And this is no more, Gentlemen, than a branch of the principle to which we are all daily accustomed, in all cases of circumstantial evidence. Take a case of murder. If the murder is to be proved merely by evidence, that the accused was actually seen to commit it, then, by our law, there must be two witnesses of the fact; and if there be only one, though he be ever so positive and credible in the account he gives of the murder, and of the way and manner in which he came to see it committed, yet the accused must be acquitted.

But where the murder is to be proved, not by direct ocular testimony, but by a variety of circumstances, all tending to produce a conviction that the accused did commit the crime, then it is not necessary that each of those facts and circumstances should be proved by two witnesses. If each fact or circumstance be proved by one witness, it has always been held by courts and juries to be sufficient; so in the case of treason, where the general charge of treason is to be made out, by the accession of the accused to a variety of overt acts, it is enough if each of the overt acts be proved against him by one witness.

Indeed, this kind of proof, called circumstantial proof, is generally and justly considered as more satisfactory than one by direct ocular testimony, because this last depends entirely on the fidelity of the witness; whereas, in a circumstantial case, the facts hang together in such a manner as, of themselves, to lend credit to the witnesses who swear to them.

It is necessary, however, in a case of treason, which is to be made out by a proof of a variety of overt acts, that each overt act depending on the testimony of one witness, should be of the same species of treason. Thus, if a man be indicted for compassing and imagining the death of the King, he cannot be indicted or convicted by one witness swearing to one overt act tending to prove that species of treason, and by another witness swearing to another overt act, indicative of the other species of treason, of levying war against the King. The links of the chain do not here hang together. The one act is not necessarily connected with the other, for it is quite possible to conceive a design against the life of the

King, by some private and secret means, totally unconnected with the open levying of war.

The overt acts, therefore, which, being each proved by one witness, are sufficient to support an indictment for treason, must be all overt acts of the same kind of treason.

Gentlemen, it is necessary, however, to mention one limitation of this rule, which is, that it is only the overt acts laid in the indictment, which, if taken as a substantive proof of guilt, require two witnesses; for minor and collateral facts, by the common law of England, and, of course, of Scotland, in matters of treason, and indeed in other crimes, may still be proved by a single witness; for instance, that the prisoner is a natural born subject, and not an alien; that he was at a particular place at a particular time; that he was dressed or disguised in a particular manner; all these, and such like collateral facts and circumstances, not in themselves overt acts of treason, at least not charged as such, though perhaps very material in connecting the prisoner with the overt acts of treason charged against him, may be competently proved by a single witness.

I believe, Gentlemen, it will only be necessary for me further to add, what, however, I have no doubt you will sufficiently apprehend without any information from me, that in discharging your duty, it is not necessary for you to go so nicely and critically to work, as the petty jury must afterwards do on the trial of the prisoners, if you shall find bills against them.

It is not necessary to justify your finding a true bill of indictment, that you should be completely satisfied of the guilt of the accused. It is enough if you see such strong ground of suspicion against them, arising out of the examinations before you, as to render it proper that they should be put on their trial.

In this instance, your duty, Gentlemen, resembles that of his Majesty's Advocate. You will hear at present nothing but the evidence for the crown against the prisoners. What they may have to say in defence, neither you, nor the Lord Advocate, can know, and you cannot compel the prisoners

to disclose it to you. They have the advantage of reserving that for their trial; so that it may well happen, and often does happen, that a grand jury may have the best grounds for finding a bill of indictment, and yet that the prisoner, on his trial, may be most justly acquitted. The one verdict will be no impeachment or slur upon the other.

I am not sensible, Gentlemen, that I can add any thing else which can be of use to you; and, therefore, you will retire, and consider the bills which are to be laid before you on the part of the crown, remembering, that however you may be already convinced, from what you have heard, or perhaps from what you have seen, that treason has been committed; the question, whether the persons accused are reasonably charged with having committed it, cannot be solved by such general knowledge, but must be determined solely from the evidence now to be laid before you, as applicable to the case of each individual prisoner.

The Court ordered that a copy of the names of the Grand Jury should be made and delivered to the Foreman, and another copy to the Agent for the Crown, to annex to the caption; and copies of the indictment to be delivered to the respective prisoners indicted.

John Morrison was then sworn to deliver the several bills of indictment received from the Court, and to attend the several witnesses as they were sworn to the Grand Jury.

The Court directed Mr Thomas George Knapp, the Clerk to the Commission, and Messrs Robert Sconce, and Robert Campbell, Procurators Fiscal, to attend the Grand Jury on the examination of witnessses on all the indictments to be preferred.

The Grand Jury then retired to consider the respective bills to be laid before them.

The Cryer then called his Majesty's Advocate for his Majesty's interest, who appeared.

The Cryer then required the appearance of all persons bound to give evidence against the several prisoners charged with high treason, and misprision of treason.

The witnesses whose names were indorsed on the back of the several bills of indictment presented, were then sworn in Court to give evidence before the Grand Jury. Those witnesses that preferred being sworn after the English manner, were severally sworn by the Cryer; those that requested to be sworn in the Scotch form, were severally by the Lords Commissioners in rotation, each person repeating the words of the Scotch oath after the Commissioner had pronounced them. Several took the oath at the same time.

All the Grand Jury attended the Court, and their names being called over, the Foreman presented a true bill against the following persons. The Jury first consenting, by their Foreman, that the Court might alter matters of form, not altering matters of substance, without the consent of the Grand Jury.

BONNYMUIR CASE.

Thomas M'Culloch,

Andrew Hardie,

Benjamin Moir,

Allan Murchie,

Alexander Latimer,

Alexander Johnston,
Andrew White,

David Thomson,

James Wright,

William Clackson, otherwise called William Clarkson,
Thomas Pike, otherwise called Thomas Pink,

Robert Gray,

James Clelland,

Alexander Hart,

John Baird,

John Barr,

William Smith,

Thomas McFarlane.

The above eighteen defendants were then put to the bar, and their several names were called over by the Clerk, and,

on being severally asked, respectively stated their names to be the same as described in the indictment; they were then informed by the Lord President that a bill of indictment for high treason had been found against them: That they were entitled to have two Counsel each to defend them, and that the Court would assign them any two that they should name. And at the request of all the eighteen defendants, Messrs David Blackie and William Alexander, of Edinburgh, Writers to the Signet, were approved and appointed, by the Court, as the joint solicitors, or agents for the several defendants. And it was ordered they should have free access to the defendants, and each and every of them at all seasonable hours; and Messrs Blackie and Alexander residing at Edinburgh, it was ordered that Messrs Colin Dawson and Robert Haldane, of Stirling, writers, should be permitted to act as assistant agents to the several defendants, during the absence of Messrs Blackie and Alexander.

The following is a copy of the order :---

The King against Thomas M'Culloch and seventeen others. I, Charles Hope, Esquire, President of the College of Justice of our Lord the King, in that part of Great Britain and Ireland called Scotland, one of the Justices and Commissioners named in his Majesty's Special Commission of Oyer and Terminer, for the said county of Stirling, Do, upon the request of the said defendants in this prosecution, order and direct that David Blackie and William Alexander, of Edinburgh, gentlemen, the joint solicitors, or agents, for the several defendants, shall have free access to the said defendants, and each and every of them, at all reasonable hours, agreeably to the statute in such case made and provided. Dated this twenty-third day of June, 1820.

C. HOPE.

Messrs Colin Dawson and Robert Haldane, of Stirling, writers, are to be permitted to act as assistant agents to the prisoners, during the absence of Messrs Blackie and Alexander.

C. HOPE.