Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

and the attempts to lead their attention away from the evidence. Although he had frankly given his opinion, they were in no degree bound to follow it, in case their own judgment led to a different conclusion.

The Jury withdrew at five minutes before one o'clock, and returned into Court in twenty minutes, finding the prisoner Guilty on the second and fourth Counts of the Indictment, and "Not Guilty upon the first and third Counts.

On the 14th July JOHN BAIRD was brought to trial; but as the proceedings did not and could not differ from those in the trial of Hardie, unless in unimportant particulars, we have preferred giving a full report of the one, rather than a more meagre report of both. He was found Guilty on the second count of the indictment.

Stirling, 5th July, 1820.

James Clelland,
Thomas M'Culloc,

Benjamin Moir,

Allan Murchie,
Alexander Latimer,
Alexander Johnstone,
Andrew White,
David Thomson,
James Wright,
William Clarkson,
Thomas Pike,
Robert Gray,
Alexander Hart,
John Barr,
William Smith, and
Thomas M'Farlane,
were set to the bar.

Mr JEFFREY rose and stated, that after the issue of the two last trials, he considered it his duty to his unfortunate clients to advise them to plead Guilty, and to throw themselves on the mercy of the crown.

The LORD ADVOCATE observed that this step must be taken without any pledge, or even any confident expectation of pardon.

Mr Jeffrey acquiesced.

The prisoners then severally withdrew their plea of Not Guilty, and pleaded Guilty.

LORD PRESIDENT HOPE.-My Lords, before any further procedure is held in this matter, I am sure your Lordships will all agree with me in saying, that although Mr Jeffrey thought himself entitled in point of law to object to the appearance of Mr Serjeant Hullock, or any English counsel, in this cause against him, yet, in point of fact, there never did exist, or could exist, less necessity for any counsel fearing to meet another counsel of any bar whatever; and I am sure, if all the bar of England had attended here on behalf of the unhappy men now convicted, it is impossible they could have been better or more ably defended. Every point was hit that it was possible to hit for them, and pleaded in the ablest manner; and it must be satisfactory to the country, that the result of these trials has been to raise the character of the Scotch bar, and to shew they are fully competent to the conduct of any case whatever. With regard to the last proceeding, he has acted with as much judgment as he did with ability in the defence of his other clients.

Stirling, 31st July, 1820.

John McMillan,
James Burt,

Andrew Burt the younger,
Daniel Turner,
James Aitkin, grocer,
James Aitkin, wright,
Andrew Dawson, and
John Johnstone,

were then put to the bar, and several

ly pleaded Not Guilty. Their trial was fixed for the 4th August.

Stirling, 4th August, 1820.

John McMillan and Andrew Dawson were put to the bar. Mr John Peter Grant then rose, and stated that, at his advice, given upon a careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case, the two prisoners were desirous of pleading Guilty. This being admitted, the Lord Advocate rose and said, that these two being the most criminal, he was ready to acquiesce in a verdict of acquittal upon

the rest.

The Lord President then pronounced sentence of Death upon all the prisoners who had been found Guilty. It was enforced, however, only against two, Andrew Hardie, and John Baird, whose execution took place on the 8th September, 1820.

WILLIAM WILSON, STRATHAVEN, FOR HIGH TREASON.

Glasgow, 26th June, 1820.

The Grand Jury being impanelled, true bills were found against William Wilson, William McIntyre, William Robertson, and William Watson. The two latter had absconded, and were not in custody.

8th July, 1820.

William Wilson was put to the bar, and the indictment being read, the Lord Advocate rose and stated the nature of the charge. He observed that the house of the prisoner was the place where the disaffected met and arranged their plans. The meeting there took in the Black Dwarf, the Spirit of the Union, and other papers exciting to disaffection. There would appear reason to believe that the prison

er was the channel through which the communication was carried on between the seditious at Strathaven, and the provisional government established at Glasgow for treasonable purposes; and that he was the person to whom their messages were delivered. Through his means chiefly, there was reason to suppose, that a treasonable handbill (the same exhibited in the trial of Hardie) was posted in Strathaven. The recommendation contained in it to all labourers to desist from work was followed at least to a great extent. The proclamation was farther acted upon by the ringleaders assem. bling one evening at the house of Wilson, whence they issued in parties, and violently robbed different houses of arms, which they brought to his house. Early on the following morning, a party, of from ten to fourteen, came out from the house, variously armed, and accompanied by Wilson himself, wearing a sword. From different notices it would appear, that they were going to join their brethren at Glasgow, and accordingly they marched along the road to that city as far as Kilbride. Here they met a gentleman and a lady in a gig, from whom they learned, that all was quiet at Glasgow, and that there was not the smallest prospect of succeeding in their undertaking. Upon receiving this intelligence, they gave up their march, and slunk back to Strathaven as quietly as they could. The Lord Advocate contended, that those facts established beyond a doubt that they had, with a treasonable intent, come forward in arms against the King, and with a view to overthrow the established system of government.

The facts were proved by very voluminous evidence, for an abstract of which our limits oblige us to refer to the speeches of Mr Murray and Mr Hullock.

The prosecutor was then about to put in evidence the declarations of the

prisoner. Mr Monteith objected to the first, because Mr Aiton, who received it, though he had told the prisoner, that he was not obliged to make any declaration, had yet added, that it would be better, in his opinion to be candid and to tell the whole truth; that this was what he himself would do in a like case. This, Mr M. urged, was holding out an expectation, or half promise, of some favour to be extended to him, in consequence of making the confession. The objection was sustained. Mr Monteith then objected to a second declaration to the same effect, because, though nothing of the kind had been then said, nothing had been said to do away the impression which had been produced by the first. Although this objection was strenuously combated by Serjeant Hullock, it was finally sustained by the Court.

Mr Murray, for the panel, then expressed the reluctance with which he had undertaken this cause, which he had neither leisure nor experience of the subject, sufficient to do justice to; but he had considered himself bound to sacrifice every personal consideration, and even his professional character, rather than incur the great er stain of refusing the repeated applications of a person in distress. Mr Murray considered it a hardship to his client, that English law did not require the same precision in indictment as is required by Scots law. He justified himself against the insinuation that he had unnecessarily taken up the time of the Jury by causing all the material parts of the indictment to be read; he considered himself bound to do so, and had abridged it as much as possible. At the same time, he arraigned the enormous length of the indictment, to which he did not believe there had ever been a parallel. That against a man who had conspired against the life of King William, was not a twentieth, he believed not a fiftieth part of

VOL. XIII. PART II.

the length of that drawn up against this poor individual.

The prisoner at the bar was accused of an attempt to subvert the Constitution; where was there any thing pointing at such an attempt? Where was there any thing stated on his part like a dislike to the Constitution of his country, any thing short of the most implicit admiration and attachment to it? He was accused, because persons met at his house in January to read certain newspapers, the Black Dwarf, or the Black Book, as some called it, the Manchester Observer, and the Spirit of the Union. What did the Jury know of these newspapers? what evidence was there that they contained any thing at all wrong? He knew nothing of them; they might be the best or the worst in the world. Supposing they were bad, they had been given up on the 10th of January. He surely thought that this was wasting the time of the Jury.

The next charge was for publishing and posting up a treasonable Address. He agreed implicitly in the description given of it; it was an improper, treasonable, and detestable Address. But where was the evidence that his client had any share in its composition and posting up? When, after an investigation of several months, this trial was so pompously announced, he never doubted that we were now to deal with the persons who had made the Address, and with some members of the provisional government who dictated it. As to his client, there was not the shadow of proof, or attempt to prove, that he ever even saw it. There was nothing more than evidence of its being seen and posted up in Strathaven. Among numerous witnesses, some had, and some had not seen it, so that it probably remained up a very short time; and yet, because the prisoner might by chance have seen this Address, they were called upon to believe that his conduct was un

г

der its dictation. He would never cease to call it a most criminal and treasonable Address; but because that Address was framed in one town, and posted up in another, was a man in that other, who is never proved to have even seen it, to be considered as the author?

There was a charge of "purchasing and providing arms, in order to attack the soldiers of the King, and to make war against the King." The utmost that was proved under this head was, that some persons had assembled one night at the prisoner's house, when he was absent, and committed certain outrages; and that on another day, ten, twelve, or at most fourteen men, had marched in a certain way upon the road, while the prisoner, subject to their power, certainly went unwillingly along with them. This was the war against the King-this was the parading with arms. There were charges in the indictment for drilling, and for attempting to seduce the soldiers of the King; but not a shadow of proof to substantiate these charges. Mr M. complained of the hardship under which he had laboured, in not having seen the precise charges, nor even the declaration of the prisoner, as he would have done by the law of Scotland; perhaps he had injured his client. by procuring the rejection of that declaration, but he had been obliged to proceed upon such conjecture as circumstances allowed.

Mr M. now entered at some length into an illustration of the law of treason. This, which had before been vague, was limited by the statute of Edward III. to compassing the death of the King, Queen, or heir, and to levying war against the King; " but he must be probably attainted by open deed by people of his condition." Lord Coke had justly called the Parliament which passed this Act " blessed Parliament," and he had expressed the strongest indignation a

a

gainst those Judges who impaired the statute by introducing constructive treasons. He called these "damnable and damned opinions." These were strong words, especially from a man of his station and gravity; but they were not too strong; because he who perverted this great law, committed a crime, compared to which any common trea. son or murder might be considered as small. To constitute treason, then, there must be an intention to kill or levy war against the King, and there must be an overt act proving that intention. No doubt must be left on the minds of any of the Jury, that the prisoner had that state of malignant mind, throwing off his allegiance, and either levying war or compassing the King's death. This state of mind must be known by an overt act, guarded from construction, and conjec ture, and suspicion. The bare fact must come in such a manner, as irresistibly to lead the minds of persons of his condition, a fair and honest Jury, to this conclusion. If they were not satisfied, they were guilty of a crime more heinous and atrocious than he would mention, if they should find him guilty. After the most anxious search, he could never find a trial for Treason at all like this. Was there a conspiracy against the life of the Sovereign? was there an attempt to seize his garrisons? was there an attack made with a great armed array? The utmost of the statement is, not that he put up the placard, not that he knew the people who it put up, not that he is proved to have read it, but that he and some others, in a small village in this county, seem to have gone so many miles on the road, and then they turned back. He could hardly believe he was addressing them upon a charge of seducing soldiers, levying war, and forming this traitorous hand-bill and provisional government. There was merely evidence that persons met at his house, but

without any violence committed while he was present. Could the Jury, against their souls, their oaths, and consciences, put it to their breasts that he saw this proclamation, when there was not a tittle of evidence bringing it directly against him? Never was treason or law more strained, than in an attempt to obtain their verdict on a ground which would make the life of every person as unsafe as in the most unfortunate times. There may have been a great treason-there may have been a provisional government; if so, let proof be adduced; but here there was nothing of the kind.

Mr Murray now proceeded to remark on the testimony of some particular witnesses. James Thomson had been brought to prove, that he heard a knocking and a hammering. The inference, Mr M.supposed, was, that they were knocking and hammering arms. On the trial of a mouse would this be held as evidence? We are going to put the worst possible interpretation on every thing, and because they had got a noise, to believe they had got a traitorous conspiracy. Was this evidence to affect a man's life? He was safe from a thousand such points; it was only important as shewing that there was nothing so trifling, but some envious neighbours would put uncharitable constructions upon. After this, it behoved the Jury to examine scrupulously all the attempts made to bias them. The same witness, when examined to prove the prisoner's coming out, said that he held his sword down; on cross-examination, that he seemed downcast. There was certainly evidence that he came out that day, and proceeded with these people along the road for a certain distance. He goes from Strathaven a certain way upon the road. Mr M. trusted he should be able to prove the compulsion under which he acted. Could it be doubted that compulsion might be employed?

One witness had been seized the night before and closely guarded. In the day time, an attempt to escape would be much more difficult, especially in a person of a certain age. There was no ground of law or common sense, on which it could be said that this restraint might not continue during the whole of the eight miles that he accompanied them. It could not be expected that the proof of compulsion should be made out on every step on the road. He accompanies these persons, not a band of rebels carrying on war-not going on with any disorderly and improper attempts, or doing any crime in his presence. Yet he went, even on the evidence of the Crown, dejected and unwilling. He had not attended a meeting held on the Monday, not far from his residence. Mr M. endeavoured to prove that every meeting, at which he was present, had been conducted in a much more orderly manner than when he was absent. There was the evidence of a Mrs Hamilton to a speech made the evening before, expressing approbation of treasonable designs, and intention to accompany the party; but this witness had a brother who had fled the country, and who, she might hope, would be left unmolested, after the law had been satisfied with other victims. It appears that during the whole of the march, Wilson had advised returning, and on the first opportunity that offered, away he goes. To a person at Kilbride, he expressed a wish that it should be said he was there on business; this Mr M. imputed to a desire to screen his companions, who were relations or intimate associates.

Several witnesses were now produced on the part of the plaintiff.

On the following day Mr Murray resumed. In consequence of the evasion of the other persons engaged, he was deprived of his natural witnesses, and obliged to have recourse to by

« AnteriorContinua »