The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-14 00:00:00

had brought forward this question. But while he aeknow- the eicnesses for the Cr awn labour el.—k Finr, le Si.) 'File
ledged this personal courtesy to its fullest extent, he must fact was, that they them,elv:.s had Folieit• dto be put into pri-
regret that, in reference to other persons. not present to de- s ,n._( Loud cries of '' hear.") They lied oe-itoel3 refused
fend themselves, the Hon. Gentleman had made some obser- to give any information unless they wee lodged in a place of
vations which lie (the Lord Advocate) conceived to be totally security. At a subsequent period the Sheriff wes obliged to
unfounded. He referred to the opinions alleged to have bean meet them in remote parts of the town, it being deel,re.l and
delivered by the Learned Judges ; and he must say that, with believed, that if they were seen to go to the Sheriff's, their lives
the exception of one particular allusion only, no such opinions would not be safe—( Hear, hear.) That they should all have
had been delivered by them—( Hear, hear) ;_and before been confined to one apartment was a circumstance h re-
he concluded the observations he had to make, he would vetted, but that fact a culd not surmise the House when they
direct the attention of the House particularly to an opinion recollected how crowded the eaols of Scotland unfortunately
of the Judges in a ca-a allied to the present, and which were. These prisoners could not, under the eircrmeances,
he should submit to the House, as expressing sentiments be placed in a better situ,tion ; there were no means of ero-
honourable to any Judge in any country. But when vii g them with a separate apartment. The pr sent con-
the Honourable Member complained that an observation dLion of the gaols was certainly a crying evil, which he hoped
had fallen from one of the Judges to the effect that the guilty would be redressed ; it was universally acknowledged, and
persons were punished for the sake of example, and not be- he trusted that the Bill brought in during the last Sea-
cause of what they had done, it might be asked what punish. sion of the lest Parliament would pass in this, and provide
ments at all were adjudged in any part of these realms but the Crown with the means of disposing of the prisoners
as an example ? In no case was punishment dealt out on a properly. The propriety of prosecuting the leaders in
criminal in satisfaction of the vengeance of the prosecuting these combinations was particularly apparent, when the
party, but for the good of society alone, for the repressien situation in which the ignorant and distresstd were placed
of crime ; on such grounds alone was a Judge justified in by them was considered. In such cases the uninformed,
pronouncing the sentence of the law against any indi- being perhaps out of employ, and suffering from extreme dee-
vidual. Such a sentiment as this was doubtless uttered titution, were made to feel that while they committed crimes
by the Learned Judge ; but in every other respect the they were sure of their reward from those with whom they
imperfect and erroneous view which had been given by the lived and associated; but if they refused to be parties to the
Honourable Member of the opinions delivered by the criminal proceeding, or if they gave information, they were
Learned Judge showed that he had been entirely misinformed certain of persecution, and exposed themselves even to the
as to the real facts of the case. He (the Lord Advocate) danger of losing their lives.—(Cheers.) Such being the dif-
regretted that he had not been present when the Honour- ficulties in the way, he always felt extremely uncertain as to,
able Gentleman first brought the question before the House; what would be the nature of the evidence that might be givers,
but he had had no idea, from the feeling which prevailed in It was evident that the prisoners had the means of using an
Scotland respecting these proceedings, that they were likely influence far greater than that which any public prosecutor
to engage the attention of the House during the short inter- could exercise.—( Hear, hear.) This state of things could not
val between the assembling of Parliament and the recess. be disputed, for crimes were committed in Glasgow and its
Had he been at all aware that it would be brought forward, neighbourhood sometimes under cover of the night and some-
he would have taken care to be in his place.—( Hear, hear.) times in the open day, and though large rewards were offered
As it was, the Honourable Member would do him the justice for their detection, no person came forward lo give evidencw
to admit, that since the reassembling of Parliament he —( Hear, hear.) Iz could not be expected that in such cases
had manifested no desire for delay in bringing the ques- the evidence would always be clear and overwhelming; but ist
tion under the considerstion of the House. On the contrary, this instance a feeling of remorse on the part of many, and a
he much rejoiced that it was now before the Hous o so that desire for the restoration of tranquillity on, the part of
the whole matter might be fully considered, and the justice of others who regretted the violence that had been committed,
the laws of Scotland vindicated.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It had occasioned them- to come forward for the purpose c:kt
been stated that many of those summoned on the jury were establishing the facts. If the House thought that Om
confessedly so prejudiced as to be unfit to try the case; but law of Scotland which allowed the judges to award. %even
bow stood the fact? That every advantage had been in years' transportation too severe—if the House were of opinion
this report, as in others, given to the persons accused, and had that the power of the law gave to the judges to tronsport in
been fully exercised by them. Not fewer than 25 challenges the one case for seven years, and in the other to r;hich he had
were made to the jury by the prisoners, while not one single alluded fourteen years, let the law be altered; but while it
challenge was made on the part of the Crown. Indeed, it existed it must be administered, and the House, he was sure,
had seldom happened, except in cases of treason, that the would support it.—(Cheers.) The Learned Lord here re-
privilege of challenging had been carded so far; and he (the ferred to the case of Donovan, but owing to his occasionally
Lord Advocate) might add, that so far as he knew of the dropping his voice we 'were unable to hear him. The Learned
public opinion of Edinburgh, very few persons there were Lord then Proceeded so allude to the case of an individual who
prejudiced on the subject. The question before the House had committed AA outrage under the direction of the associa-
had been in some degree placed by the Hon Gentleman on a tion. He teas apprehended and brought to trial at Glasgow
more favourable footing than some other cases, where the ob- at the very time that the other trials were going on. He had
iect was to bare the trial reviewed and the judgment t been previously outlawed. What followed? As was fre-
• -- . - - -

amended, but this was disclaimed by the Honourable Gentle.
man ; and being so disclaimed, he (the Lord Advocate) had
no occasion to make any further remarks, except, indeed,
this—that no tribunal was less fitted to try a case of this
nature than either a Committee of the House or the House
itself. —( Hear, hear.) He did not, however, mean for a mo-
ment to dispute but that if any flagrant wrong had been com-
mitted, that if the law was in any way defective, or if a public
officer had failed_ in the discharge of his duty, the House
might very properly give redress in such a case by animating
the law, or addressing the Crown to remove the person who
had acted in a manner unworthy of his situation; and he would
say at once, that in his opinion any individual would be most
unworthy of that high station who should manifest tally feelings
adverse to the industrious classes; any man would exhibit
himself equally deficient in all the qualities of heart or head
who had not as much regard and affeedon fori as much joy
and pleasure in the prosperity and happiness of these chaster,
as in that of persons of station and wealth.—( Hear, hear. )
The Hon. Gentleman had observed, that he considered him.
self fortunate in not having been in a country where such
laws were in force. In comparing any new system of law it
would be most unjust to take any one particular detail of
one system and make your conclusions upon the whole from
that only, and not from the other parts of the system which
balanced it. It should be always recollected that the law of
Scotland was far more favourable to persons accused than
the law of England. He did not say that the law of Eng-
land in this respect was bad, or ought to be changed : it had
very great merits ; it was suited to the country ; it gave great
security to life and property ; it lived in the hearts and
feelings of the people ; but in considering these or any other
laws they must be taken into consideration one with the other,
in order to see how far they were perfect or otherwise. The
law of Scotland, he would repeat, gave great advantages to
persons accused which they did not possess here. In the
first place, and this should be attended to, as the circum-
stance led to some of the peculiarities which had occasioned
much remark out of doors—in the first place, by the law of
Scotland no crime, whether of great or small importance,
could be proved against any person without the evidence of
two witnesses at the least, or of one witness supported by cir-
cumstantial evidence confirmatory of his evidence. Take
the case of a person of the highest character, who had
brought forward his evidence that he had been robbed or
assaulted, or otherwise aggrieved by any other inferior
offence, however clear and direct his evidence, however un-
impeachable his character, unless the public prosecu-
tor could call some other witness, or prove some
circumstance to confirm the evidence, the Jury would be
directed by the Judge unanimously to find that the
offence was not proven. Nay, a very high authority,
Judge Hume, had expressed the extreme opinion that
the evidence of one witness only, though this witness
were a parlicaps criminis, would not be sufficient to prove an
offence. Whatever might be thought of this rule, it certainly
gave a great advantage to the persons accused; and persons
accustomed to the administration of law in Scotland were
frequently surprised in witnessing, in English Criminal Courts,
persons adjudged guilty on evidence on which a conviction
could nut be obtained in Scotland. This rule had led to the
giving verdicts in the different forms of " guilty" or`4 note
guilty," f 0 proven" or " not proven," because itwould be
most unreasonable to require of a Jury, convinced by the
unimpeachable testimony of one witness of the guilt of an
accused person, to pronounce him not guilty, while the law
of the land forbade them to declare him guilty, except on the
evidence of two witneases. In such cases it was left to them
to declare the offence " not proven." Another advantage
was, that the accused person had a copy of the indictment
furnished hien fifteen days before the day of trial, containing a
narrative of the facts to be proved against him, and thus
enabling him to prepare his defence. There was also at the
same time furnished him a list of all the witnesses aeainst
him, while here a copy of the indictment was only furnished
to the prisoner on the very day of trial. These were great
advantages to the accused person. Another peculiar ad-
vantage which the accused person possessed in Scotland, the
policy of which was less clear, wes, that after the public
prosecutor had concluded his case and examined his witnesses
the prisoner was entitled to reply, to have the last word, and
might call evidence as to alibi or any other fact in his favour;
while the public prosecutor was not able to recal any witness
in explanation. The Honourable Gentleman had contrasted
the evidence of one person on the trial, who stated that on a
particular evening a secret meeting had been held, which
evidence had been contradicted by another witness, isho stated
that he was in the chair on the evening in question, and that
the meeting was only an ordinary one, which broke up at half-
past nine ; whereas, it the public prosecutor had been rah:wed
to recal his witness, he could have shown that the secret
meeting he deposed to took place the same evening, after the
ordinary meeting, which broke up at half-past nine. The
Hon. Gentleman had asked under what statute this trial had
been had. The answer was, under no statute at all —no
statute was mentioned. The Honourable Gentleman also
asked whether the law respecting combination applied to Scot-
land ? Undoubtedly, yes ; there was no person who was
not liable to punishment for combination. In England this
offence, if accompanied with violence or menaces, was
penislied with three months' imprisonment; in Scotland,
this offence was tried by the Justices of the Peace or
the Sheriffs. But this was a different case from simple
combination, or of working moo casually committing violence
against other working men. This was a conspiracy formed
during a long course of years, a conspiracy seeking to ac-
complish its object by deeds of violence, by systematic out-
rage, and giving alarm to the whole community where it
existed to that extent that, besides the ordinary police of the
place, it had been found necessary to employ an additional
force of 100 armed men to keep the peace. According to
the law of Scotland a conspiracy, as defined by the Alit, was
one of the most formidable crimes that could exist. That a
conspiracy had existed in tills case was proved by the atro-
cities that lead been carried on far a series of years, by the
terror that had been resorted to, by the domination that had
been practised, by the despotism that had been exercised over
all.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman complained of
the partial administration of justice, and referred to the dif-
ference between the course pursued in the present case and
that which was adopted in reference to the combinations and
riots between the Roman Catholics and Protestants. On that
subject ho begged to refer to the cases which arose out of the
riots at Airdrie in 1835. It was then necessary to try both
Roman Catholics and Protestants who had committed riots ;
the Roman Catholics were transported for seven years, and
the Protestants, whose crime was considered greater, were
transported for fourteen years. Theism were, in their circum-
stances, the same cases as that of the association at Glas-
gow; the punishment awarded was not greater, and the
persons were of the same description as those to whom the
Hon. Gentleman had alluded. He did not think it desirable
to go into all the details of the evidence in this particular
case ; but there were one or two points to which he felt it his
'duty to allude. The Hon. Gentleman, asked were thole five
:individuals, the president, the secretary, and the others, pre-
sent on the Occasion when the riots took place ? No, they
were not ; and he would say that the crime was greater, was
'more serious and dangerous, of hit in., maintaining, and di-
recting the individuals whom they excited to riot, than it would
have been had they exeoced their ee r, persons to the eo,.se-
gnencea of the grave offenams that were eomeaitted. —( Cheers. )
l'rdpquLlity was tench more endangeicd, and far greater ter,
Tor was produced, when designing men laid their plans, and
in secret advised and excited their weak and deluded victims to
,carry them into execution, and expose themselves to the just
vengeance of the law.—( Cheers.) There were some Titre
details, arising out of the rt,dkidiptioe or COI Case, which
file Howir4ble
tielltiMan had referred to, and which
he could not pass over, because his doing so might create
an impression unfavourable to the administration of justice
in Scotland, The Honourable Gentleman spoke of the Ileaie
ship of witnesses for the Crown havinf bema imprisoned for a
considerable period of time beioie"the rial. Now the great
9f 014 'else Was attributable to the terror udder lc icll

quently the case as regarded cr'enes committed under the au-
thority of the association, tie man pleaded guilty thinking it,
no doubt, better to tl.ea so, inasmuch Al the offence could be :,
easily proposed Thomas Riddle was the prisoner's 'lame. He
begged to read to the House the judgment Lord Cockburn
Passee'e upon the prisoner. The Learned Lord read as follows :--- •
Thomas Riddle, it is impossible not to be sorry, as well as
surprised at seeing a person of your appearance where you -
are. But you have committed a very great crime, and its
order that neither you, nor anybody else, may have any pre-
tence for not understanding its atrocity, I shall tell you the
facts, as stated in the indictment, to which you have now
pleaded guilty. The indictment sets forth that you had
struck work. But this is not your crime—it is not even a
part of it. The law now entitles you, and every man, to strike
work when he pleases. Your labour is your own, and you may
sell it as you please. So may every other man, by law. •
Whether there be certain persons who won't let this law- be
acted upon we shall see immediately. The indictment also -
states, that you struck in concert with a number of other ope-
rative cotton-spinners. But this is no part of your crime
ether. The law not only allows every man to demand whet
wages he pleases, and to refuse working if he does not get
them, but it allows him to arrange and combine with others, its
order that by concerted strikes they may make their joint de-
mand more effectual. Masters may combine against work-
men, and workmen against masters. By law the market of
labour, like that of capital, is free. Would that the s
workmen of this country had always shown themselves
worthy of the recent removal of the old restrictions
on the power of demanding what wages they chose,
and of uniting to enforce this demand. But your
crime is this—namely, that you, along with some of
your associates, invaded the house in which a person lived who
chose to be satisfied with lower wages than you and they were •
holding out for ; that you did this under cloud of night, and' when the inmates were in bed ; that with sticks, stones, nt'
menaces, you broke open the door, and even shook bricks ~
from the partition in which it was fixed; that you threw
the inmates into a state of great terror and alarm ; and that
you compelled the workman vou were in quest of, under ter.,
ror of personal violence, and in fear of his life, to swear or',
promise he would leave the cotton-mill in which he was the"-
working.' Now all this is bad ; but its chief guilt consists ire
the motive and object for which it was all done. This object i
sot forth to have been for the wicked and felonious purpose o
compelling a workman to leave his employment,' in order the
you might thereby give efficacy to your own demand. This is
your crime ; that you tried to deprive that man of the disposal'
of his own particular labour; that, not content with the li-
berty of selling your own strength and skill at your pleasure,
you denied that liberty to another, and attempted, by violence"
to dictate to that man the terms on which he should sell hie.---
(Cheers.) For this crime, and for its attendant circumstances,
you are to be transported for seven years. If you think thilk
punishment severe, this can only be because you choose to
shut your eyes to the wickedness and to the plain consequences
of what you and ethers have been doing. The labour of a
poor man is his principal property ; and he who robs him of
this makes him a beggar. Yet there are masses of pecdnie
who set themselves up as the dictators of the market of Ise.
hour, and who have the audacity to band themselves together,
in defence of this tyranny. These persons not only abstai,
from working themselves, which the law leaves them at perfec
liberty to do, but they proclaim that nobody else shallor
for less ; and if their insolent mandate be• disregarded they;
enforce it by violence, and then declare themselves the friendl
of free trade. How anything so iniquitous and absurd should'`
ever enter the minds of the educated people of Scotland
has always appeared to me incomprehensible."—(Cheers. )
He referred the House to this address, which he believed to
be accurately reported, as a fair exposition of the opinions of
the Judges on the subject.---( Hear ) He should not consider
it necessary for him to dwell further on the details of the law
of:this case, if it were not that elsewhere there had been
statements made impugning the conduct, nay, attacki'l
the most violent terms the conduct of these prosecutions In
Scotland.—( Hear, he.ae) It was said elsewhere that these
prosecutions had been conducted in the most
bungling
menner ; that there had been every sort of blunder com-
mitted ; and that in consequence of those blunders the trial
had been delayed, and the individuals had been subjected to
a long and severe prinishment. His answer was, not only
that the statement was on the whole not true—(Cheers)—
but that it ear; the very opposite of am thing
approachingi
to truth.—(Cheere.) With respect to the indictment, I,s
answer was, that lawyers of great ability had it for a long
_
time under their consideration, and the result was that the
Court unanimously sustained it. On what ground did any
Noble and Learned Lord, in any place, consider himself en-
titled to assert, without saying what it was, that there nes
any defect or blunder—on what ground did he coneider
himself entitled to make such an assertion, not only against
the whole of the authority of the professional persons Ai",
had been engaged, but in opposition also to the authority of
the Court?—( Cheers.) It was not a little extraordinary even
if there had been mistakes—if in a case of such great weight
there had been some oversight ; it was not novel with those
who had belonged to the profession of the law to talk in that
tone and with that feeling of the proceedings ; but when there
was no foundation whatever for the remarks, when it was
quite clear that there was. none, it was extraordinary that
any individual who had filled a high legal station for years
with honour and credit should make a statement, not only re-
flecting on lawyers of the highest eminence, but even without
the least foundation in point of fact.—( Cheers. ) The state-
ment was, that the trial had been delayed. Now, before the
trial came on, and before its result could be known, he had ex-
plained that the reason why the trial had been delayed was.
that the public prosecutor had received some fresh information.
And was he not justified in obtaining all the important infor-
mation that be could ? He entered the Court with the belief
that the trial would come on; but after the argument of Coun-
sel, accounts from Glasgow were received from the Sheriff:
stating that some important documents, which before it had
been impossible to recover, had been obtained, with other e
im-
portant evidence, and it was left to him to say whether th
trial should go on or not. Now, in a case of this sort, in
which murder had been committed, would any public prose"
cutor have hesitated to delay the trial, in order to avail him-
self of the fresh evidence ?—( Hear, hear.) He desired the
Sheriff to pursue his inquiries, which he did, though with the
greatest difficulty. He could not see the witnesses, except by
stealth, without exposing them to the persecution of the As-
sociation ; and was it to be told in the high places that this
trial was delayed in order to recover blunders and errors---
blunders and errors that existed nor'. here but in the fancy of
the Noble and Learned Lord who thought proper to make that
statement ?—( Cheers.) He supposed that the Noble and
Learned Lord could not be aware that he had stated the
ground on which the trial had been delayed, because he coni d
not imagine that if he had been aware of that statement, be
would have made the observations he did in reference to a per-
son whom that Noble and Learned Lord had keewn for forty.
years, whose character, however inferior it seas for talent and
ability, had, at least, been not less d'.etinguished for straight:
forward conduct and veracity than even that of the Noble and
Learned Lord himself, honourable as lie believed his chareci
tee to be ; but in that humble and low ateibute to elhiell all
men might lay
rtiarkible claim, he thought be was not guilty of any re.:
Preetimption in saying, thst le considered hirnsedt
otailal.---( Much cheering.) Whatever had been remarked
about his own abilities as a lawyer was comparetively of smalle.
importance, but the charge made affected not only himee.l,
He did not suppose that it was meant to attack him personally ;
tut, fearing that it might affect other persons, particularly a
very able and rising man in his profession, when it was
charged that there had been grots delay, he felt it to be has
duty to come fore and and erove to the House that this case_
had been conducted not only nith perfect fairnees, but he
trusted with zeal, lurmauitN, and mo,tcrn'ion —(
Sir E. S liG DEN said that be had looked thieugh the
evidence with a judicial eye, and if the Hon. Member for
Finsbury bed persisted in his motion for an address to her
Mt 9 mitigateajesty,Cheers. )
the sentence of the parties, he should