by the same courage to go and do likewise." Here, again, you see how distinctly their views were limited to the peaceful iteration of petitions.

The purpose of the Resolutions, too, has been entirely misunderstood. In the 5th it is said, "That the debt, now amounting to nearly 1,000 millions, has been contracted in the prosecution of unjust and unnecessary wars, by a corrupt administration, uniformly supported by a House of Commons, which cannot be said, with any justice, to be a fair and equal representation of the country, but which for the most part is composed of men put in by a borough faction, who have usurped the rights of the people; and who by undue means have

contrived to return a majority of members of that House." The facts here stated are trite and stale, but the passage is worth noting, as affording, and that in the most authoritative and only deliberate part of the publication, the most clear and complete evidence of what they meant when they used expressions vituperative of the present House of Commons.

The 9th Resolution is, "Being, therefore, impressed with the truth of these Resolutions, the meeting resolve to present petitions to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, and to both Houses of Parliament, requesting_his Royal Highness in particular, to assemble Parliament without delay; to call upon IT immediately to adopt such measures as may tend to restore to the people their undoubted right in the representation, -to order, in the name of the people, an immediate reduction of the taxes and the standing army, the abolition of all unmerited pensions, sinecures, grants, and other emoluments, as the surest way of establishing on a firm and lasting basis the rights of the crown, and the privileges of the people; and that in all time coming, no person who has an office, or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons. 12. Wm. III. c. 2." It is quite plain from the context, that it is the whole Parliament, and not the Prince, that is called upon to order an immediate reduction of the taxes, the standing army, and so forth; -so that the eloquent exposition of the lord advocate upon this passage was founded upon a manifest misconception of its meaning.

I have only to call your attention to the next resolution, which clearly shows the scope and extent of their views and threatenings, " And the meeting hereby resolve to make known to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, and to both Houses of Parliament, that they will not cease sending up one petition after another, and using every constitutional measure insured to them by the laws of the country till they obtain the restoration of their rights and privileges as men and as citizens of the state." This is the only practical resolution they came to; and even this was not acted upon, for it appears that no other meetings have been held, or petitions transmitted from that time to this. In the same way the meaning of the words, "Shall we bear this," or similar terms, is, throughout explained in the clearest and most precise way to be, Shall we bear our sufferings without complaint, without murmuring, without stating our grievances by application to the proper quarter? "So far from ceasing to complain," they say "the clamour of our cries for redress shall never cease to ring in their ears, till the abhorrent temple of corruption be annihilated, and the banners of freedom wave from the heights of Dover to the mountains of the North." That is a lofty passage, and full of eloquence certainly. But in every one of the speeches, in which it is anxiously stated, not only that there are grievances, but griev

ances which could not be borne, what do they propose to do? Do they propose to attack the throne? No; they merely say, We shall apply, like the importunate widow, and reiterate our clamour till we weary you, or by the force of our reasoning, prevail over your prejudices.

There was one part of my learned friend the lord advocate's speech, of which I am really unwilling to say exactly what I think, or express the feelings it excited. I mean the passage regarding the army, when he spoke as if there had been a disposition entertained by some of those at the meeting to induce the army to rebel against the government. The only libel I have heard to-day is the supposing, for a moment, that such an intention could be entertained, and with any the slightest hope of success. The policy of keeping up a standing army was long the subject of discussion in parliament, and the danger of it to the constitution was much insisted on, while, latterly, such a danger has been less apprehended, and the great consideration in questions regarding the army has been the expense which it necessarily imposes on the country. But whatever opinion may be entertained on this subject, there was no discussion at this meeting on the expediency of a standing army; and the passage in question is most manifestly intended merely to meet this common and almost obsolete Whig topic, and to show that it was not from that quarter that danger was to be apprehended. I say that this was obviously its meaning, if indeed it is not rather to be regarded as a piece of mere declamation upon a very popular and inviting theme. Nobody at present thinks ill of the army: on the contrary, it is scarcely possible to speak on any public subject, without taking an opportunity of saying something in the praise of the army; and to endeavour at a piece of eloquence in its favour is the ordinary style of writers of all descriptions. The hope of seducing it from its duty and allegiance, if it were not too wicked, is far too absurd to be entertained even by the most desperate conspirators.

In another speech it is said, "It is high time, when they have robbed us of our money, deprived us of our friends, violated our rights, and abused our privileges," it is high time for what? to take up arms and overthrow the government? no such matter-only "To demand redress for such treatment." The orator then goes on, But, methinks I hear them say, we are determined to give no redress, we have huddled ourselves into places, pensions and sinecures, and we are determined to hold them. This I think is their language." Well, well, what then? In this desperate case, proceeds this seditious orator, “ We must seek redress from another quarter; we must petition his royal highness the Prince Regent to remove our grievances! to give us a parliament of our annual choosing, which will represent us in a form agreeable to our wishes, and agreeable

to the constitution." Is it said that this is hardly a cover for professed rebellion? In answer, here is another passage, "The unanimity of our sentiments and exertions, agreeable to the constitution, will once more dispel the cloud which eclipses the resplendent and animating rays of liberty, and will again make her shine forth in this once happy country with unimpeded effulgence." The last speech in the pamphlet ends thus: "Permit me now to conclude in the inimitable language of our celebrated bard, and friend of liberty, Robert Burns-May tyranny in the ruler, and licentiousness in the people, find in each of us here an inexorable foe."

There is another passage where allusion is made to reverend hirelings, upon which the lord advocate bestowed his eloquence as needlessly, and, I am sure, with as little effect as on the passage about the army. In that quarter of the country, a tendency to fanaticism rather than to irreligion might be expected; as it was there that presbyterianism first struck root and in this very pamphlet you will find passages similar to those employed by the Covenanters in the Tales of my Landlord. "It is there you will see how Egypt flourished under the wise administration of Joseph;and what the heard-hearted and inquisitorial Pharaoh did for the sous of the Nile;-it is there you will see what Soioinon did for Israel;-with what Jeroboam, Nebat's wicked son, and others, brought upon the (now) wandering sons of Jacob. It is there you will see what Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, and Belshazzar, did for the now extinct Babylonians;-how Persia rose under Cyrus, and sunk under the bloody Cambyses," &c. &c. I am confident, indeed, that you cannot look into any part of the publication, without seeing great reverence for scripture, a calm, temperate reliance on the assistance of Providence in all good acts, a reliance to be founded on good moral conduct and prayer. The term, "reverend hirelings," employed by these rude orators, might be considered perhaps as not undeserved by cer ain clergymen who leave their proper duty for making proselytes in politics; and persons who do not agree with them might say, with any purpose but an intention to bring discredit on religion, that they had been hirelings in certain parts of their conduct. Nothing is more innocent. The attack might perhaps have been made in a more decorous manner, but surely there is no pretence for saying here, that there is any design to excite a spirit of irreligion.

I have now gone through the publication; and I leave it to you to determine on its nature, only reminding you that it is a fundamental rule of law, that a seditious intention is necessary to constitute sedition. You will therefore consider, whether the object of these people was merely to petition parliament, or whether, under the false and assumed pretext of petitioning, their object was to excite sedition among the people, and to spread mischief VOL, XXXIIi.

and disturbance in the country. In judging of this you will remember what you heard in evidence as to Mr. Baird, of whom you were told that he would be the last man to join in any treasonable or seditious enterprises, and that he was accustomed at all times to check the folly and infatuation of his neighbours.

I have already detained you, I am afraid, unreasonably long, but I cannot leave the subject without taking some notice of the precedents respecting trials and convictions for sedition which have taken place in this Court. They are all of very recent date, having occurred within the memory of most of us; I believe there was no trial for sedition earlier than the year 1792. There are, indeed, some ancient cases thinly scattered in the records of the Court, but in all these the crime was accompanied with other offences, by which the sedition was aggravated. There is no case of mere sedition, earlier than the date I have mentioned. That date must strike you at once as affecting the character of all those precedents. For it is never to be forgotten, that they, one and all, took place at a time, when the minds of Juries, and of Courts, and indeed of all persons in the country, were in a state of unprecedented alarm for the safety of the constitution; at a time when acts and expressions, which undoubtedly would not have been taken cognizance of, in happier and more serene seasons, were considered as of the most dangerous tendency;-at a time when this country had recently, engaged in an alarming war with a powerful enemy,-a war, not arising from disputes about territory or points of national honour, but which, proceeding from enthu→ siasm and madness on the one hand, and undefined fear and resentment on the other, arrayed every individual in both countries in personal hostility against every other:—a war, indeed, proclaimed against all established governments, by a country whose whole interior exhibited a phasis of confusion and crime, and breathed forth a pestilential air, which threatened to spread the contamination through all the neighbouring regions. We fought not, as in former wars, with men formidable only by their numbers, their skill, or their courage, but with men whom we imagined to be armed with a deadly poison, and zealous to spread contagion wherever they went. In these times, not only was there a raging war with that nation, which was loudly threatening an invasion of our shores,-but it is impossible to deny that there was an established centre of rebellion at home, looking up to France as the great redresser of wrongs, asking its assistance to rear up every where, the cottage on the ruins of the palace, and to carry into execution the most visionary and absurd plans for the regeneration of society. Communica tions of a most dangerous nature were passing between the two countries, and the crisis seemed as imminent as any the world ever saw. Such was the distressing condition of this country, that it was impossible to remit I

for an instant, the most watchful police over the conduct of the disaffected. And what was actually their conduct in that season of general alarm? Why, they were found in innumerable multitudes holding meetings throughout the whole land,-not going out one day under a feeling of distress to petition the legislature, but forming themselves into permanent and affiliated societies, corresponding with one another throughout the whole kingdom, and with societies abroad, and smitten to such a degree with an ambition to imitate every thing in France, as to adopt French names and forms in their associations. In short, an organised system of disaffection was formed, calculated to strengthen the hands of the enemy, and to unite all the domestic desperadoes that could be mustered against our own established government. Such was the condition of the country when the trials for sedition were first brought on. In the course of ten months, societies had been established, not only in every considerable town in Great Britain, but in every little village, which, as branches of the general society, appointed delegates to it. I think I am not exaggerating the condition of the country at that time, with a view to suggest, nor do I give this as an apology for some of the proceedings which then took place; but I state it as it really was, that you may know the true character of those proceedings.

The first trial was that of Mr. Muir. It is with pain I recollect that case. With all due respect to the Court and the jury that tried it, I cannot think it a precedent to be commended. I cannot but consider it as an occurrence to be lamented-since unfortunately it cannot be forgotten. Yet, in that case there were many circumstances of aggravation, of which there is no shadow to be found here. Mr. Muir was a member of the society of the Friends of the People in Kirkintilloch and in Glasgow. He had gone to France, where he remained till after the war was declared. He came back to Ireland, and assisted at several meetings of the United Irishmen, and then returned to this country, when he was arrested and brought to trial. The charges against him were relevant. He was accused of having excited the people to disaffection to the king and the established government he was accused of having industriously circulated the work entitled the Rights of Man, and other publications of a pernicious and seditious description. I am old enough to have attended the trial; I was not then at the bar, but I perfectly remember the leading features of the case. I think the evidence was scanty; but still the charge was relevant; and if the proof had been satisfactory he was guilty of sedition, and therefore liable to punishment. At that time there was a combination which seemed pregnant with danger to all existing establishments, a combination formed by societies all over the country, who appointed deputies to a

* 2 How. Mod. St. Tr. 117:

general meeting. The circulation of such works as Paine's Rights of Man was at that period likely to produce much evil. I believe, however, that feelings of compassion for Mr. Muir were general. I hope they are perfectly consistent with utter detestation of sedition. I believe sentiments of regret for the necessity which led to his prosecution and conviction were universal; and I say, with all due submission to the law and the verdict of the jury, that very many loyal subjects thought there was room for a verdict of acquittal-that the bulk of the nation regarded the sentence as unnecessarily severe.

The next case was that of Fyshe Palmer.* He was also connected with the Friends of Freedom, and had circulated a political handbill in Dundee and in Edinburgh addressed to the lowest people. Hundreds and hundreds of these, addressed to all and sundry, had been by him committed to the winds of heaven; and surely to sow such doctrines broadcast in this reckless way, without pretence of any special end, was criminal and punishable. The handbill contained much inflammatory matter, and was proved to have been circulated by him, It was addressed to all and sundry, and at a time when the minds of the people were in a dangerous state of irritation. No direct remedy was proposed for any of the evils complained of, and the only object in view seemed to be a dangerous usurpation of power. I say there was real sedition in that case, and that it had no resemblance to the present, where there was merely one meeting, and one set of speeches, for the special object of preparing a petition to parliament-with the preparation of which the whole business actually closed.

The next and the only other cases were those of the members of the British Convention, Skirving,+ Margarot, Gerrald,§ and others; and certainly the existence of that extraordinary association gave a peculiar character to the whole of these cases. That formidable body, you may remember, was composed of a set of persons acting as delegates from the remotest parts of Great Britain, and who had no lawful business in this place, and no other visible purpose than to excite disaffectionwho had no such thing in view as petitioning the legislature, but who wished to organise a power independent of it, unknown to the constitution, and incompatible with the existence of its great institutions. They had private meetings, and committees of emergency, some of which were only to act in the event of an invasion by a hostile force. Even taking the statement which was made by those persons in their own defence, and looking to the situation of the times abroad and at home, it is impossible to doubt that it was necessary to put down the Convention, and to inflict pu

2 How. Mod. St. Tr. 237. + 2 How. Mod. St. Tr. 391. 2 How. Mod. St. Tr. 603. $2 How. Mod. St. Tr. 803.