government and legislature, and to withdraw therefrom the confidence and affections of the people, and fill the realm with trouble and dissension; in which speech there were the following, or similar wicked and seditious expressions:-"That our sufferings are insupportable is demonstrated to the world; and that they are neither temporary, nor occasion ed by a transition from war to peace, is palpable to all, though all have not the courage to avow it. The fact is, we are ruled by men only solicitous for their own aggrandizement; and they care no farther for the great body of the people, than they are subservient to their accursed purposes.-If you are convinced of this, my countrymen, I would therefore put the question-Are you degenerate enough to bear it? shall we, whose forefathers set limits to the all-grasping power of Rome: Shall we, whose forefathers, at the never-to-be-forgotten field of Bannockburn, told the mighty Edward, at the head of the most mighty army that ever trod on Britain's soil Hitherto shalt thou come, and no farther-Shall we, I say, whose forefathers defied the efforts of foreign tyranny to enslave our beloved country, meanly permit, in our day, with out a murmur, a base oligarchy to feed their filthy vermin on our vitals, and rule us as they will? No, my countrymen. Let us lay our petitions at the foot of the throne, where sits our august prince, whose gracious nature will incline his ear to listen to the cries of the people, which he is bound to do by the laws of the country. But should he be so infatuated as to turn a deaf ear to their just petition, he has forfeited their allegiance. Yes, my fellow-townsmen, in such a case, to hell with our allegiance." Which speech the said Alexander McLaren did afterwards cause to be printed and published. And the said Thomas

Baird, having been present at the said meeting, did afterwards print and publish a seditious tract or statement, containing a number of seditious and inflammatory remarks and assertions, such as" and a House of Commons

but the latter is corrupted; it is decayed and worn out; it is not really what it is called; it is not a House of Commons," &c.

The prisoners, who were at large on bail, appeared at the bar, and the indictment having been read over, they pleaded Not Guilty.

After some discussion concerning the relevancy, a jury was chosen, and the Lord Advocate called the following witnesses.

pe

Andrew Finnie, merchant in Kilmarnock, attended the meeting at Dean Park: there were about 4000 present, mostly of the lower orders. The prisoner, M'Laren, opened the proceedings by a speech explaining the nature of the meeting, which was to deliberate as to the necessity of titioning for parliamentary reform. Witness did not recollect particularly his speech, except one passage near the end, viz. "Let us lay our petitions at the foot of the throne, where sits our august Prince, whose generous nature will incline his ear to hear the cries of his people, which he is bound to do by the constitutional laws of the country, and we are thereby bound to give him our allegiance; but if he should be so infatuated as to turn a deaf ear to the general cries of the people, to hell with allegiance !" Witness afterwards saw a printed pamphlet, containing the proceedings of the meeting, and M'Laren's speech; and the one shewn him in Court was one of them. There is some difference between the printed speech and the one as delivered; the words "he (the Prince) has forfeited his allegiance," were never mentioned. Mr Baird did not speak at the meeting; but witness

heard him observe, that it was a pity the expression about allegiance had been mentioned. M'Laren said to the committee, that if there was any thing wrong in his speech, to keep it out altogether; and Baird said, that the passage about allegiance was a very indecent expression. M'Laren told witness, that the passage about allegiance was a quotation from Shakespeare.

William Merrie, wright in Kilmarnock, also attended the meeting in Dean Park, and corroborated the statement of the preceding witness. The words made use of by M'Laren were wishing the people to address the throne, and he said to hell with allegiance, or such allegiance, if the Regent turned a deaf ear to the voice of the people. M'Laren spoke in favourable terms of his Royal Highness, as" his august Prince," and in terms suitable to a loyal subject.

Hugh Crawford, printer in Kilmarnock, printed the pamphlet; part of the manuscript was brought to the witness by David Andrews, writer in Kilmarnock. Witness thinks he saw the prisoner Baird once attending the printing. Witness has not been paid, but he looks to Mr Andrews, Mr Finnie, and Mr Baird for payment; the latter got about five or six dozen of copies.

Thomas Murray, journeyman to the preceding witness, printed the pamphlet. The pannel, Baird, was twice or three times at the office, along with Mr Andrews, and they looked over the first proof.

James Johnston, muslin-agent in Kimarnock, was member of the committee along with M'Laren, Baird, and others, who drew up the resolutions afterwards read to the public meeting. There was a meeting of the committee afterwards, about printing the speeches, and M'Laren and Baird were present. Witness gave in his own speech, but he never read the pamph

let, nor even his own speech. Witness has heard M'Laren say, that the words "to hell with our allegiance" were not in the original manuscript; he did not hear the speech delivered. M'Laren complained that he had been misrepresented in the words following the word "to" and ending with " allegiance," which he said he never had made use of. This complaint was made on the day M'Laren received his indictment.-(Cross-examined.) Witness has heard the prisoner Baird often complain, that it was a pity the passage about allegiance had been spoken at all. Witness has occasion to know the distressed state of the weaving trade; an active weaver, working fourteen hours a-day (from an average witness has made among his workmen), can make only 5s. 6d. weekly, and it is even better than some time back. The meeting was solely held to petition parliament and the Prince Regent. Witness has known M'Laren for eight years, and never saw any thing in him but quiet and orderly conduct. He was a member of the rifle corps at Kilmarnock. He objected particularly to the printing of his speech, as it had been made up in a hurried manner, and he had no intention that morning of speaking at all.

Mr Grant here read an extract from the petition, as in the printed journals of the House of Commons, in which the petitioners complain of the corrupt representation, and that seats were bought and sold as openly as tickets for the opera. Witness declares they are the words used, and the petition was ordered to lie on the table of the House of Commons.

Hugh Wilson, weaver in Kilmarnock, attended the public meeting: Johnston was preses, and McLaren spoke first. Has seen the printed statement, and it seemed correct; it was sold at Baird's shop, and witness bought

the copy now shewn him there, for fourpence. (Cross-examined.)-The object of the public meeting was to petition parliament and the Prince Regent for reform. It was a very stormy, windy day, and there was a great difficulty of hearing. Witness has known McLaren for some years, and always considered him a loyal and peaceable subject.-Witness has heard him argue on politics, and he always took the government side of the question.

David Bow, shopman to the prisoner, Baird, proved the selling of the pamphlet at his shop to the extent of some dozens. They were sold at different other places.

James Samson, weaver, stated, that the account of his speech, as given in the pamphlet, is nearly correct. He did not compose it himself; he got it from the prisoner, Baird, and read it at the meeting.-He said a Mr Burt had sent it to him to read at the meeting, as he could not attend himself.

The declarations of the prisoners were then read, which closed the case for the crown.

Exculpatory Proof.

James Samson called back. The object of the public meeting was, to petition parliament, and for no other purpose. Different persons were proposed in the committee to open the meeting. McLaren was proposed, and he declined; he suggested other persons, and witness was one; but upon their refusal he undertook it himself. M'Laren was remarked as one of the most loyal men in the place where he dwelt, and he always argued in favour of the government, against the opposi

tion.

John Andrew, Esq. chief magistrate of Kilmarnock, recollects the public meeting. The prisoner, Baird, met him one or two days before, and said he had been appointed by the committee to ask his permission to meet;

but, if he refused, they would give it up. Witness said, he did not approve of it, but he did not think he had any power to stop it. The meeting was held, and no tumult or riot ensued. Mr Baird is a highly respectable man, and was a captain in a volunteer corps.

The Rev. James Kirkwood gave Mr Baird an excellent character. He has conversed with him on politics, and he expressed a desire that the popular part of the constitution should be strengthened and increased by a reformation in the House of Commons, but only by means the most constitutional.

John Wyllie, surveyor of taxes, knows Mr Baird, who appears a friend to the constitution, but inclined to a reform in the representation in the House of Commons.

John Brown, writer, Kilmarnock, considers Mr Baird as one of the most respectable persons in Kilmarnock.

The evidence having been closed on both sides,

The Lord Advocate addressed the jury, in a speech which occupied two hours and a half. In commenting up. on the evidence, his lordship observed that nothing was farther from the wish of his majesty's government than to prevent the undoubted right of the subject to petition both the throne and the parliament; but still, when meetings were duly called for that purpose, it was the bounden duty of persons addressing the assembled multitude, to keep exactly to the business for which such meeting was called, and not by inflammatory and seditious remarks and assertions to degrade and bring into contempt the government and legislature, to withdraw the confidence and affection of the people, and fill the kingdom with bloodshed, trouble, and dissension. In the present case the meeting had been held with the ostensible purpose of petitioning for reform; but the prisoners are found vilifying and abusing a component and essential

part of the constitution-nay, encouraging and advising the people to throw off their allegiance, if what they conceived their just petition was refused. His lordship then entered, at very great length, into the definition of the crime of sedition, and quoted the cases of Muir, Palmer, Skirving, and Gerald, in 1793, 4, and 5, as illustrative of his argument; and concluded by calling upon the jury to return a verdict of guilty against both prisoners.

Mr Clerk, as counsel for M'Laren, addressed the jury. He observed, that the meeting here held was for a legitimate purpose, viz. to petition the throne, and both Houses of Parliament. No riot, no confusion had taken place-the civil magistrate had given his consent and petitions, couched in even stronger terms than the speeches upon the hustings, had been received by both Houses of Parliament and laid upon the table. [Here the learned counsel read a number of petitions from the printed journals of the House of Commons, to shew that language of even a more offensive nature had been stated to the House, and these petitions received and laid upon the table.] When a person attends a meeting for the cause of reform, and states his opinion to the public assembled, the fairest interpretation ought to be put on what is there said; and it was unfair to cull out particular clauses and expressions, to found against him a charge of sedition. After commenting at length on the general features of the case and evidence, the learned counsel concluded with appealing to the feelings and good sense of the jury, from whom he confidently expected a verdict of acquittal.

Mr Jeffrey addressed the jury, as counsel for Mr Baird, in an eloquent speech of three hours and a half. The right of petioning, he contended, was, since the glorious Revolution, the inherent right of every Briton. When

assembled to consider grievances, was it for a moment to be supposed, that persons, such as had assembled at this public meeting, would express their ideas in such refined terms as those in a different station of life, and with a superior education would do? The liberty of speech upon such occasions was licensed, not only by the constitu tion, but by every law authority in England; in so far as expressions, much more inflammatory than those here charged, were daily used upon the hustings in the southern part of the kingdom, without the persons so expressing themselves being laid hold of by the public prosecutor. The fact was, that the law of England mildly looked upon her children, when expressing their grievances, and probably overstepping the strict bounds of cor. rectness of speech, in the same light as a physician would look upon a patient in a slight fever or delirium, rather to be cured by emollient than coercive medicines. If, then, the people of England had the glorious right of stating their grievances with all the phlegmatic characteristics of that nation, was the hot and stormy Scotchman, smartting, as he imagined himself, under supposed grievances, not entitled to express himself, unless in terms of the strictest propriety and decorum, because an obsolete law had made that sedition which was perfectly consistent with the rights of a free nation? Weak must that government be, which was under the necessity of catching at the unguarded expressions of a few obscure individuals. The right of petitioning, the learned counsel observed, for annual parliaments and universal suffrage, was legitimate and constitutional;-these were principles recog nized in the theory of our constitution; and although the jury might be of a different opinion, yet, God forbid that any man should be punished for differing from them in opinion, while