SCOTLAND.

Space and the late period of the week at which the reports arrived did not permit us to give more than a brief mention of the trial at Edinburgh,

M`Laren. versus Ritchie and Russel," the proprietor and the editor of the Scotsman. The case has attracted great attention in both countries ; and its bearings on freedom of discussion and the law of libel warrant a return to it. The incriminated articles, passages, and verses, till a large space ; but a few extracts of the strongest portions of the libel will sufficiently show its nature. The following refers to a meeting in favour of Mr. Brown Douglas, where Mr. M`Laren acted as chairman " Every class of creature known in the political world was there representedmammalia, ayes, pisces, and reptilia. There was the bos taurus, played by Mr. James Aytoun—• it is nothing but roaring.' It might be unpolite to suggest that any one appeared for the quadrumana, or even that there were any odd specimens of the pisces ; but as for the viperidie, what could be a more delightful object of Christian contemplation than Sir William Johnston and Mr. Duncan M'Laren lovingly intertwining the folds of their affections, no longer with anything • cold ' between them ? . . . . Above all, let them look at that feculent mess which Mr. Duncan DPLaren laid before yesterday's meeting, and say whether that is the man they obey, and the spirit they are of. Mr. M•Laren's long and absolute rule over his followers is an undeniable proof of his power of mind and will : but all things have their limits, and surely he yesterday overstepped the bounds permitted to him even by the most blinded and besotted of his followers. It was a most painful instance of how a clever and useful man may ruin himself by mere sourness of soul. We cannot trust ourselves to comment on such a speech,—old principles cast to the wind ; old friends traduced, their lives scoffed at, and their deaths predicted ; venom in every word, and a dagger in every sentence. No man is entitled to say that this is too strong language, unless he heard the speech, for the perusal of even the fullest report can convey but a faint idea of the animus. It may be strong language, but it is true, that the effect of some portion of this unhappy outbreak was to make the blood of the hearers run almost as cold as that of the speaker."

The following refers to a subsequent meeting of a similar kind

" At Mr. Brown Douglas's meeting . . . . with the electors of the South side, the most conspicuous feature was the conduct of Mr. Duncan M•Laren as chairman. The like of it, we venture to say, was never seen before at any Edinburgh meeting. however low in character, and though presided over by the humblest man or the keenest partisan. Every elector who rose to exercise his right of speech or question, was received with a volley of taunt and insolence from the chair ; and, if he happened to have once been a member of the chairman's own committee, so much the more was he insulted and browbeaten. If the spirit of last night's chairman were to descend to audiences in due proportion, Edinburgh public meetings would become mere contests of uproar and ruffianism." Another of the libels consisted of these doggrel rhymes" A viper met with an anti-viper :

'How do you do ? ' says he; 'Shall we give that fellow Black a wiper ?'

• Yes—we'll both agree.'

A viper met a ' calumniator' : 'How do you do ?' says he ;

Of Black I'm a strong, though a sneaking hater

' You The Man shall be "

A third description of libel was a fictitious advertisement, announcing for sale "A large lot of Damaged Remnants of a former Popularity, a Fractured Political Reputation ; several portions of a Wonderful Coalition," &c. "Observe the address, 1749 Low Street. Sign of the Golden Serpent." Such were the matters embodying the sting of the libel. Witnesses for the prosecution were called to show that the criticism on the meetings was not warranted by what took place. Mr. John Gibson, a Conservative, said that there was nothing in the least bitter or malicious" —" no venom "—in what Mr. 41`Laren said respecting Mr. Black ; "nothing at all likely to make the blood run cold." "As to Mr. Black's age, he began by referring to a rule in the House of Commons, that any Member above sixty years of age was exempted, if he chose, from the duty of sitting upon Committees. He said that either Mr. Black, in consequence of his advanced age, would not sit upon the Committees, or if he did, the duties, he had been assured by Members of the House, were such that he would weaken his health, and perhaps endanger his life in the course of a single session." "I do not think the word predict' was used." Mr. Treasurer Dickson said there was "pa appearance of malice or bitterness or ill-nature against Mr. Black" in Mr. M‘Laren's speech. As chairman, "he performed his duties very well." "I did not ace Mr. M'Laren insult or browbeat anybody." Mr. Thomas Knox., merchant, gave similar testimony. "It seemed to me, that nobody but Mr. M'Laren could have prevented the College Street meeting from being a riot altogether. He gave a hearing to every one, and endeavoured to obtain a hearing for everybody." Mr William Cowan, of the firm of Cowan and Strachan, corroborated this evidence. For the defence, in reference to these transactions, Mr. James Ballantine said there was nothing objectionable in Mr. M'Laren's conduct as chairman, except in reference to the two Grays, and that he was going once or twice to answer for the candidate. He noticed that Mr. Douglas never answered a question without first consulting Mr. 11•Laren." Mr. Peter Stevenson, philosophical-instrument-maker, said—" Several gentlemen put questions after Mr. Douglas had addressed the meeting, and I thought it very unfair that Mr. M‘Limen introduced these gentlemen by stating something about them. One of them was Mr. Gray, my neighbour, a wine and spirit merchant ; and Mr. M‘Laren introduced him as Mr. Gray, • a wine and spirit merchant. A great deal had been made of the wine and spirit trade at that election. I thought that the mention of his trade was with the view of disparaging him." "I never on any previous occasion saw a chairman behave as Mr. M`Laren then did."

Mr. Elgin, bookseller and stationer, described Mr. M‘Laren's speech as "a' cold, sneering, heartless, and very unfair speech."

Mr. Logan, one of the defender's counsel, asked—" Did you form that opinion from the words, the manner, or from both ?"—" From the nianner." " More even than the words ?"—" Yes, more than the words." " Did you see Mr. Russel, the defender, at the meeting?"—" I did." "Was lie sitting near you ?"—" I was sitting next him." " Did Mr. NPLaren allude to Mr. Black's age ?"—" YT1, be did." Did be allude to his death : what did he say ?"—.• Ile said, that in the event of Mr. Black being returned to the House of Commons and attending the Committees, he would die, he predicted, in twelve months." "Did you happen to observe what effect that statement produced on Mr. Russel ?"—" He turned round to in.: with a look of surprise." "And what effect did that part of Mr. MLaren's spee h produce on yourself r—" It made me more minute and careful in my canvass, as well as more pressing." "For whom 1"—" For Mr. Black." "I want to know what was thought at the time of the observation as to Mr. Black's age and probable death coming from Mr. M•Laren r—" I thought it a very cruel observatiol." " And was it in consequence of your thinking so that you redoubled your exertions in behalf of a man you thought so unfeelingly spoken of ?"—" It was." Mr. M'Laren the prosecutor, appeared as a witness ; and was examined to ea:fly the ciieumstances under which he once denounced Mr. Brown Dot, ;las as a "calumniator," During the election of 1852 he was annoyed because he thought Mr. Brown Douglas pointed at him as a " Republican " : hen.e.the denunciation on the hustings. Mr. Brown Douglas gave a verbal explanation of the circumstances, showing that there had been a misapprehension; Mr. IS`Laren did not consider this satisfactory; but afterwards retracted the epithet " calumniator " on being assured that the word " RepuLlican " was intended to apply " negatively " to Mr. Cowan. Asked what was meant by the description of "Sir William Johnston and Mr. Duncan APLaren lovingly intertwining the folds of their affections, no longer with anything 'cold' between them!" he said that no doubt it referred to Sir William Johnston's remarks on him in 1852. Here a letter from Sir W. Johnston was read, accusing Mr. M‘Laren of uttering "slanders," "gross untruths," &c., and ending with these words " I hope my fellow citizens may learn something from this little incident, and take care that they too do not take into their bosom the cold little snake, that may turn round and bite them so soon as it gets warm enough." The Lord Advocate—" I suppose you did not say that Sir William Johnston had betrayed and slandered every man who had ever trusted hiss?" Mr. WLaren—" I never did."

The Lord Advocate—" Did you ever say so of anybody ?"

The Dean of Faculty objected to this question; but it was ultimately put in another form, and Mr. fil• Laren said—" I described a person who had such a reputation with the public. If they knew the man to whom it applied, and if there was soy person who applied it to himself, they might lit the character on him : if it did not fit, no person could take offence."

The Lord Advocate—" You meant Sir William Johnston ? " Mr. MLaren—" I decline to say that. If the Lord Justice-Clerk says I must reply, then there is an end of the matter."

In continuation, Mr. M‘Laren said that there were no grounds for the imputations of Sir William Johnston. "No one could show that I had said anything offensive. The whole public feeling of friends and foes was against him, and in my favour. I believe that he would admit that most readily if he were here today. I was Lord Provost at the time. I have never spoken to him since that occasion down to this day. I have had no communication with him about Mr. Brown Douglas's election." Mr. James Ballantine, for the defence, said he knew that the word "snake" was familiarly identified with Mr. M‘Laren since 1852. He had frequently heard it applied to him jocularly and goodnaturedly.

Mr. A. It. Clarke, advocate, said—" At the general election of 1852, I was polling-sheriff. An elector came forward, and I asked him,. Who do you vote for ? He said, For Mr. Macaulay. I asked him if he intended to vote

for any one else, and he said, Yes. said, Who else do you vote for ? He said, I think I'll vote for 'the Snake.' I said, There is no such candidate ; who do you mean ? Ile said, It is Mr. 3PLaren ; and I recorded his vote for Mr.11‘Laren."

The counsel for the defence attempted to lead evidence showing that Mr. M‘Laren had himself been accustomed to use strong language; but, except in the ease of Sir William Johnston's letter, the Lord Justice-Clerk did not permit them to follow that line.

In summing up, the Lord Justice-Clerk concurred with the Lord Advocate in saying that "the past was one peculiarly and exclusively for the good, strong, common-sense" of the Jury. They must look at the whole article containing the libel, and see whether it really bore the character of intending to single out Mr. M‘Laren "for the purpose of holding him up to public hatred and contempt, or whether he is brought in, rather roughly to be sure, rather coarsely, but still, in the course of a general political article in which a number of people are implicated, and in which nothing more is said of into than the occasion fairly warrants." It was clear that resentment because Mr. M‘Lauen had deserted his party led to these paragraphs. But if they were not an abuse of the right of discussion, then it is of no consequence from what views they were written. The Jury must make

allowance for the fact that there was a most singular combination of people of different opinion against Mr. Black. The Liberal party, in dread of Mr. Black's defeat, most allowably, fairly, and naturally, attacked all who took

part in that combination. "And certainly a combination of that sort is just the occasion when you would-expect the harshest terms to be used and the coarsest invectives employed." Everybody who took part in the business subjected himself to all that could fairly be said against him. But "it is a mistake on the part of the defenders to say that everything may be said of a man's public character and conduct, in whatever terms, provided it aoes not enter into his private affairs or private character. ['here is no such distinction in law. The only distinction is this—the judgment of a jury as to what is personal abuse, intended to produce the effect stated in issue, ssue, and what is fair invective, though it may be coarse, vulgar, and strong." If the Jury thought Mr. M‘Laren had been calumniously and injuriously held up to public hatred and contempt, the law holds that to be an abuse and excess. It is not enough to say "we advert merely to your public acts, writings, and conduct." The question for the Jury was " the truth of the statement. We cannot trust ourselves to comment on such a speech—old principles cast to the wind, old friends traduced,' &e. You have to decide upon the truth of that passage. Then follows—' Old friends traduced.' The Lord Advocate says that means disparaged: if so, _it is unfortunate that the word was not used to express the meaning intended to be-conveyed. Their lives scoffed at, and their deaths predicted.' What this refers to, I do not know, unless it be the allusion to Mr. Black's age. Then we have the words venom in every word, and a dagger in every sentence ' ; which is nothing more than one of those unmeaning extravagances used in newspaper election invective, and which there is no need to take great objection to." With respect to the conduct of Mr_ M‘Laren in the College Street Church, there was a divided opinion. Where was the evidence to support the statement that "electors were re-ceivea with a volley of taunt and insolence from the chair " ? With re

et to the epithet "snake," the Jury would put it to themselves whether ey were to sanction the use of that epithet as one which may be used with impunity on every occasion when the pursuer comes forward in public life. It cannot be said that the use of such epithets is within the liberty of the press. But, he repeated, the case was for the Jury. "If you think that everything said of Mr. M'Laren here was allowable in the time of an election-contest, then the pursuer certainly has no right to ask redress or be thin-akinned for he thrust himself into this controversy."

Tic' Lord Justice-Clerk instructed the Jury as to the mode of returning their verdict—" If returned within six hours, your verdict must be unamraous. If, on the other hand, you do not come to unanimity before that, you may return, a verdict by a majority of nine; but you cannot return a verdict by a majority of less than nine.,

Tian Jury were absent leas than half an hour, instead of six hours. They got over the difficult ground of fixing damages, it is said, by each writing down a sum without concert with the others, then the whole sums being added up, an average was struck. Thus they made quick work of it, an the average turned out to be 400/.