The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-20 00:00:00

SCOTLAND.

EMS U Mill. SATURDAY 1419111N°.
TIIE CHARTIST TRIALS.—The High Court of Jun-
tialary met to-day, for the purpose of passing sentencie on
Robert Hamilton and Henry Ruskin, who were found guilty
on Tuesday last of " sedition, in so for as they used words
calculated to promote popular disaffection, and resistance to
lawful authority." The judges present were the Lord Jus-
tioe Clerk, and Lords Mackenzie, Medwyn, and Wood.
Mr. Moncrief, for the prisoners, asked if the jury, in re-
turning their verdict, had not declared, on the question
being put to them, that they had purposely left out the word
I " intended " in the verdict.
The Lord Justice Clerk replied in the affirmatpre.
The Lord Advocate then moved the court for sentence
against the prisoners.
Mr. Logan, for the prisoners, opposed the motion in re-
spect of the terms of the verdict, which, he contended, did
not amount to 'verdict of guilty. The prisoners were charged
in the indictment with doing certain things which were" in-
tended and calculated to excite popular disaffection, commo-
tion, and violence, and resistance to lawful authority." The
charge of " intention" was therefore meant to over-ride all
the previous narrative in the indictment, but the jury had
merely found the prisoners guilty of sedition in so far es
they used language "calculated" to excite disaffection, dcc.,
and theyhad purposely left the word "intended" out of their
verdict He contended further that, by the law of Scotland,
" intention" ins of the essence of the crime of sedition, and
that the jury, by the omission of that word, had found a
verdict, not for the crown, but for the prisoners.
Mr. Montrieff followed the same side.
Mr. Crawford. on the part of the crown, contended that
sedition was a crime well known to the law, and one re-
quiring no explanation, and that it could never be understood
to mean an innocent or unintentional act. The verdict was,
therefore, good, as a verdie. against the prisoners. Suppos-
in that the word " intended ' had not been in the indict-
ment at all, and that it simply charged them with doing
what was "calculated" to excite disaffection, dc., still it
would have been a perfectly good indictment, and a verdict
of guilty founded upon it would haveen received. The
learned gentleman supported his views of the case by a
variety of arguments and authorities.
The Lord. Advocate followed on the same aide, To im-
peach successfully the verdict it was necessary for his friends
on the other side to show that it was his duty to have libelled
" intended " a something different from what was meant
by " calculated !" and also that it was his duty to have libelled
specifically the intention. He had heard, however, no au-
thority urged for this ooure. It would, indeed, be a
thing, if, after the prisoners had been bound guilty ot:r
don, any qualification with which the verdict was ammo,
ponied should have the absolute effect of nullifying it. The
jury bad used the word " guilty "—that was to say, that the
prisoners had in their mind a seditious intent, and therefore
he held that they had found all the criminal intent which
it was no:eatery for them to info

Alter a few words from Mr. Moncrieff in reply, their
headships retired to consider their judgment, and returned
into court in about three-guertery of an hour, when the
Lord Justice Clerk stated that they would give their
dacision on that day week.
The court then adjourned, and the prisoners wars sent
hack to prison.