interesting reading, a person comes up and pushes through the crowd. In an idle, discontented, probably not very moral or correct person, you know how craving the mind is for stimulants of this kind; all tales of wonder, and all tales of crimes, are gladly sought after by that idle part of the population, whose passions being blunted on one hand, and excited on the other, are most easily led to that sort of delight which the exhibition of horrors supplies to their uncultivated minds. În the midst of this wonderful story, a grave person comes forward, and insists on interrupting the orator; and before he gets half way through reading the paper, he insists on tearing it down and carrying it away. I do not say it was becoming or right; I do not say it was not very wrong; I do not say it was not suspicious, to use the language this witness recollects the prisoner to have used: but the substance of it is, he asks what right have you to interfere? and he is answered, I am a magistrate. Now, we all know, that in the towns of this country the name of magistrate is almost exclusively bestowed on the borough magistrates; and though, in the law, the justices of the peace are magistrates, that is not the common acceptation of the word, especially in the royal burghs. There is a fat gentlemen in a black coat calls himself a magistrate; he is supposed to be a dean of guild, or a bailie, or something having the badge of authority; therefore I explain the rudeness, the insolence, and violence of speech, when he said, where is your warrant? As Mr Hardie had no gold chain, the prisoner naturally thought he was usurping the character; he never saw his person before, and therefore, his appeal was unsuccessful, from the fact that he did not see in that circle any person known to him. There was a mistake, in short, in the use of the word magistrate by this person,

certainly entitled to that appellation, which would appear a deception to the mind of a Glasgow weaver, who would say, I know all the magistrates of Glasgow, and this is not one of them. And, after all, is it to be conceived that this man, hearing those fine phrases, the common slang of patriotism, all the usual verbiage, by which a man's head is apt to be bewildered, would follow, from a blundering reader, all that was given out from this public desk in this manner, and have an exact perception of the tenor of the work? He had heard enough, however, to excite his imagination, as all bombast does with the ignorant, and he thought it fine and flashy, and was desirous to hear it out; and I ask, which of us, if we had seen such a performance, would not have wished to read the whole of it? which of us would not have put it in our pockets, and read it word by word in the conclaves of our associates, just as Hardie and his associates were reading it then?-There were words, the Doctor said, hetween Mr Hardie the magistrate and some of the other people; and there were, it appears from Mr Hardie, but he says he cannot recollect more than he stated, that he insisted on taking the paper down; and this rude person, in all likelihood, not having a command of temper, was angry that he should be interrupted, and said, I will be damned if you take it down. You shall take my life's blood sooner. That was, no doubt, a violent observation; but if a man is once defied and comes to the heat of blood arising from scuffling, we all know the indecorum to which he may be hurried; and I ask, whether, under these circumstances, you can hold that that language can in common sense, to say nothing of humanity or law, be received by you as a presumption-though you have nothing to do with presumptions, and ought to discard them with resentment from

your minds can that language afford any sort of evidence that he knew more than he was then hearing, or that he approved of, or understood, what he actually heard? I do submit there is a complete failure of the evidence on this point, and that it would be the most tremendous of all constructions of evidence, worse than any construction of treason ever attempted, to convict a person of a capital crime on such a foundation as this.

Gentlemen, I say there is not a particle of evidence with regard to his adoption or approbation of that paper, and that every thing that occurred, not only may be explained consistent ly with his not approving, and not understanding even that part which he heard, but in common sense, consider ing his condition of life, it is by far the most natural presumption; and if the favour were the other way, you would naturally and necessarily adopt it: And therefore I cannot too much caution you in the outset against allowing your minds to be poisoned by listening to any suggestions of this kind, in viewing that legal, and pure, direct, or circumstantial evidence, by which only you can find a fellow-creature guilty of the tremendous offence charged against this unhappy man to day.

Then of the other hand-bills I have still less to say, before I dismiss them altogether. You have heard it proved that this unfortunate man was on the road, not laudably, I fear, nor innocently employed, but, I say, not proved to be treasonably employed, along with five or six other persons, when they met this serjeant, whom you saw examined to-day; and there a person, who I think it is admitted was not the prisoner, did pull out of his pocket, after some conversation, a parcel of papers, and gave the serjeant one of them; which, it is said, has been proved to be another copy of the same

hand-bill. I say, in the first-place, that this is not proved; that there is a fatal and unsuppliable link in the chain of evidence, by which it ought to be connected with the person who gave it to Cook; and, therefore, if that person had been the prisoner, it would not have been a crime, because it is not proved to be the same with the one now produced. Evidence, from recollection of similarity of tenor, is not receiveable evidence in any crime, much less in the highest crime, where the proof is most difficult, and required to be most complete. But, Gentle men, supposing the bill to be traced from the hand of the prisoner to Cook, how is that better evidence than the other of his approbation of its contents? I put it to you not as persons who are bound to listen to quibbles and legal distinctions, but I put it to you on the principle of common sense, as applied to evidence of simple facts, whether the delivery of a folded paper by one man shall amount to evidence against another person then present, that he has a knowledge of the contents of that paper, and approves of its contents and circulation. This person takes a bunch of them out of his pocket, and gives one folded up; can any thing be so hazardous and full of peril to all men who may be in evil company, if they are to be answerable, not only for what they see done and approved of, but for what may be done, in one sense, in their presence, but which is not done at all with reference to them? It is the knowledge of the contents of the paper that constitutes the whole guilt; and though the paper is handed over in the presence of another, you have nothing to found the presumption that a person merely present, of whom it is not proved that he saw the inside of it, is to be loaded with the whole sealed-up volume of guilt, which is not unsealed in his presence for an instant. Gen

tlemen, the maxim of law, that a man, if he sees a thing done in his presence without disavowing it, is liable for the thing so done, is a hard maxim in some circumstances. Some men from fear, and others from inattention, may be present at words spoken and acts done, which they ought to dissent from and disavow; and though they have had the purpose and inclination so to do, may, from inattention or stupidity, be prevented from doing it. I say, it is hard they should still be made jointly responsible with the actor or speaker; but if they are to be answerable for sealed papers delivered over in their presence, there is no end to the injustice that may be done, nor any limit to the anomalies and perversions of law that may follow. A plot against the man himself, a treasonable or murderous scheme against a man, may be handed over to a person in his presence, and he may thus be held accessary to his own condemnation-what limit is there to that presumption? I ask you if you think there is any evidence to fasten on the prisoner the guilt of that paper, or any intention to approve of the paper, by the circumstance of a folded copy of it being passed from the pocket of one man to that of another, who carries it away? -and yet that is the whole evidence with regard to his connection with this paper, with which, it is said, he is chargeable, and of which, it is said, there is evidence of his approbation and adoption. If you think that is evidence, I own I should be less inclined to congratulate the country on the institution of which you form a part, and less willing to trust my client to your decision; but I will not believe it is possible; and, I am persuaded, that you never will hold that this hand-bill is to be brought against this individual, farther than as proof that it was posted in two places in Glasgow, and that he had read it before

he left the place; but that he took any step connected with it is a matter of the loosest inference, and is not rendered even probable by any of the circumstances given in evidence to-day,

Then, Gentlemen, what are the other circumstances? I really am not aware that there is any of any formidable or considerable nature, except the statement contained in the prisoner's own declarations, that have been read to you; and, Gentlemen, it is always most painful, I believe, to the prosecutors, and I am sure it is to a Jury, when any material and necessary part of a man's guilt is brought out by his own, as it must turn out, most imprudent, and perhaps inaccurate expressions and declarations.

Gentlemen, such declarations and admissions are usually receivable evidence; but they are far indeed from being conclusive evidence, and I rather think I may say, that unless where they connect facts that are proved by extrinsic evidence, though they may be allowable, it is hardly advisable to rely much on them. Why, Gentlemen, the most solemn and complete of all admissions, I believe, is hardly ever stated as evidence, and certainly never considered, or dwelt upon in evidence, in the case of a trial for crime-I mean the confession of the prisoner himself, in the presence of the Jury or the Court, although deliberately made, if ultimately, and in time, he withdraws and retracts it. Such is the humanity of our law, that it allows a plea of guilty which has been put in, upon reconsideration, to be withdrawn; and the fact of that plea having been entered, though the most solemn admission of guilt that can well be imagi ned, I believe, in practice is never urged or referred to as evidence of guilt at all, in summing up the proof; yet of all confessions it is the most complete, and ought to be of the most unequivocal and decisive authority. I state that

to you as an ordinary illustration; but you must be aware how repugnant it is to all those feelings with which the administration of justice ought to be tempered, and without which it would scarcely be justice for human creatures, that the elements of a man's condemnation, who does not intend to plead guilty, should in any case be extracted or construed out of statements that are obtained from him before a magistrate, or otherwise.

But, Gentlemen, one would apply this caution with infinitely greater, and in this case, I think, with decisive strength, to that part, which is the only part of the declaration, that I think is material, in which an avowal of the purpose of this armament is taken down. It is said he armed himself in order to obtain a reform in Parliament, or some such thing, or with a view to obtain a reform in Parliament. Now, Gentlemen, considering how these examinations are taken, I think it cannot be held that these were the precise words the prisoner uttered; and in a matter not of naked fact, but of opinion, and relating to notions of a political kind, I scarcely think it allowable to give a statement of the objects of a man in such concise terms as these, and then to catch at such expressions as decisive of guilt, which would not otherwise settle on him: For while the declarations as to matter of fact may in general be safely received, the expression of opinions or motives, which are always imperfectly given, and are always modified and retracted on farther investigation, ought not to be clapped down in two lines, and no questions asked in explanation. I impute no blame here to the magistrates. I am sure they act most conscientiously; but that is not the mode of proceeding in this country. What the expressions are I really do not care, but they plainly admit of an explanation, and an explanation with the

statement of which I shall conclude the general observations I have to make to make to you, and nearly finish all I have to say.

Gentlemen, I have very little doubt you may think it probable that the arming of these men, and their marching from Glasgow, had some connection with politics and with reform, and I do not think more can be inferred from the statement in the declaration; but there is a wide step to be taken from that to an admission, which the subsequent and preceding parts of the declaration negative, and you can never suppose that he intended to contradict himself, that he intended no violence to any body, and that, in point of fact, the speculations about annual parliaments and universal suffrage, were afterwards explained to be what he had heard other people say; but he had hardly any opinion on the subject himself, not being in the habit of attending much to such subjects, which I think you are bound, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to believe was the case. Now, Gentlemen, very grievous offences may be committed by persons engaged in the pursuit of such a reform, as appears to have been in favour with this person and his associates; but, Gentlemen, I think a great proportion of this, and all that is necessary to suppose here, may be supposed, without involving him in the guilt of Treason. The statement he gives is substantially, that he went out, having no purpose of hurting any body, to bring in other people who were friendly to the cause to Glasgow, and that he took arms for this and no other purpose. I am aware this is treading on dangerous ground; but the case would be different in that view of it from the view the prosecutor takes here;-if it was merely determined to hold a meeting of a tumultuous nature, to have a petition drawn up at a great radical meeting, and determined also,

:

that if the military, or police, came to disperse them, they would use force to prevent their dispersion. This is the worst view of it and this will not amount to treason. But all that the declarant says is, that they intended to go and tell the people in the country that the cause was going on, and if they would come and make more noise, and make it appear that it is the general wish that such reform should be granted, we think it will be granted; and that the prisoner therefore went to get a large number to petition, and went armed on this recruiting service to prevent the interference of the police.

Gentlemen, this is a high crime: but it is not Treason, undoubtedly not the Treason laid here; for it is a very different thing from a person arming himself, on purpose, by active force, to overwhelm the government. If a man arms to protect himself, it may be an illegal act, if the act in which he is so to be protected is in itself illegal. But if the resolutions, and the petitions, and the speeches of the convocation of persons, had been carried through, they would only have amount ed to the crime of sedition; and if upon any attack made upon them they had resisted, that would have been only a riot, not a treasonable waging of war. I admit fully, at the same time, that there is no distinction between a person saying I am not armed to overthrow the government by force, but only to defend myself against those who prevent my overthrowing it peaceably. But if I am only collecting meetings without proof of their intending any such overthrow, that is not Treason, and resisting dispersion there is not Treason. I do not go, therefore, upon the shadow of a distinction between active and passive force; but there must be evidence that it was intended to commit that which was Treason; and resisting the dispersion of a

radical or a seditious meeting is not Treason. If smugglers are pursued by soldiers, who are employed to arrest them, it is a riot to resist, but it is not the crime with which you and I have to do to-night; although it is resisting lawful authority, although it is waging war against the King's forces in the performance of their duty, in preventing the execution of a criminal and improper purpose then a-foot, and then following out by the persons engaged in it. In short, where the purpose is not strictly treasonable, the mere assisting in maintaining that purpose by force, although a heinous offence, although involving the party in great crime, is not Treason, unless the purpose was a treasonable purpose, which it would be impossible to say in many cases it would be, though they were regularly armed.

Then, Gentlemen, I have only to bring you to the ultimate view of the case, and see how it corresponds with the supposition of its being treason, or the supposition I submit, that it was merely for the protection of an illegal and criminal, but not a treasonable purpose. Why, Gentlemen, I do not say that the inadequacy of the force is of itself evidence, where there is clear proof of a treasonable purpose, or an answer to the proof that a levying of war took place. Desperate causes will have desperate votaries and advocates, and persons very often appear devoid of that understanding, by which alone their conduct could be ultimately formidable; but when you see them going with arms to protect themselves, and with such numbers as to render the idea of waging war absurd, the inadequacy of their force is then a most decisive and important feature in the cause. Gentlemen, it is very remarkable that there is no evidence of their having addressed any body to join them in subverting the constitution; there is no evidence of their applying to any