Mr Sellar, having pleaded NOT GUILTY, the following defences were
read:--“_First_, The panel objects to the relevancy of various parts
of the libel. _Second_, In so far as the libel is relevant, the panel
denies its truth; the whole of the charges are utterly false, in so
much so, that the Prosecutor is not only unable to bring any sufficient
evidence in support of his own accusations, but the panel will
bring positive proof _against_ them. The panel will prove, that the
ejectments which have given rise to this trial, were done in due order
of law, and, under the warrants of the proper Judge, issued on regular
process. Farther, he will prove that great indulgence was shown to the
tenants, even after they had resisted the regular decrees of the Judge;
that nothing was done on his part, or with his knowledge or approval,
either cruel, oppressive or illegal. That he committed no acts of
homicide; and, on the whole, he will prove, that throughout every
part of this affair, he (the panel) has been the victim, not only of
the most unfounded local prejudices, but of long continued and active
defamation, on the part of certain persons, who have made it their
business to traduce the whole system of improvements introduced into
the Sutherland estate, and to vilify the panel, by whom, they have been
pleased to suppose, that these improvements have been partly conducted.
He rejoices, however, in the first opportunity, which has now been
afforded to him, of meeting these calumnies and prepossessions in a
Court of Justice, and relying, as he does, with implicit confidence on
the candour and dispassionate attention of a British jury, he has no
doubt whatever of being able to establish his complete innocence of all
the charges now brought against him.
“_Under protestation to add and eik._
“J. GORDON.
“H. COCKBURN.
“PAT. ROBERTSON.”
Mr. Robertson opened the case on the part of the panel. The object of
addressing the court at this time was to state such observations as
occurred on the relevancy of the indictment, and to give a general
view of the line of defence. On the former, he remarked, that various
objections did occur to the relevancy of the charges, particularly to
the second and fourth branches of the indictment. With these, however,
he did not mean to trouble the Court, as Mr. Sellar was so conscious
of his innocence, that he courted investigation, being unwilling that
any part of his conduct should be left uninvestigated. No objection
was, therefore, made to the relevancy of any part of the indictment,
so far as it charged any specific crime against which the panel might
be prepared to defend himself. But, certainly, he did object to those
parts of it which contained general charges, of destroying “a number
of houses,” injuring “a number of tenants,” &c., unless these were
understood merely as introductory to the specific crimes mentioned. He
also objected to the last charge, if meant as anything more than matter
of mere aggravation.
On the merits, he gave a short sketch of the causes which gave rise to
the present trial,--alluded to the clamour which had been raised in the
country--the prejudices of the people,--the disgraceful publications
in a newspaper called the _Military Register_, and the pains which had
been taken to circulate these false and mischievous papers through
Sutherland and the adjacent counties. The general line of defence he
stated to be, That, as to the first charge, of heath-burning, this was
done with the express consent of the tenantry, and, as could be proved,
to their positive advantage. As to the removings, the defence was quite
clear. The lands mentioned in the indictment were advertised to be set
on the 5th of December, 1813, at the Inn of Golspie, and Mr. Sellar was
preferred as the highest offerer. Before Whitsunday, 1814, he brought
regular actions of removing, and it was not until after he had obtained
decrees in these actions, charged the whole of the tenants to remove,
and taken out precepts of ejection against them, that they were, in
the month of June, actually removed from their lawless and violent
possession. These facts were established by the decrees and precepts in
the hands of the Clerk of Court. As to the demolition of the houses, no
houses were pulled down till after the ejections had been completed,
and the property had become Mr. Sellar’s. No furniture was destroyed
by him, or by his orders,--no unnecessary violence was used, nor any
cruelty exercised, but everything was done in due order of law, and
without oppression of any kind. The charges of culpable homicide were
quite out of the question, and Mr. Sellar defied the Public Prosecutor
to prove them. Upon the whole, it was not doubted, that if truth and
justice were to prevail over malice and conspiracy, Mr. Sellar would
obtain an honourable and triumphant acquittal.
* * * * *
The Advocate-Depute having here stated that he did not mean to insist
on any charges, excepting those which were specially and articulately
mentioned in the indictment, Lord Pitmilly said:--
“It would be improper for me to enter at present into the origin
of the prosecution, or the nature of the defences. Neither shall I
say anything of the publications which have been alluded to, except
that they appear to be of the most contemptible nature, and the only
prejudice which I can entertain is the other way; that is, against
the cause requiring such aid. I have no doubt as to the relevancy of
the libel.”